Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 40 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

(Initiated 120 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done --slakr^\ talk / 04:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 94 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

 Done --slakr^\ talk / 03:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 72 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 71 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 68 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 62 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel and apartheid#RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism

(Initiated 52 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 47 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 46 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 43 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 43 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 45 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 41 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 38 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 18 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	17	74	97
TfD	0	0	2	1	3
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	10	16	26
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 75 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 72 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 72 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 71 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 71 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 66 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 65 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 64 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 54 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 52 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 52 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 50 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 48 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 42 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence

(Initiated 139 days ago on 30 January 2024) This seems to just now be a forum thread about being banned elsewhere or something (in fact I am unsure it has ever been anything but a forum thread). Slatersteven (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I am the main author of that thread, and I agree with this request. Initially, it was a reply to a Facebook post by Anthroposophists seeking to remove me from Wikipedia. At /r/WikipediaVandalism, the attacks against me were even more vicious. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 62 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 46 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

(Initiated 26 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 21 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 29 May 2024

(Initiated 20 days ago on 29 May 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josethewikier (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)  Closed

Talk:Fiona Muir-Harvey#Merge Request

(Initiated 19 days ago on 29 May 2024) Some1 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 16 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June. 2 !votes in the last 5 days. Discussion, on the criteria, appeared to stabilise on 15 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

(Initiated 15 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor theleekycauldron. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 14 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Together (coalition)#Requested move 16 June 2024

(Initiated 1 day ago on 16 June 2024) This is a combined merge and move request for two articles. At the very least, consensus seems to have been reached on one of those fronts, (that being to merge L'Europe Ensemble and Together (coalition)), while the rename discussion seems to be at a standstill. There hasn't been any major discussion or back-and-forth in over a day, and I think it would be worthwhile to at least act on the consensus to merge the two articles while leaving the rename discussion open. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown:  Not done One day is far too short a time to establish consensus, unless a massive pile-on of WP:SNOW occurs - which isn't the case here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (37 out of 7855 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Rick and Morty: Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty – Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Heart of Rickness 2024-06-18 02:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Crisis on C-137 2024-06-18 02:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Infinity Hour 2024-06-18 02:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-17 20:07 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Meragram 2024-06-17 17:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Union Council Khot 2024-06-17 17:17 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector User talk:Aviram7/Editnotice 2024-06-17 16:20 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Talk:Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article Ad Orientem Timeline of the 2014 Gaza War 2024-06-17 02:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Elli DWYE-FM 2024-06-16 21:40 indefinite create Liz DWIP-FM 2024-06-16 21:39 indefinite create Liz Calls for a ceasefire during the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-16 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hashim Safi Al Din 2024-06-16 19:44 indefinite edit,move raising to ECP as requested Daniel Case Module:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II J.Williams 2024-06-16 14:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit J. Williams 2024-06-16 14:03 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit Naznin Khan 2024-06-16 05:30 2024-09-16 05:30 create Repeatedly recreated Billinghurst 2024 University of Pennsylvania pro-Palestine campus encampment 2024-06-16 04:56 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Chetsford User:Ajaynaagwanshi 2024-06-16 04:02 2024-06-23 04:02 create deleted as inappropriate is exactly that, do not redo the same editing Billinghurst Wars of the Deccan Sultanates 2024-06-15 22:48 indefinite move reinstate earlier protection due to move warring Graeme Bartlett Leve Palestina 2024-06-15 19:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2026 Cricket World Cup Qualifier 2024-06-15 19:30 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Template:Reference column heading 2024-06-15 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2505 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Abbreviation 2024-06-15 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Dinosaur of Ta Prohm 2024-06-15 14:35 2024-07-06 14:35 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content UtherSRG 2019 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:41 2024-07-15 11:41 edit edit warring Valereee 2014 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:39 2024-07-15 11:39 edit edit warring Valereee 2009 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:38 2024-07-15 11:38 edit edit war Valereee 2004 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:37 2024-07-15 11:37 edit edit war Valereee 1999 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:35 2024-07-15 11:35 edit edit warring by AC users Valereee 1994 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:33 2024-07-15 11:33 edit It's an AC user, too. Please discuss. Valereee Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip 2024-06-14 19:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States in 2024 2024-06-14 15:43 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish

Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata

• TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Algebra over a monad
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cotensor product
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again
• "Vandalism" reverts
• Where I dis-invite Takuya from my user talk
• "warning" me for "vandalism"
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_15#Draft: Tensor product of representations
• Draft:Toric degeneration
• Draft:Specialization (algebraic geometry)

I've tried very patiently to work with this editor trying to convince them to clean up their old, unedited, esoteric, and frankly non-viable drafts. The contents read as copy paste definitions from Mathematics textbooks (though I cannot find the text in CopyVio search) that have sat for far too long not doing anything. I (in misguided wisdom) elected to exercise the WP:ATD option of Redirecting, and Taku has proceduraly objected on the grounds of "That's not exactly what this is". Previous discussions have suggested moving the pages to Taku's Userspace so that they can work on them, Redirecting the pages to sections of a larger article so that effort can be focused in one location to potentially get a WP:SPINOUT article, or numerous other alternatives to deletion. It takes a full on MFD to compel Taku let go of the page so I suspect some form of WP:OWN or Creation credit is the goal. Furthermore on July 27th, I formally dis-invited Taku from my talk page setting in place the remedies for WP:HARASS.

Now that Taku has elected to throw the "You're vandalising Wikipedia" by my redirecting Draft space "content" to the closest approximations and reverting citing vandalism I ask for the following:

1. That Taku be prohibited from reverting any redirection of Draft space content to a main space topic without first securing an affirmative consensus on an appropriate talk page.
2. That Taku be chastised for improperly using vandalism in the above reverts
3. That Taku should apologize to me for droping that warning on my page in line with the improper usage of "vandalism"
4. That Taku should be prohibited (i.e. ban) from creating any new Draft space pages until there are no draft page creations of theirs that are more than 6 months unedited and that are not redirects
5. That Taku be subject to these issues indefinitely with the option of appealing after 6 months (on 6 month re-appeal) when they show that they have remedied all pages under the above mentioned ban.
6. That Taku be blocked for coming back to my talk page after I had banned them.

Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• What I gather from your description of the situation is that you have chosen to boldly unilaterally redirect drafts, which TakuyaMurata created, to articles. They then restore the content by reverting your redirection. That seems acceptable, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; you are free to raise the matter on the talk page of the drafts. You want them to gain consensus to revert your changes, when you have not established consensus for them yourself. That is a double standard. That aside, their description of your changes as vandalism is incorrect. We can correct that notion here; a block is not necessary for that, as they seem to have believed your edits were vandalism, which made posting to your talk page appropriate per WP:NOBAN. Though redirecting drafts is an accepted practice, I am not sure it is documented anywhere, the matter is arcane nonetheless. I believe this just concerns drafts TakuyaMurata created, if so, I would not oppose userfying them to their userspace. I oppose all six of your requests as undue based on what has been presented thus far, except #2 to a point, we should "inform" them rather than admonish them. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Godsy: Taku has explicitly rejected on multiple occasions moving these pages into draftspace userspace. So that option is out. Taku makes procedural objections of "It's not really that" or other tendentious arguments. In short, If Taku wanted to actually do something about these drafts (or merge their contents to mainspace, then he could in the copious amount of time that he's spending. Heck, I'd even give him a 3 month moratorium on sweeping up the drafts if he promised that at the end of that moratorium any drafts that he created that haven't been edited in 9 months are fair game for any editor to come in and apply an appropriate disposition (Moving to mainspace, Redirecting, Merge-Redirecting, CSD-Author) to get them off the Stale Non-AFC Drafts report. If the report is clean it removes some of the arguments for expanding CSD:G13 to include all Draftspace creations. If the page is redirected to a relatively close mainspace article, attention gets focused to mainspace (which is google searchable and provides benefit to wikipedia) and potentially we get a new article when there's enough content to viably have a WP:SPINOUT Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Hasteur: Sure you can apply what you believe is an "appropriate disposition", but that does not mean your choice is the most appropriate action. Drafts currently do not have an expiration date. Stale Non-AFC Drafts is not something that needs to be cleared. I largely concur with Michael Hardy below. This is all I have to say. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I can't speak to the specific merits, but I've seen any number of Taku's drafts turn up at DRV after a well-meaning editor tagged what looked like (per Hasteur) an unviable abandoned draft and Taku strongly objected. It's not a healthy dynamic. Mackensen (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know what usages and concerns exist in the Draft namespace. Possibly that is why I don't know why the existence of these drafts would cause any problems. Could someone explain why it's a problem? Barring that, I don't see that these complaints against this user amount to anything. If there's really some reason to regard the existence of these drafts as a problem, might moving them to the User namespace solve it? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I've come across this issue mainly via DRV listings. It seems TakuyaMurata has created a swathe of tiny pages in draftspace about obscure mathematical and allied concepts, containing little more than an external link, a restatement of the title, or a few words. He has then resisted all attempts whatsoever to improve the situation, objecting as vociferously to any deletions as to any suggestion that he might, you know, want to expand the drafts he has rather than spewing out yet more of them.
  There is no benefit to the encyclopedia from having tiny non-searchable substubs in draft space. None. Taku needs to accept this and redirect the copious time he seems to have to argue about old substubs towards more constructive activities like researching and expanding some of them. Otherwise, they should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@User:Michael Hardy I've offered to move the stubs to his userspace (specifically to a userpage he already has listing about 50 of the about 200) but he refused that. These pages are a Draft space management hassle representing a growing percentage of the 200 of the remaining 5500 abandoned non-AfC Draft pages. Frankly I can't figure out why he guards them so carefully, given he could just expand them or move the info onto one page or redirect or whatever. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: To respond, I for one don't get the need to delete the legitimate drafts just because they are old. The figure 200 is misleading since most of them are redirects. I agree the draftspace has a lot of problematic pages. I'm not objecting to delete them. Am I correct to think your argument is it would be easier if there are no legtimate drafts in the draftspace so we can delete old pages indiscriminately? That logic does make at least some sense (although i think there is a better way.) -- Taku (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Only redirects after the community consensus compelled to give up your walled garden plots. Our argument is that you've created so many sub-stub pages in draft space that it's causing more problems both for patrollers who are looking for problematic pages and for those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace. Your reams of words to dilute and obstruct any meaningful progress on the topics (you'll argue to the end of the universe your right to keep the pages) instead of actually working on them to get them to mainspace gives little doubt as to your purpose here. Hasteur (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

For me, Draft:Faithfully flat descent doesn't strike to me as a sub-stub. How is that page a problem for "those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace". What is the real or hypothetical mechanism having draft pages prevents the editors from working on the mainspace? Hence, I think "patrollers who are looking for problematic pages" seems to be the heart of the matter; having non-problematic pages makes the patrolling harder. Obviously the answer is not to delete/redirect the non-problematic pages? Are you seriously seriously proposing we ease the search for problematic pages by removing non-problematic pages? -- Taku (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

To respond "gives little doubt as to your purpose here.", actually I have fairly solid reputation in editing math-related topics in the mainspace. I agree if a user edits only the draftspace and no of his/her drafts have promoted to the mainspace, then we may suspect on the user's motivation. I'm not that case here. -- Taku (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment How many total math-related drafts created by Taku are there? How many of his drafts are now mainspace articles? If this is a specific issue about Taku's use of draft space, analysis of editing history should give clear evidence as to whether he has an unreasonable number of drafts. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I expect Hasteur or Legacypac to have some data here; I'm not expecting TakuyaMurata to produce data to defend himself. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Power~enwiki: According to XTools, TakuyaMurata created 113 drafts. Of these, 42 have been deleted, so we have 71 current drafts. [4] This does not include redirects (which would include those moved to mainspace or redirected based on consensus at an MfD). There are a good 106 of those, with 42 deleted (many via G7). [5]. I think 71 drafts being retained in draftspace, many unedited for years, is clearly excessive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks! I agree something needs to be done here, but don't know exactly what yet. I think User:BU Rob13's proposal below is a good start, but it may not be sufficient to resolve this issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not opposed to further restrictions; I just think my idea is a good start to at least prevent the problem from getting worse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

From a brief glance, my guess is that there are 20 or so drafts that can be turned into mainspace articles, and 50 or so that need to be deleted or redirected to a more general topic. Draft:Graded Hopf algebra and Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem are two obvious examples that should be combined into a more general article. Diffs by Taku like [6] are extremely concerning; Taku does not own the articles he creates in draft-space, and he should not expect them to stay there indefinitely ([7]). Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

See also this proposition where after 22 days Taku unilaterally decided to pull back a page in mainspace that other editors had contributed to to that clearly violates the purpose of Draft space, the collaberative editing environment, and is the most blatant violation of WP:OWN that I can imagine. @Power~enwiki, BU Rob13, Legacypac, Stifle, Michael Hardy, Jcc, Godsy, Mackensen, BD2412, and Thincat:: Can we move forward with something that acutally improves wikipedia instead of the repeated hills we have to needlessly debate over and over on? Hasteur (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Also presenting the case of Taku's disruption of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for which they try to override an administrator's Move protection on pages promoted to main space that, while not 100% perfect, are viable. Notice how Taku does not contact RHaworth when requesting the reversal. Each time a new content or conduct venue is introduced in an attempt to fix these complaints, Taku seizes on it as the next life raft to save their walled gardens. ~~

Proposal: Limited restriction on use of draftspace

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

---

Let's propose something concrete that can at least control the issue going forward. I propose that TakuyaMurata is restricted from creating new pages in the draft namespace when five or more pages remain in the draft namespace which were created by TakuyaMurata, excluding any redirects. This seems perfectly sensible; no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time. Complete something before you start something new. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support some kind of warning regarding ownership behavior on draft articles is also necessary, IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, however this doesn't fix the problem of his existing pages. I'm not 100% certain, but I think they haven't created any new pages so this is effectively a wash as it doesn't do anything about the already festering piles in Draft space. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hasteur: He made one as recently as late July. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment re: "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" - I have something along the lines of 1,740 open drafts at this time. They are generally attached to specific projects, and I consider this entirely reasonable. However, in the case of this specific editor, having created intransigent drafts, I would support the proposed limitation. bd2412 T 20:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  Seems to be an attempt to discourage a valuable contributor over a non-problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The assumption that you can have more than five works-in-progress at any time is absurd. And the idea that there should be some specific time limit to how long something can be a work-in-progress directly contradicts WP:DEADLINE. This whole idea of forced cleanup of drafts seems like a solution in search of a problem. Also, User:TakuyaMurata has been an extremely prolific and valuable editor, writing a large number of articles in a highly technical field over many years. I'll admit that his use of draft space is somewhat unorthodox, and he does seem to digging his heels in about userspace vs. draftspace. But, on balance, we need more people like him. Let us not lose sight of our main purpose here, and that's to produce good content in mainspace. Hewing to somebody's ideals of how draftspace should be organized, pales in comparison. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • How does refusing to incorporate a draft that's been inactive since 2014 into mainspace contribute to good content in mainspace? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, I'm refusing to work on draft pages in the specified time frame. Wikipedia is not my full-time job and for instance, I'm currently attending a workshop and it is very inconvenient for me to edit Wikipedia. Why do I need to be asked to finish them today? Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030? Most of my drafts do get promoted to the mainspace; so there is no such pill of never-completed-drafts. Yes, I agree some drafts turned out to be not-so-great ideas and I can agree to delete those. (I admit I might have not be reasonable in some cases and I promise that will change.) The accusation that I don't allow any deletion is false. -- Taku (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      • With absolutely no respect, Taku has known about this for over a year and a half (March of 2016, June of this year) reminders at WikiProject Mathematics talk page. Taku's pleas of "I have no time to fix these" could have been entertained if this were in the first year, but this is yet another hallmark of playing for time until the furor dies down. Even the statement "Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030?" shows the "Play for time" mentality of "someday getting around to it". If progress is being made, then pressure can come off. If no progress is being made and delay tactics are the order of the day, then the writing is on the wall. Hasteur (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the suggested restriction. Any restriction on the use of draft space should apply to everyone, not just Taku. The examples given above of alleged disruption are remarkably unpersuasive to me. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Algebra over a monad is the first substantive case put forward. If anything, the disruption is being caused by editors improperly taking ownership of draft space by trying to enforce restrictions that are not supported by policies or guidelines. Thincat (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The draftspace is an appropriate place to draft content and there is not and should not be a limit on the amount of drafts an editor can create there unless they are creating a truly unreasonable amount of poor quality drafts (i.e. hundreds). I completely disagree that "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" and oppose any sanction on individual because of largely unnecessary cleanup. Either everyone should be limited to five drafts, or no one should bar especially egregious behavior (which I do not believe has been demonstrated here), and I'm certain such a proposal for all wouldn't pass. I concur with Unscintillating. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not convinced that anything should be in draft space as we managed fine before it existed. But, in so far as draft space has a point, it's that it's a scratchpad that we should be relaxed about because it's not mainspace. Introducing petty, ad hoc rules is therefore not appropriate and would be contrary to WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Rob. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment not a bad idea, but maybe restricts him from useful editing, which I commend him for. Leads me to an alternative proposal below. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• oppose per Andrew D. above and Roy below. We are trying to solve a problem that I'm not sure exists. It feels very controlling. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Rob, displaying ownership of draft articles. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as the proposal doesn't address the one concern that actually seems to be a potential problem, that of ownership. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support changing from eariler comment and alternate proposal that failed to get traction. The ongoing disruption is too much. It's a game to him, in his own words [8]. A game that is more fun than content creation. Place the restriction. Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Limited restrictions/topic ban

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

---

Taku be restricted to voting once and making one followup comment on any MfD concerning a Draft he started. He is topic banned from starting a WP:DRV or requesting a WP:REFUND to restore any deleted or redirected Draft he started. He is also prohibited from starting any more RFC or similar process or discussion on how Draft space is managed.

• Support as proposer. These very narrow restrictions will cut out the drama but let Taku continue productively editing. The old sub stub drafts will eventually either get improved or deleted in due course. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

In WP:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 15#Draft:Tensor product of representations, which Taku started, overturn is being rather well supported, despite your multiple comments. Is this the sort of discussion you are seeking to ban? Thincat (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That is cherrypicking ONE discussion. See the many examples at the top of this thread. This narrow restriction should solve the disruption. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It was the only DRV "cherry" listed up there. For the four MFDs listed (1) one Taku comment agreeing delete (this was an incredibly poor example of "disruption"); (2) multiple Taku comments which were not persuasive; (3) two Taku comments (and two from you) resulting in keep (!); (4) multiple Taku comments followed by redirect rather than delete and now subject of the DRV. Thincat (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RfC:_on_the_proper_use_of_the_draftspace, Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RfC:_the_clarification_on_the_purpose_of_the_draftspace, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2017/Jul#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace, and numerous MFDs and DRVs Taku's repeated comments ammount to filibustering and nitpicking in what I precieve as an attempt to dillute any consensus to effectively nothing that can be overturned with the whim of a cat. If the community has to respong 50 times on a MFD we're going to be spending 100 times as many bytes arguing about the content than was ever spent building the content. Taku appears to have the intellectual exercise of debating content rather than fixing things that have been brought to their attention as lacking. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have not seen any behavior I deem inappropriate (i.e. contrary to policies or guidelines) by TakuyaMuratad, and I cannot support any sanction against them until I do. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: If I'm allowed to point out (which this proposal will prohibit), it is ironic that my behavior is considered disruptive while an attempt for the rogue so-called clean-up of the draftspace isn't. There is no consensus that my draftpages (perhaps all) need to be gone. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Draft:Faithfully_flat_descent.E2.80.8E for example for the position of the wikiproject math: they don't see my draft pages to be causing a problem. Thus I'm not working against the "consensus". I pretty much prefer to just edit things I know the best, rather than engaging in this type of the battle. I know this type of the battle is wearing to many content-focused editors and many of them stop contributing. Obviously that's the tactics employed here. That is the true disruption that is very damaging to Wikipedia the whole. -- Taku (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Counter-proposal: I can agree to deal with some of sub-stubs (expand or delete them); it helps if you can present me a list of "problematic" draftpages started by me. They usually take me 5 min say to create and I had no idea it would cause this much controversy. While I don't see a need for us to spend some min to delete/redirect them (leaving them is less time-consuming), hopefully this is a good compromise. -- Taku (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Taku, the time for your going through and cleaning up the pages was a year ago. Your repeated obstinancy this past month is disruptive. Want to prove to the community you actually want to fix these pages? Fix them yourself. You've spent thousands bytes defending these festering piles of bytes but not one single byte actually fixing the problem. Fix the problem and the issue resolves itself. Hasteur (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow, just wow. This proves you're more interested in the disruption for the sake of disruptions rather than working out some compromise. Anyway, my offer is still on the table. You promise to cease the disruptive behaviors for once and all and provide me a list of short-stubs you want me to work on; then I can try to meet you as much as I can. -- Taku (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
      • In no way did I make that promise. What I agreed to was you clean up the pages so they're under 6 months unedited, then I won't have anything to poke you about. You do that and I will lay off because I set a personal minimum of 6 months to consider if the page needs to have corrective action taken on it. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
        • You imposing the restriction like that, disregarding WP:DEADLINE, is called a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose attempts to restrict access to WP:DRV. Access to DRV by any editor has important governance and symbolic aspects. Taku does not have a history of disruption at DRV. DRV closers and clerks are well capable and practiced in speedy closes when required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your rose-colored glasses should not hide the fact that DRV has no process for speedy closes.  The DRV started by Taku is a great example of a failure of the hit-or-miss application of DRV speedy-closes.  Nor is there a process for corrective feedback when a speedy close is improperly applied.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Due probably to its much more tightly constrained scope, DRV management is much simpler than ANI's. DRV should not be managed from here. Bad speedy closes can be taken up at the closer's talk page. My experience is quite positive (eg). There is also WT:DRV, which is very well watched. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Picking up on part of your comment, if we had "DRV clerks" that could be a path forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Arguing about the right solution to the problem is silly because nobody has yet demonstrated that there is a problem in the first place. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• oppose Just doesn't seem needed. Yes he's verbose. But it's a two-way street. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support he has created all these stub drafts, and if only he'd spend as much time working on them as he did arguing for them to be kept then we'd all be much better for it. Clearly there is enough disruption to prove a point going on here to warrant some kind of action. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose disagreement with an editor's position is not a good justification for banning them from policy discussions. VQuakr (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the reason I support action against this editor isn't related to his objections to deletion of drafts, it's his objection to attempts to move the content into mainspace. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Result of DRV

Note that WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations was under review in parallel with this discucssion. The original MfD close of redirect was overturned earlier today. It seems pretty obvious to me that if an action was overturned upon review, asking that somebody be sanctioned for protesting that action is unwarrented. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• A proper DRV process follows WP:Deletion review/Purpose.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Hardly a typical DRV conducted during an ANi where editors with a point to make took over. It's fine the page with be deleted again in 6 months after it goes stale again. I urge to keep voters to focus on improving these pages so there is no abandoned pages to worry about. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To say the obvious, you don't need to be worried about abandoned drafts. There is no evidence that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned. What is the case is that among the abandoned drafts, there are a lot of problematic drafts; an editor starts a draft on a non-notable topic and left the project. But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved. -- Taku (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved" which is precisely what Legacypac is doing, submitting drafts he sees as having potential back to AfC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• See also: Draftspace cleanup regarding the behavior of Legacypac. -- Taku (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Draftspace cleanup

Consensus not established for restriction. Move along Hasteur (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Legacypac Redirecting Draft:Macaulay representation of an integer while ignoring the discussion in the talkpage (I was given a week to expand it into a mainspace stub.) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cyclic cover Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Toric degeneration etc. The logic "this [redirect] is very appropriate until someone wants to actually write this title" [9] is quite bizarre (not to mention a blatant disregard of the policies); how is the redirect preferable for editors to develop the draft? cf. #Willfull_and_persistent_disruption_of_Draft_space_by_TakuyaMurata Can we do something about this crusade to cleanup the draftspace? Not every single old abandoned (in fact the above are not even abandoned) need to be deleted. The only problematic ones are. To cut out the drama, I would like to ask: For one month, User:Legacypac is disallowed from nominating draft pages solely because they are old/abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Not likely. Old/Abandoned draft is well established as a deletion criteria WP:G13. I'm just working on the oldest ones in Draft space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report (sort by Last Edit) You know how to reverse a redirect when you want to expand a title. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Then why aren't you using G13? -- Taku (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Taku well knows G13 currently (but not for much longer) applies only to pages submitted to AfC. Taku reverses any efforts to submit his Drafts to AfC. (Diffs available). Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC) So you admit you don't like the rule so you're just gonna break it? -- Taku (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Huh? There is no rule against seeking deletion of old contentless Drafts. I'd expect a math person to have better logic skills. This is exactly why there is a thread higher up about Taku's behaviour. We are talking Drafts with essentially NO Content and no improvements since 2015. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC) There is a rule against the disruption; your behavior has been quite disruptive. A thread like the above actually proves this. (Note it largely concludes against your position that I need to be sanctioned in some form.) I'm asking to end the drama for time being; that'a reasonable and much more productive. -- Taku (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC) @Legacypac: G13 applies only to AfC submissions. There is an open discussion on the talk page about expanding it, but "Old/Abandoned draft is well established as a deletion criteria WP:G13" is a blatant falsehood. It seems implausible to me that you don't already know that. VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Addressing the OP, would an IBAN be appropriate here? VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Warning to VQuakr: Calling my post a "blatent falsehood" is a personal attack and if you do not retract it I will seek sanctions against you. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Wow. Again doesn't this prove my point: trying to push his own view, disregarding the policies as well as the community. -- Taku (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Please tone down your rhetoric; this is not a battleground. Continuing to attack Legacypac at every turn is not going to advance your case. -FASTILY 05:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC) I think most of what LegacyPac is doing is excellent. But he;s overwhelming the process. Even if he can work at that rate without making errors, admins are expected to be careful, and there are simply too many to deal with proper;y. What will get this morass cleaned up is not over-rapid, but consistent effort. If I were doing it, I know I neeed to shift tasks frequently to avoid errors, and I wouldn;t do more than 20 or 30 at a time. Assuming LP is twice as good as I am at it, 50 a day by any one editor might be a reasonable amount. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Sure, except: a) I've been mostly working the shortest most useless ones that require little time to check b) over the last month or so I've already gone through most of the 5500 pages and screened out many of the more promising ones and made a mental note which to delete. c) I speed read 5 times faster than a typical university student reads, at close to 100% comprehension which really helps my processing speed. d) The admins are keeping up and the CSD cats are not clogged up when I check them. e) my accept percentages are very very high. f) I take breaks to deal with ANi, talk pages, some article building etc cause the spam/junk gets old after a while. g) There have only been a handful of tags declined like 5 Taku stubs, a few DGG liked, maybe a few more. Thanks for voicing your thought though. There is a huge pile of junk to process and I' looking forward to seeing the bottom of the pile and the new count on the bot report tomorrow. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC) perhaps part of the reason noone else has pulled any items out of your list is because atthe spend you are going it is a great deal of work to keep up. That's basically the problem--not that yo're doing them wrong, but that you're flooding the process. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC) One-month suspension Support as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose ridiculous attempt to silence your opponents. Legacypac's behaviour is not disruptive, his cleaning out of draftspace is in fact extremely useful. If only Taku spent as much time working on his perpetual-stub drafts as he did arguing for them to be kept whilst attempting to get sanctions on those who try to stop him then we wouldn't have this issue. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose You don't sanction or IBAN users who are calling attention to your problems. Hasteur (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose as retaliatory, and I suggest a big, fat, sloppy trout to TakuyaMurata as well -- and a short block if he makes another proposal against Legacypac. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Legacypac

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

---

Part of the problem above is the rapid-fire MfD nominations from Legacypac, even while the AN discussion above is still open. Legacy hasn't significantly slowed down his process bludgeoning at MfD since the discussion last month at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Problem of too many hopeless pages sent to MfD, in which SmokeyJoe proposed that Legacy be limited to 5 MfD nominations per day. I propose that this restriction be enacted as a topic ban in the hopes that Legacy will improve the quality of his nominations (which are as a rule quite terrible). VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Before proposing such a thing, clean up your own personal attack. Until someone gets around to closing the G13 expansion, cleanup will continue. Anyway, G13 will be useless on Taku's abandoned Drafts. He'll immediately request a WP:REFUND (a safe prediction since he goes to DRV when the pages are deleted at MfD). Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think Taku should move all his drafts into his userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I was wondering myself why they didn't do that if there was controversy about them being in Draftspace. Taku? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(I'm he by the way). Because that would defeat the purpose of the draftspace. It's not like my draft pages never get promoted to the mainspace; they do by me or others. Policy-wise, there is nothing with them. Some minority editors don't like the drafts are not the reason to remove them from the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

So you have a problem with people touching your drafts; why not move them to your userspace where they'll be left alone? -FASTILY 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with the editors disregarding the policies like WP:DEADLINE. I don't mind a well-intentioned attempt to develop the content. I have a problem with an attempt for undeveloping (e.g., deletion) the content. -- Taku (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as pointless because once the G13 expansion occurs (which it will), this won't be an issue. This is an issue of policy lagging behind community standards, not of behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • One (or few more) user's behaviors do not equate to the community standard. I'm asking some sanction because their behavior do not seem to reflect the community consensus nor policy. -- Taku (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • And given the wide support for the expansion of G13, you're incorrect. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • No G13 is about streamlining the deletion process; it's about the process not about the use of the draftspace, which is now discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#What_draftspace_is_not. -- Taku (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per BU Rob 13. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Premature. -FASTILY 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ridiculous. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Another disruption

See User talk:TakuyaMurata. We need some kind of an admin intervention to stop their disruption. For example, my drafts are not abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Currently the community consensus on low-quality drafts that have been stale for 6 months are abandoned. The solution to avoid having stale unworked drafts deleted is to a)work on improving them, b)keep them in your userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The citation please. Also, here is the better solution c) do nothing to drafts that have some potential and do not have some obvious problems like copyright bio or being about non-notable topics. This actually saves everyone's time (and in fact is the preferred solution.) -- Taku (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Here you go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The RfC asks to expand G13 to non-AfC drafts, which I even supported. It is unrelated to the inclusion criterion for the draftspace. There is still no community consensus that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned (only that there are many problematic drafts among abandoned drafts) and drafts started by me are not even abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

And do you agree c) is the better solution? -- Taku (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If you cant understand that that RFC means any draft unworked for 6 months is likely to be speedy-deleted I cant help you. There is nothing restricting you from making new drafts, only that if you do not improve them and abandon them they will be deleted sooner rather than later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata:--Please read WP:CSD#G13 which has been explicitly modified post-RFC.And avoid a I don't hear it behaviour.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between how to delete and what to delete. The expansion of G13 simply gives more convenient ways to delete old pages. The RfC specifically did not ask whether if we want to delete old pages. The distinction is subtle but is real and significant; perhaps this needs to be explicitly noted. -- Taku (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is another instance of Legacypac (obviously the page is not a test page). I don't understand how behavior like this can go unpunished. They have the great jobs of deleting problematic pages in the draftspace. That doesn't give him to go above the rules. -- Taku (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That page has NO CONTENT which is a standard reason to CSD G2 Test. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read G2 again. It applies to a page with an editor testing editing functionality. Do you seriously claim I was testing th editing functionality? -- Taku (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I try to help save your little stub by moving it to your userspace. What gives you the right to call my move "vandalism"? Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Becuase the removal of legitimate content is vandalism. It's that simple. If you suspect the topic is not notable for instance, the right place to discuss it at MfD. -- Taku (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A yet another instance of applying an incorrect CSD criterion: you don't get what you want? You need to get over it! -- Taku (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Time Out!

I've been watching this for a while (and participating a little too). One thing that's obvious to me is that neither side is 100% wrong, and neither side is 100% right. And, equally, nether side is ever going to convince the other to change their opinion. At this point, people are just venting. As Mackensen said, It's not a healthy dynamic. This is bad for the project. We need to get some closure here, and that's not going to happen in the current forum. I recommend we take this to some neutral third party, have both sides make their case, and everybody agree that whatever comes out of that they will comply with the decision. I'm not sure if WP:ARB or WP:M is the better process, but likely one of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, but this has been going on for over a week actively and simmering for over a month. 3rd Opinions, RFCs, MFDs, RMs, and many other forua of evaluating community consensus is clear: the creations are not acceptable. I am attempting to use every community method of resolving conduct and content disputes prior to going before the most disruptive form of dispute resolution so that the enablers can be disproven when asked "Did you try alternative form of dispute resolution". Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Numerous MfD discussions contradicts your claim. -- Taku (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

One Admin has removed G13 tags on five Taku substubs (some with zero content) so that is something. Note I'm just tagging as I find them in the list not targeting math pages specifically. . Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a sense this is time-out but I'm about to take an intercontinental flight so I will not have Internet accesses for quite a long time. I'm just hoping the plane Wikipedia exists when I'm back on the earth. The matter is actually very simple: one side is trying to destroy Wikipedia and I'm merely trying to delay it as much as possible. My English is quite limited and that might be a reason I didn't describe the situation. -- Taku (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need you. Wikipedia will still exist once your back on earth. We are not trying to destroy Wikipedia (despite your numerous personal attacks to the contrary). We are trying to clean up a portion of Wikipedia-adjecent space for which you have been reminded and nagged multiple times. That you can't be bothered to deal with issues in over a year leaves little imagination that you don't see any purpose in working on them. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia needs editors like me who supply content but anyway yes in your wikigame I'm dispensable. To respond, the cleanup does not have a policy-wise support if it has supports from some users. So, people like me would see clean-up as a disstruction; see above, I'm not alone in this view. -- Taku (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not NEED you. Wikipedia doesn't need me, and for great effect, Wikipedia doesn't need Jimbo Wales. No editor is indespensible. If you think that content creation, or potential content creation, will excuse you from behaviorial norms, you are in for a very rude awakening as the community at large and ArbCom have (at various times) banned and blocked editors who were a net negative to the community. Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for a compromise

Keeping in mind that A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, let me suggest a possible way forward. The goal of one camp is to get these articles out of draft space. The goal of the other camp is to not have any particular schedule imposed on completing them, nor moving them to user space. What if we created WP:WikiProject Mathematics/Drafts/ and moved them to be subpages of that? It would get them out of sight of the people who want to clean up draft space. It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them. And, they would be subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided were appropriate (which might well be that they never expire). Would this work? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• +1.Happily!With the provisos (1) and (3) of Hasteur.Otherwise reject!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Cute and creative. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Anything that would stop this non-constructive bickering has my support.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Accept with provisos: 1. Taku is not allowed to move things back to Draft namespace after they have been sent to the Mathematics draft bullpen. 2. Only pages that are not ready for mainspace get sent to this bullpen. 3. The Mathematics project endeavors to work on these pages and after some timeframe of not being able to nurture them to the point that they can be stand alone, they be nominated for deletion. The way the proposal reads simply shifts the pile of bits from one location to annother without any stick at the far end to elicit the improvement of mainspace by the content. This has already been done previously when WP:Abandoned Drafts was closed down and absorbed by Drafts. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: "A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied", and therefore the sides of the conflict should not have the veto right; and in particular, the provisos above need not be accepted; they tend to shift the point from the middle to one end. Rather, "subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, Your proposal only creates yet another walled garden for Taku to be disruptive in. My provisos are actually in line with generally accepted processes. We have a tool already available in CSD:G13 to deal with Taku's pages, but I would prefer not to have to use that lever to get improvement. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Also would not the best compromise be one in which both parties are satisfied? I do not agree that a single wikiproject gets to decide that they can keep embryonic pages that "may one day" be expanded. Wikiproject space is not indexed so pages there do not help further the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:5P1). Taku gets what he wants by getting to keep the pages (for some duration), Legacypac and I get what we want by ensuring that the creations are actually improving Wikipedia instead of being perpetual used bits, and Wikipedia as a whole gets what it wants in content that an average reader can use. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

As for me, you are not less insistent than Taku. Maybe even more. Well, naturally, you look the right side in your own eyes. No wonder. I guess, Taku does, as well (but is now on a flight). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Question - What is the advantage of moving the drafts to a new Wikiproject draft space, as opposed to moving them into Taku's userspace, which seems to me by far the simplest and most appropriate solution. Articles can be moved from userspace into articlspace as easily as they can from draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm attempting to find a solution which is acceptable to everybody. Apparently, moving them to userspace has already been rejected by one party, so I'm exploring other options. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Recall also the answer given at the start: "It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them." Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Is WP:NOTWEBHOST policy or not? There are many textbooks with esoteric details that could be used to generate hundreds of pre-stub drafts. Encouraging their indefinite storage undermines NOTWEBHOST because the community has no practical way to say it is ok to store pointless notes on mathematics, but not on, say, K-pop. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

True. But "policies the wikiproject decided" could be such a practical way. WP Math can decide what is pointless in math. Do you expect that another wikiproject will decide to store pointless notes on K-pop? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And on the other hand, if indeed WP:NOTWEBHOST should restricts the use of the draftspace, then the restriction should be formulated clearly in draftspace-related policies. For now it is not, and the position of Hasteur exceeds even the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that some interpretation of WP:NOTWEBHOST contradicts some interpretation of WP:NODEADLINE. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the WP:PORN project be the arbiter of whether sub-drafts of pornography articles are retained indefinitely? What if they wanted to upload a hundred sub-stubs each based on the name and photograph of a non-notable porn star? Relying on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not a reasonable way to run Wikipedia. It is important to uphold the principle of WP:NOTWEBHOST and discourage the indefinite storage of things some contributors like. Per not bureaucracy, this noticeboard is not bound by the details that are or are not covered in the text at WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. If so, yes, this noticeboard can make a precedent decision against Taku. In this case it is desirable to complement draftspace-related policies accordingly. Alternatively, this noticeboard can accept the proposed compromise. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But now I see there a modification of RoySmith's idea by Johnuniq: do keep them on the project space, but combined into a single page. Really? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The application of WP:NOTWEBHOST rests on vacuous grounds, since the most page views of these drafts are caused by the janitors and their employed bots, so no essential web hosting takes place at all. Purgy (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see WP:NOTWEBHOST applying at all. The content we're talking about is clearly intended to be used for writing future wikipedia articles. The point of contention is not the intended use of the material, but the speed at which those articles get written.

Even if "not webhost" is indeed not an apt name for that policy, the problem behind the policy is real: in order to be a healthy organism, Wikipedia needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system. This is the point of Johnuniq (as far as I understand this). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: of 04:47, 27 August 2017: That's a good one. I perceive that as a personal attack. In no way did I deal with that defunct sub-project. I'm applying WP:Drafts which is policy, instead of a cherry-picked project that was absorbed into the Draft namespace. It's very simple. The drafts are abandoned because Taku hasn't done anything about them in over two years after having attention brought to an appropriate WikiProject (for which they participated in) (May 2016, June 2017). Taku contributed precisely zero bytes to improve them, however will spend thousands of bytes arguing that they should be able to keep them. Hasteur (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You do not own a production factory called draftspace.  Yet you want the creative-content production of draftspace to meet your production standards.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A personal attack? Just the (true) statement that your position exceeds even the guidelines of something? I did not know it is defunct, I did not know you apply something else. But even if I were knowing that, would it be a personal attack? As for me, this is your nervous overreaction. (Now blame me for the word "nervous" too...) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(Better late than never...) "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." (policy) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: I know the type of these editors. They are here to play a game; the ultimate goal of it is the destruction and getting the users blocked. They want you to get upset and make mistakes to get you banned. I'm a target since I have kept evading their attacks; so I became the last boss of the sort. I guess I'm not completely innocent; a part of me must enjoy counter-attacking their attacks (It can be quite more fun than writing terse math articles). This is just an online game a lot of Wikipedia users play nowadays. I know the game is a distraction and that's why I agreed with the proposed compromise. -- Taku (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Taku: You would be best advised to stop commenting on the motivations and characters of the opposing editors and start dealing with the actual issues involved, because this has been going on for quite a while now, and I can sense that some admins might be close to dealing out some NPA blocks, if only to shut it down. Boris, at least, made an effort to find a compromise, albeit one that didn't fly, but it's you, Taku, who is at the center of this, and therefore it's you who is going to have to give way in some fashion or another, because your failure to do so, your digging your feet in with continued rejections of all proposals has, in my estimation, become disruptive to the smooth operation of the encyclopedia. That being the case, it's no longer going to matter who is "right" and who is "wrong", someone is heading for a block, and the prime candidate would appear to be you. You're out here practically alone, with a number of editors aligned against you, which is not a great position to hold in a noticeboard discussion. Continue holding out and don't compromise if you want to take the risk that no admin is going to block you, or start to actually talk to the other editors and find some acceptable common ground -- the choice is yours, and yours alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm on the path for the block, reading from the above and below. Anyway, for the record, I have already agreed with the Roy Smith's proposed compromise that we put the draftpages at the subpage of the wikiproject math. It seems it is the other side that it never accepts anything other than total capitulation. -- Taku (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I've given you my view of the situation which, despite the comment of an editor below that it was "perfectly biased", was, in fact, a neutral and unbiased take on the matter. Only time now will tell if it was correct, but certainly if Taku continues his escalation to personal attacks, it would seem to be more likely than not. Good luck with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Copy of all content in a single page

I downloaded the wikitext (minus irrelevant stub templates etc.) from all current Draft pages created by TakuyaMurata, and appended it to User:TakuyaMurata/DraftsUser:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage which already existed (skip the initial list of links to drafts to see what I added). Drafts which are currently redirects were not included. TakuyaMurata of course is welcome to revert my edit if wanted, in which case the content can be seen at permalink. If nothing else, the single page allows easy browsing of the content. I should have used a level-one heading for each copy, but everything else is probably ok. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Now headings are level-one. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(in an airport with a patchy connection) I object to the use of a single draft page. See my sandbox page, which I use for my own private drafting use. The draft pages I started are supposed to belong to the community; that is, why I object to put them into my user-page. I can live with the proposal to place draft pages in the wikiproject math page; this way, they are still not tied to me and can be edited by the others. I have a lot to say on the proper use of the draftspace, but I will not repeat the here. As noted above, WP:NOTWEBHOST is not applicable since it's about the non-encyclopedic content. Are in the agreement? -- Taku (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

To heck with Taku this is absurd. [10] see below:

Propose 1 week block

Only a block is going to stop the never ending disruption of draft cleanup that he continues to spread to pages far and wide. [11]. Nothing will satisfy Taku ever. In a week the push will be over and he can come back and hopefully make useful controbutions. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

As above, I have expressed my agreement with the proposed compromise and so I have to be blocked then??? -- Taku (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Now Edit warring to delete a redirect and wholesale modifying my talk page posts. Legacypac (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You complained about the broken links so I tried to fix them; it's hardly the modification. -- Taku (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Regretfully Oppose Part of the issue here is that I'm not a abstract Geometry/Mathematics expert so I can't judge alone what is notable and what is not. To block a user and then immediately proceed to delete pages so that they cannot object will only set up the case for compassionate Refunds on the grounds that Taku wasn't able to contribute to the proceedings. If Taku has the opportunity to contribute, but does not that's a silent acceptance of the proposal. If they can't respond that smacks of a star chamber. Hasteur (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Taku should not be so disruptive, but the issue was sure to be ignited when drafts were nominated for deletion. However, 1 they do not have to be nominated, 2 they do not have to be deleted, and 3 they can be restored at WP:REFUND request. However I will also note that putting it in userspace is a much better option. Don't expect others to stumble across the draft and improve it. Instead Taku should ask at a Wikiproject to see if there are others willing to assist, and then it does not matter if it is userspace or draft space. I would also oppose a separate Mathematics draft space, as that would still accumulate stagnant drafts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Personal attack

TakuyaMurata has been warned by many editors including recently by Beyond My Ken above at 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to stop making statements regarding the motivations of editors who are attempting to secure compliance with standard operating practices of Wikipedia. As such Taku made a bald faced personal attack on those who are trying to clean up draftspace on the Mathematics wikiproject page. I have reverted it citing the warning. I request that an Administrator give a final warning to TakuyaMurata for failure to adhere to the Civility policy and "No Personal Attacks" policy as the attacks and inuendo poison the consensus building arguments and fracture the community into an "Us vs Them" situation. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In his own words why he is doing this, and another attack. [12] Legacypac (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I also name TimothyRias as complicit in twice restoring Taku's personal attack on the above page. What is worse? Removing a personal attack or disruptively restoring the attack repeatedly? Hasteur (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question: 1). You simply should not be removing comments in any conflict in which you are directly involved. If you feel that a some comment is a personal attack against yourself, go through through the proper channels, and do not remove it yourself. TR 14:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Policy absolutely supports removing personal attacks against you. User:TimothyRias needs to be trouted for edit warring to restore disruptive nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Both of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and think about why people might get the idea that you are trolling. Maybe take a wikation?TR 17:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose to the need of a final warning. I consider the valuation expressed in Taku's reverted comment as obvious, and I myself share with others the opinon that the sanitizing engineers act above reasonable levels. The reverted comment contained to my measures neither insults, nor threats, nor innuendo, nor any general attack beyond tellingly describing specific behaviour. As regards the cited comment ("warning") by Beyond My Ken, this is in my perception a perfectly biased, non-neutral view of the facts, totally neglecting any possibility of a compromise, fully in line with Hasteur. Purgy (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for administrator involvement

This thread has been going on for about 2 weeks now, with no sign of it being settled between the disputants in the near future. Could an uninvolved admin please weigh in on it, in whatever fashion is deemed appropriate, in order to put it out of its misery? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

But don't we have Roy Smith's compromise? I'm not sure what admin actions are needed (block? Why?). Regarding personal attacks, I should note that my motivations have also been questioned time to time; e.g., starting a DVR is viewed a disruption rather than checking of the procedures are followed correctly. -- Taku (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

A compromise which has been accepted by one side in the dispute, but not by (all those in) the other is not a viable compromise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is correct (actually, two of the three primary players here have accepted it, but not all three). If we don't have buy-in from everybody, it's not going to fly. The next thing I would suggest is to ask three uninvolved admins to write a joint closing statement. That's often a good way to get closure. Whatever they decide, everybody has to live with. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made this request here -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oh. Rats. OK, I edit conflicted with people (including RoySmith) saying my suggestion isn't feasible. I'll post it here anyway.

  You want an uninvolved admin's opinion? OK. This has been personalized too much to lead to a suitable solution right now. So after reading this whole thing, I plan on was thinking of doing the following, if there aren't good reasons not to in the next day:

  1. Enact RoySmith's compromise, but as a temporary measure. For one thing, Legacypac and Taku have both agreed to it, and they are the main drivers (I know Hasteur hasn't). Leave the drafts there for a month, to allow the dust to settle. They could certainly be worked on while there, but this wouldn't necessarily be a long term solution, and it certainly wouldn't be setting a precedent for what to do with similar pages.
  2. Clemency for the many too-personal comments made by one side against the other. A strong suggestion to avoid people from the other side where possible, and avoid talking about the other side's motivations to anyone, for the one month period, but not a total interaction ban or anything.
  3. After a month (or sooner if everyone feels chill earlier), one or more of the following:
     1. A thread at WT:MATH about whether there is a benefit to hosting these sub-stub drafts in WP space, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations.
     2. A calm discussion... somewhere (WT:DRAFT? WP:VPPOLICY?) about the benefit/cost ratio of keeping extraordinarily short pages in draft space, when a good faith editor objects to deletion, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations. I have not yet seen a fully persuasive rationale for keeping them or for deleting them.
     3. A calm discussion somewhere else.
  4. As a result of this/these calm discussion(s), with no deadlines, either delete the drafts from WP space, move them back to draft space, move them to userspace, or leave them where they are.

  In other words, postpone the decision, giving people a chance to cool off, and stop edit warring / namecalling / block shopping / being angry. AN/ANI is about the worst place to try to solve a complicated problem. Let's follow RoySmith's advice and compromise, and try this again in a more productive place than here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Its not a complicated problem. Taku wants to host his unlikely-to-ever-be-worked-on-once-created stubs in draftspace, the editors who have been attempting to clean up draftspace would rather he actually work on them and/or submit them to AFC - you know, what draftspace is actually for. And have successfully managed to change the CSD criteria so unless he (or anyone else) does work on drafts, they will be deleted as abandoned. Since the solution to the problem of having unworked/abandoned stubs of little value sitting in draftspace is to not have them in draftspace, the easiest solution is just to move them all to Taku's sandbox where he can continue to not work on them to his heart's content and everyone else who really doesnt care about them can safely ignore them like all the other random stuff thats in sandboxes. Granted Taku wont be happy, but the point of dispute resolution is to resolve the dispute, not move it around the place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: With respect. The compromise has already been broken by TauyaMurata in first having the pages in Taku's namespace and then moving them to annother user's draft space. If Taku wanted to work on these, they should be in Taku's userspace. Moving these to Taku's workspace has been resisted tooth and nail by Taku. Multiple offers have been extended to Taku to show how they can get Legacypac and Myself to go away for 6 months. The change to the CSD rule was enacted by community consensus with Taku also providing feedback, so I find your claim that we changed the rule offensive. Finally I intend to hold your words up in 6 months when I predict that there will be not a single edit to any of the topics because Taku has repeatedly made the same noises without a single line of substantial improvement. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• this is pretty simple now and can be closed by an Admin, and here is a suggested closing statement "

"We accept Taku's agreement to move his stubs to MathProject. Most have already been gathered into one page and any missed can be added by any editor. All Taku stubs so consolidated shall be deleted with Taku forbidden from objecting/DRVs or requesting REFUNDS on the consolidated pages. Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." Feel free to adjust the closing stmt or suggest improvements. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Several things are wrong with the statement. In RoySmith's original formulation, there was no suggestion to consolidate draft pages into one page (thus the statement is significant departure from the original). For another, many of the drafts started by me are not really stubs; e.g., Draft:residual intersection. "Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." too vague; also not in the original formulation. My understanding on RoySmith's proposal is it says that we use subpages of the wikiproject math as opposed to the draftspace. This is acceptable to me because it simply represents the change of the locations of the drafts (and not to the substance of them). It is my understanding that the substance of the drafts are not problems but the location is; somehow it is wrong to store drafts in the draftspace :) -- Taku (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So... 70 or so little stubs? Since you oppose encouragement to develop the topics for mainspace... did you want to mandate development or forbid it altogether or just discourage development? Those are the other options right? Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku, the consolidation is not at all a hostile act against you. Its reason was explained by Johnunique, and reformulated by me as "in order to be a healthy organism, Wikipedia needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system." (above) Class hatred between these two systems is destructive (as always). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I know but the consolidation fundamentally changes the nature of the drafts; it ties the drafts to me. The reason I use the draftspace as opposed to my user-page is to make suggestions that the drafts belong to the community not me. The closing statement I have in mind is

Because of the reviewing complications, for mathematics-related drafts, use subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics instead of the draft namespace.

• It is important that the statement does not refer to one particular user.
• Equally important, the statement should not refer to any editing behavior.

-- Taku (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"ties the drafts to me"? Yes, if the page will be called "Taku's drafts"; no, if it will be called "Our drafts", or "Algebraic geometry drafts", etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I misssed thr point: why do we want to consolidate drafts into one page? Obviously, it's more convenient to edit Draft:residual intersection as a standalone page rather than a section in one giant single draft page. Without consolidation, I image there will be a list of draft pages sorted by subjects so it will be easier to find interested editors to work on them. -- Taku (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, for us mathematicians it is better not to consolidate. But for admins that must resist bad-intended advocacy groups, it is safer to consolidate. I guess so; but I am not one of them, and not authorized to represent them. If you are able to resist the consolidation, do. Otherwise, accept. Such is the life, and it becomes sucher and sucher. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Taku: If the drafts "belong to the community and not [you]", then why are you exhibiting such powerful WP:OWNERSHIP over them? You fight tooth and nail to exert your will about how they should be handled. That doesn't show that you believe they "belong to the community", that shows that you act as if they belong to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, no, I'm trying to fight against the attempt to impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used, the view that does not have the community support and that is inconsistent with the policies like WP:DEADLINE. Obviously, say, Legacypac's view is not always the same thing as the community's view. In fact, many so-called problematic drafts survive MfD, which implies there is a solid support for my use of the draftspace. Some editors might be verbose; doesn't mean their opinions are the majority's. I admit there does seem a tension between whether the draftspace must be reserved for the short-term use only or should be allowed for the long-term use. I have suggested we run an RfC to find the community's opinion on this and that was considered a disruption... If I just want to own them, I would just use my user-page (in fact, I use my sandbox for drafts I want to own.) -- Taku (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

With no respect (because you've burned all my available AGF) you are wrong. The RFC which expanded G13 (for which you participated in extensively) clearly indicates that drafts that are unedited for over 6 months (like the ones we've been debating for the entire period) should be speedy deleted. Period, End of Line, No debate. Want to change that? Launch a new RFC making your case. Until then the community consensus provides for taking a critical view to pages that are unedited for over 6 months (like yours) because they do not further Wikipedia's purpose WP:5P1. Hasteur (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used" I refer you to the previous linked RFC which is very clear that draftspace is not for indefinite draft storage. Please find another tree to bark at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I also object to the example of Draft:Residual intersection being flung around like chum to muddy the watters. Looking at the history we discover the page was created at 00:00 26 May 2017‎ (UTC) which by even the first revision makes this page less than 6 months ago so thereby is still concievably being worked on. Furthermore the most recent revision is from 08:18, 18 July 2017‎ (UTC) which again makes this page far too young to consider G13. Yet another line from Taku's Playbook for Delay and Disruption: Pull the debate to a topic that has a better case of getting cherry-picked support so that the generic debate can end in a "No Consensus" close. Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku's accusation that I'm verbose but my opinions don't reflect consensus is one of the funniest things I've seen this week! Look in a mirror Taku! It's more than a little odd that Taku is complaining about G13 expansion after he voted FOR it. Anyway, he was fighting anyone touching HIS drafts (that apparently belong to the community today) well over a year ago. There are correct terms for people that will say anything, even contradicting themselves, to stir trouble. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a little confusion as to what the expansion of G13 means: it is about how to delete the stuff and not about what to. It was about streamlining the deletion procession; the question was formulated as such. If we were to permanently delete any page that is unedited for 6 months, we need to disallow, for instance, the refund of G13-deleted pages. There is still no consensus that there need a refund-proof deletion of old drafts. In fact, MfD, DVR, and WikiProject math if you look at anywhere else, you find this rogue "clean-up of the draftspace" does not have the strong community support. Fighting against rogue operations should not be considered as a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Again no respect. You seem to repeatedly and willfully mis-construe the RFC to the point that I question your competency to understand and form coherent arguments in English as you have enumerated multiple times that it is not your primary language. G13 is the current law of the land, and nothing prohibits you from requesting a REFUND on those pages, however when they come eligible for G13 again (which I predict will happen) they will be deleted again for lack of editing. On a subsequent REFUND I expect the admin will see the history and see that it had been requested before and zero progress was made. REFUND is a low effort restoration, but there is an effort. An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests. Furthermore this argument that it's a rogue operation is patently wrong, willfully deceptive, and very short of a personal attack. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Rogue operations" it's not my opinion but has been expressed broadly. There has been a wide skepticism whether it is necessary to clean-up old but legitimate drafts (there are a lot of worthless drafts and I'm not talking about them; the G13 expansion mainly concerns the latter type). "An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests." This is news to me; can you provide me a link to this instruction? -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata: Please properly indent your messages. The standard on Wikipedia is to add one tab (represented by a colon) for each response, to make a pyramidal structure. You tend to go in and out and in and out, which is more difficult to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

To those closing, here is another evidence so-called "consensus" only exists in the fantasy land: Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve. The reference to a hypothetical non-existent consensus got to be stopped. -- Taku (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet annother case of willfull "I didn't hear that" by Takuya. This real and present disruption has got to be stopped. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you again referring to the G13-expansion RfC? Again it was about streamlining the deletion process; nothing more. The question was not about the proper use of the draftspace. See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Is_this_really_what_people_supported_in_the_G13_RfC.3F for the related discussion. -- Taku (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Your repeated attempts to claim victory out of resounding defeat surpasses all the markers of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Look forward to round two in 6 months when we get the opportunity to argue this again. I challenge you Taku to prove me wrong by focusing for at least net 100k bytes on improving the text of these pages. If not then my previous assertion (that you're only interested in the topics because they're your creations and therefore an impermissible form of WP:OWN) stands and is reinforced. Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"You messed up" notifications

Please see the Administrator "you messed up" notifications section of WP:BOTR, where I've proposed that we get a bot to pester an admin who leaves a block notice without blocking the user, and please offer your opinions on whether it's a good idea or not. I've requested this because in the last ten days I've twice done this, and being bot-pestered would have been helpful. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me that only admins would know if this is a useful thing or not, so as a non-admin, I won't be commenting -- but, in my opinion, if you guys want it, you should have it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it should also work in reverse, blocking without a notice. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There are rare occasions where a user is blocked without being tagged, mainly in cases of some long term vandals on the basis of WP:DENY. RickinBaltimore (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be particularly problematic at User talk:ProcseeBot; it's a WP:SPA that never does anything except making 2.4 million blocks — it got promoted to admin without ever making a single edit, before or since :-) It's a bot that simply blocks open proxies and doesn't leave a block message, so you can imagine how much of a mess its talk page would be if we had a bot that notified you when you don't leave a notice. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That awkward moment when a bot will have to use {{nobots}}. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the conversation here on unblocked users with block notices from admins? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Not just unblocked but not-blocked. It's fine if the block expires or gets removed; the problem is when someone leaves a block message but forgets to block the user. As you can see from my BOTR request, I've done this twice just recently, and it would have been quite helpful if there had been a bot to pester me. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: - block first, message later. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

But as noted at BOTR, problems arise if you block and forget to leave a message (or you get impeded while writing), and aside from no-message-needed situations, e.g. obvious disruptive sockpuppets, I don't want to block anyone without giving a message. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Use Twinkle's block function which automatically leaves a generic "you have been blocked for reason" template message at the moment of blocking, tailored to the reason for blocking (example)—you can then go back and manually edit the message if you feel they need a specific explanation, but it means they always get something unless you specifically choose not to notify them. I doubt I've used the Mediawiki block interface for a decade; Twinkle has its faults, but blocking is one area where the interface is undoubtedly superior. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support but only for the block notice done without a block. The other way around has several reasons for not notifying. Must of my blocks are for robots that don't read a potential notice for example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Appeal my topic ban

About 15 months ago, following my successful appeal here against a ban and block, I had three restrictions applied as conditions of the unban and unblock granted. I was told that I could appeal each of those restrictions independently after one year. Two months ago I successfully appealed against my 1RR restriction and since then I continued my trouble-free record of editing. So today please, I would like to appeal the second of my three restrictions - my topic ban.

I was indefinitely topic banned from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Wikipedia including, but not at all limited to, talk and user talk pages - with the exception that I may add measurements to articles I created so long as they were in compliance with the WP:MOS.

I have, to the best of my knowledge, complied 100% with this restriction over the last 15 months - so am now asking for this topic ban to be lifted too please. I understand the principles of the MOS and I do not plan to re-open any of the old arguments or controversies, but would very much appreciate not having to navigate so very carefully to keep clear of any articles or article content within the scope of the topic ban. The main reason for my appeal is to continue along the path back to full good standing within the community. I very much want to return to playing a full part in this enterprise and am committed to doing my best to help to improve Wikipedia. Please give this appeal your full and careful consideration. -- de Facto (talk). 20:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Following Dennis Brown's wise words in the discussion below, I would like to change my appeal from asking for a complete lifting of the topic ban, to asking to have the topic ban replaced with a 1RR restriction on the same metrication and units of measure scope. Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Note that Dennis Brown stated, on 13 June 2017, "I would be less inclined to lift the others today, but I think this is the best one to start with and we can revisit another in 6 months". 6 months from 13 June 2017 is 13 December 2017. I say this entirely without prejudice. I have no opinion at this time whether your topic ban should be lifted and do not know whether Dennis Brown still holds this opinion. --Yamla (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• While I am inclined toward support based on the previous AN/I discussion, I think there is still a sentiment that the topic ban should not be lifted just yet. If this appeal was rejected, and the original poster can manage to continue to contribute in a positive manner, the next appeal (possibly in December as noted above) would probably have much higher chance of success. Alex Shih^Talk 04:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral. I wish you would have waited longer, but it is certainly within your right to request a lifting of the sanction. I will add this, I think that if you instead asked for a modification of the sanction along the lines of "The topic ban of metrification (etc) is here modified to allow editing under a 1RR restriction" you would have better luck. Then wait a year for the 1RR lift request. 1RR is not a huge deal to live with. We are a bit gun shy, to be honest. In your defense, you've complied with all expectations as far as I can see, but I think you understand why the community is hesitant. I will just say that lifting it but inserting a 1RR restriction would have my Support. Otherwise, I would stay neutral in the matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Dennis Brown for your constructive suggestion and wise words. I will happily go with your idea of a 1RR restriction in place of the topic ban on the metrication and units of measure scope - I wish I had the wisdom to have thought of that for myself! Hopefully it will also help to reassure others that my only intention is to be constructive and add value to Wikipedia. -- de Facto (talk). 16:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you also accept a continued ban from the MOS in general, from MOSNUM in particular, and from their talk pages? This would still mean that you would not have to "navigate so very carefully to keep clear of any articles or article content within the scope of the topic ban." 92.19.24.150 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll accept whatever the consensus here believes is necessary. -- de Facto (talk). 08:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Then to be clear, I support the new 1RR. I think this will allow DeFacto to demonstrate they can restrain themselves, and by giving them a little rope, we give them the opportunity to keep climbing out of this hole, or hang himself. Hopefully, the climb will continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Given how much trouble was caused by de Facto on metrification, I don't think it would be productive to allow them to return to editing anything to do with units. Number 57 09:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: may I ask, what it would take to convince you that this topic ban is not required to prevent disruptive editing? -- de Facto (talk). 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It would involve a time machine and you not causing all those problems in the past. My experience is that editors who were as troublesome as you were are not able to change; given that you can edit everything on Wikipedia except this, I don't see any benefit from lifting the topic ban. Number 57 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• For all I remember what happened before, our rules hold that everyone can come back if we understand that they are unlikely to be disruptive. On the basis of a 1RR, and an understanding that a repeat of the behaviour we saw before the ban will most certainly result in a reimposition of sanctions (and I'm pretty sure that's already understood), I will support lifting this ban at this time. Kahastok talk 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• strong support . The user fully complies with the restrictions imposed (as far as I can know - no idea regarding the"always logged-in" part, for obvious reasons). I do not see any other signs of disruptive editing either. So, changing the topic ban to 1RR will be no harm for the community. Quite the contrary, since the user will likely contribute constructively. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• support either lifting the topic ban or replacing it with 1RR on the same scope. As much as I respect Dennis' wisdom, I don't see the point in saying, essentially, that there is no reason not to lift the ban but we're going to make you wait four months more anyway. Contra the adamant oppose above, indefinite does not mean infinite and I think we should always be willing to reconsider after time has passed. de Facto will know they are going to be subject to extra scrutiny, We could perhaps add an extra condition that the TBAN can be reimposed by any uninvolved admin if problems re-emerge in the next year. GoldenRing (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've worked the SPI cases and know the history pretty well. If DeFacto goes off the wagon, he already knows it will likely be an indef block. My suggestion of 1RR was one to help him, as restraint was a demonstrated problem in the past. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support either the original requests or the 1RR version. The initial dispute was over trivia (a metrication-related example in one article), the editor lost his cool and apparently didn't have much respect for or intent to continue participating in the project as serious work at that time, and was just in an "F it all" mode after he initial administrative action. This attitude has clearly changed in the intervening years. Everyone makes mistakes and learns from them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Tend to oppose – the years of socking and circular, timewasting MOSNUM discussions cannot simply be forgiven and forgotten. But, as others say above, he can contribute constructively subject to stringent restrictions. If the restriction is to be eased (about which I am personally unconvinced – I do not see the benefit in allowing him to edit on a fairly marginal topic about which he has only been disruptive in the past), it must be made absolutely clear that he will be banned for life from editing Wikipedia if there is any hint of a return to his past malicious behaviour. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: can I ask, what would persuade you that this topic ban is not required to prevent disruptive editing? -- de Facto (talk). 10:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

My question was more about the motivation for wanting it removed, as seen from Wikipedia's perspective. I understand that you personally find it frustrating, but since editing WP is not a right but a privilege, the question that needs to be answered is not whether it is personally inconvenient for you to be banned from making edits related to measurements and the MOS. The question is whether it is in the encyclopedia's interest to lift the ban – what material difference does it make, if you are allowed to make edits concerning a fairly minor subject (and we can accept that your contributions unrelated to this subject have not caused problems), when there is extremely strong past evidence of disruptive behaviour in this area, out of all proportion to its importance? What would you be able to do, in concrete terms, that you are currently prevented from doing? For the record, I am strongly opposed to lifting the MOS-related restrictions. Any extra liberty to edit in article-space needs to be granted subject to strict conditions, as described above.

If you can persuade me that there is some tangible benefit to easing the ban – meaning a real improvement in your ability to contribute constructively – then fair enough. Obviously, it comes with the proviso that any subsequent hint of disruptive behaviour will be nipped in the bud with an immediate reinstatement of sanctions (and you'd do well to understand the sentiment behind Number 57's comment above – some forms of trust, once gone, are basically never going to come back). You can be assured that people will be checking your contributions to ensure that past "mistakes" do not have the chance to be repeated. As Dennis Brown says above, any extra "rope" you are granted here can serve one function as well as the other, and you don't need me to tell you that everyone will take a very dim view of any future abuse of trust. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point Archon. My belief is that having this topic ban lifted will enable me to continue with the sort of article creation, improvement and expansion that I used to do before the troubles arose surrounding the said topic. If you look back over my contribution history, you will see that amongst the 400+ articles I have created and my 13,000ish live edits to about 2,500 different pages, my subject coverage is broad - including engineering, architecture, roads, motor vehicles, motoring, road safety, geography, politics, history, as well as the said topic and much more - most of which inevitably have content related to the said topic.

In a nutshell, I believe that without the topic ban I'll be more efficient and more effective at adding value to a broader range of Wikipedia articles, just as I was before my troubles. -- de Facto (talk). 17:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support, but only with the 1RR, and the "continued ban from the MOS in general, from MOSNUM in particular, and from their talk pages" suggested above. That restriction seems like a sensible step which would not hinder article editing/creation at all, and could be somewhat reassuring for those who remember the old disruption and still fear a return to it. Without those additional conditions, count me as opposed at this time. -- Begoon 07:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support with 1RR restriction per Dennis Brown. Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

IPBE, Sysop bit and TOR

I'm testing with TOR (I will soon be traveling more) and noticed that I could NOT edit Wikipedia. My understanding is that the Sysop bit automatically has IPBE on the English Wikipedia, yet it wouldn't let me post. I'm quite sure I have the admin bit. I've manually added IPBE to my sysop account (this one), and now I'm currently adding this section using TOR. Did they remove IPBE from the basic sysop tool kit? Is this a bug I need to report? Not something I'm using to messing with, so throwing out here to my fellow admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: From WP:IPBE: "Administrators and bots are always exempt from such blocks (with the exception of Tor blocks)." Apparently you need actual IPBE as an admin to get around Tor blocks and Tor blocks only. Weird. In any event, I'd recommend using an alternative account without sysop if you're testing Tor. Tor has had many vulnerabilities over the years, and it's probably not worth the risk of using your admin account. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. My two alts (Pharmboy and Farmer Brown) both have IPBE anyway, but I usually reserve those for lesser devices where I don't trust the interface and reaction time to use the admin acct, and use this account for my laptop. I need to read up on TOR a bit more, not something I've used much. Proxies of one kind or another are impossible to avoid on the road. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

How that policy wording came about. What you are actually using is the 'torunblocked' bit, which has never been in the sysop package. The IPBE group contains both the ipblock-exempt right (which sysops have) and torunblocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Then we need to add that to the sysop package. I can't see how that would be controversial. Not sure how to get that done, I don't even think a consensus is needed, as it is implied that sysop should be able to do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It'll need an RfC via WP:VPR. If there's consensus then we can ask a dev to flip the switch. -FASTILY 23:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I oppose adding "torunblocked" to the sysop package, but only because I think we should take away the rest of the automatic IPBE right from admins too. Under our current policy, normal humans who want to use IPBE must convince an admin they have a "demonstrated need", and "Proxies of one kind or another are impossible to avoid on the road" has traditionally not cut it. You have to actually demonstrate you're blocked, and then it gets taken away as soon as you're not blocked anymore. Even for well established editors. Not sure why that all goes out the window when someone gets the admin bit. This is not a dig at Dennis (and I should probably apologize for pseudo-hijacking his thread), but it is a dig at the situation. Almost no one besides an admin who wanted to use Tor just because they were travelling would be given this right. I'm not sure admins realize how annoying that distinction is to non-admins. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd second Floq here, with the caveat that a general relaxation of the issuing of IPBE to non-admins would serve the same effect (such that any reasonable editor can get IPBE if they want it, regardless). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, WK, I'm actually kind of disrupting WP to make a point (don't tell anyone). I'd prefer to relax the IPBE criteria for everyone too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
      • There are other reasons to use IP exempt than just to be on travelling. Some of our editors (like me) live in areas of this world where it is utterly annoying to be on an account without such exemptions. I agree, it is not WP that is the problem here where I live, it is the outside websites that do get spammed but also used as references where I cannot get to, or where I do not want to go without hiding my real IP. Do you western-worlders understand how annoying the internet becomes when I would constantly have to turn on and off my VPN? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @Beetstra: But that's my whole point. I'm saying that you shouldn't get special treatment because you're an admin, when a non-admin in your same position would have to either constantly turn on and off their VPN, or ask an admin for IPBE (who may need to consult a checkuser first), justifying in detail why they need it. I'm not saying take IPBE away from you; I'm saying don't give it to admins whether they need it or not, but then make long-term experienced non-admins justify their need for it to some admin, who can just say no. Either you should have to justify your need for it too, or everyone who's been here a certain length of time and demonstrated their good faith editing should be able to get it without begging. I prefer the second option, but the first option is better than what we do now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
          • @Floquenbeam: But by far most editors don't need the torexempt, and neither do they need ipblockexempt. I know that this borders on bad faith, but I want editors who have blocked socks to have autoblocks on their main account (and actually, that should be the case for admins as well). I need torexempt because of other reasons, not because I am an admin (and I requested that globally). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC) (now that did not make sense, correct ping: @Floquenbeam: --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC))

PSA: With Bbb23 on indeterminate leave, SPI is backlogged for closings

Bbb23 has been "on break for an undetermined length of time" since July 28, and WP:SPI appears to be getting backlogged for closings and blocks. I think additional admin participation at present to institute closings and blocks would be helpful. (I notice this because an SPI I opened, which shall go nameless, was CUed with a result 2 weeks ago, but it has not been closed by an admin; this seems rather longer than I've experienced in the past and if that is true I'm sure other SPIs are languishing as well.) Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Both CU result SPIs and non-CU SPIs are particularly backlogged at the moment and could use admin assistance in closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Concur in the request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I closed a few easy ones. I'll look at some more later. It can be tedious work, especially when you're unfamiliar with both the sockmaster and the topic area. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe y'all will consider sending some flowers to Bbb, and maybe a gift card or two, for past services rendered. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, has he had a personal or family event/death or illness? I'm sure we all wish him very well and although we'd love to have him back here soon, want him to take all the time off that he needs. (PS, I have no idea what his name or email address is; I don't think I've ever corresponded with him that way.) Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies is using southern speak to indicate that a note of appreciation on Bbb23's talk page may be in order for those so inclined.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well hell, I am a Southerner born, bred, and raised (and did not escape until the 24th year of my life), and I did not understand what he meant. FFS. Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

By South, I think he meant Eindhoven... ;) — fortunavelut luna 13:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Eindhoven is in Belgium, as far as I'm concerned. Berean Hunter, my southern speech is quite faulty--I really meant flowers and gift cards knowing fully well that Bbb is a mysterious character whom no one knows. Softlavender, no, that's not quite it--let's call it a Wiki burnout of sorts: that does him no justice, but it is related to what's going on. But whatever the case is, his service has been quite valuable; anyone who pays attention to SPI knows that. It's like Daniel Case with the user names, or Dennis Brown on the dramah boards, or Floquenbeam being a paratrooper-admin, or Diannaa and MER-C with the copyvios, or Materialscientist who has blocked more vandals than Giraffedata has corrected "comprise of"s, or Tide rolls who keeps the joint clean and none of you even know him, or BlueMoonset without whom the DYK setup would be a disaster (I'm not pinging these people--they don't need me to compliment them, and I can only hope to complement them). You don't really see it, and then they're not there, and we run into trouble. There are so many good people here donating so much of their valuable time, and Bbb is/was one of them. I have no idea if he'll be back, but I sure miss him. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am genuinely quite alarmed that Bbb may not be back, or be back in the near future. His devotion to the project has been constant and tireless and frankly fairly thankless. I don't know the details of what may have precipitated a lengthy absence beyond sheer burnout, but certainly if there is anything we can do to improve things for him on- or off-wiki, I'm sure we would jump at the chance. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I say that we double his salary, he's worth it.

All joking aside, I'm as concerned as you to hear that there's a possibility he may not return. I think he's one of our very best admins and CUs, and certainly has great judgement as a CU (even when he turns me down, damn him, I respect his opinion). It would be a blow to the community if he were to decide to leave for good, but he's gotta do what's he's gotta do, I guess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I've returned as a checkuser and slowly I'm chipping away at the backlog. I don't want to go too fast and burn out. :-) --Deskana (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you managed to get your signature turned back around again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

* Posting this with a datestamp to keep thread here for a while longer. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Poorly references sports biographies

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

---

Hi,

Whilst going through the February 2009 orphans category, I came across a large number of one-line entries on living cricket players who have played a couple of matches each, some of which are unsourced, some of which are only sourced to CricketArchive. I was part-way going through draftifying them with AutoWikiBrowser when I was advised on IRC that, although there is a precedent for BLP mass-draftification, it tends to happen after discussion and not bold edits. They've now been rollbacked by my main account en-masse. All of these articles were created by 02blythed and most have been orphaned since 2009.

Relevant links:

• Notification to page creator
• My AWB account's contribs

Therefore, I propose the mass draftification of all poorly sourced cricket biographies created by 02blythed.

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 16:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support This has been raised time and time again with this user. Their talkpage is a long list of prods and other BLP issues. All of these articles would meet the notability threshold, but there's just no care in their creation. Most of them are orphans, too. On the plus side, this user hasn't edited since March, but if they did return, I'd also strongly support that they do not create any further articles until they show some competence in what they're doing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: At least one of the articles survived AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. H. Barnes. I don't know how many are BLPs; I suspect most are not. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: here are 24 of the 86 BLPs he has created which start with the letter "A": [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. Only a tiny proportion exceed two lines. AfD is different from draftification but they need improvement to make them worthy of being in an encyclopedia of Wikipedia's calibre (or the calibre we are working towards). DrStrauss talk 20:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• I doubt that article about P. H. Barnes would survive an AfD now. That discussion purely centered around Barnes passing NCRIC and therefore being given an auto-keep, but NSPORTS guidelines have been definitively confirmed as not superceding GNG. Passing NCRIC is enough to require an AfD discussion rather than CSD or PROD but you still need GNG-worthy sources to actually keep the article. The pages that 02blythed are making definitely do not show that kind of sourcing, so although they may pass NCRIC I strongly doubt they would all survive AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, and at any rate, draftification is lower down in the severity of measures when compared to AfD. Maybe bundling them would result in a trainwreck but if they were all individually nominated I'd say a solid half would be deleted. I think the draftspace proposal is a good halfway house. If they are not improved in say, six months, then we can think about an AfD. DrStrauss talk 21:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you doing this under WP:DRAFTIFY? Do you realise one of the reasons "iv) a bold move from article space" was removed last year following consensus at an RFC Wikipedia talk:Drafts/Archive 5#RFC: Clarification over main-space to draft-space moves and Wikipedia talk:Drafts/Archive 6#Clarification over main-space to draft-space moves? Thincat (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Except that this more recent discussion is clearly applicable here, and consensus there is pretty strongly against disallowing bold moves the Draftspace. Also, there really wasn't a "consensus" offered at the first RfC you mention, certainly not against the idea entirely. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The first RFC led to no action and the it was as a result of the second discussion that the change was made. The third discussion you point to (thank you) did not restore the general allowance to make bold moves but did not agree any guidelines for making such moves. My take is that such moves are allowed but under uncertain circumstances (and so need to be done cautiously). Thincat (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hence me coming here. I was advised halfway through that the third RfC encouraged discussion. DrStrauss talk 09:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for doing this. My concern is that you describe the defects that some of them, or most of them, have. What about those that do not have these defects? For long established articles with multiple editors (including admins) does your view that they are unsuitable in main space prevail without discussion? I personally don't agree that "draftification is lower down in the severity of measures when compared to AfD" for long-established articles with multiple involvement. A lot of the discussion linked to from here has been on the assumption that the articles are new and with single authors where we don't want to bite them. This surely does not appyy to "community" articles when this has become the case. Thincat (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would say the length of their existence strengthens the case for draftification because of the lack of improvement over the past eight years. DrStrauss talk 13:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to things like Sir Edward Antrobus, 8th Baronet, for example? Sure, it's a very, very weakly referenced article, and certainly rightly tagged, but I would object to it being moved to draft space (and the redirect consequently deleted) without discussion (and I don't really regard this here as "discussion"). AfD would be entirely appropiate. Thincat (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to the hundreds of one-line articles such as the twenty-odd I linked above. DrStrauss talk 16:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

So I'm completely confused by this, my apologies. Best wishes anyway. Thincat (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm no expert in these things but I doubt Sir Edward Antrobus, 8th Baronet even qualifies for BLPPROD, never mind being being disappeared as an article. Thincat (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support having such pages around makes a mockery of our GNG guidelines. On the other side we have debates about including Billion dollar public companies. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support for any of them that are completely unsourced, with an explicit understanding that they may be recreated at any time if someone is willing to rewrite using reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC).

I think, in general, they are not unsourced but they are (very) weakly sourced. Thincat (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per above, they have not been improved after eight years, some violate policies and unless someone is willing to go through them one by one, it is best all be moved into draftspace and be considered there on their individual merits. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per Legacypac. The articles haven't been improved recently, so moving them into draft space is the best option. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 16:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• WP:NOPAGE also applies. Someone might consider rolling them all together into a big list. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unless consensus is found to change WP:ATHLETE _{[which I would likely support]}. Until then, the articles, as brief as they are, meet what the community has identified as a minimum standard for notability for athletes. I consider ESPN to be an independent, reliable source. Aside, if a shockingly brief article is created that nobody visits, is it a burden on the project? I say no. Neil916 (Talk) 07:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

But they're disruptive in thier slap-dash nature of creation. Take a look a few threads down on this very page for a similar incident that lead the user to an indef block for creating rubbish. This "article" is in the same league as the dross this user has 02blythed. Yes, they're notable, but the clean-up work needed far outweighs the rationale of keeping them (in the mainspace). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I'm not seeing the disruptive aspect. Aside from the fact that I have no interest in people who play professional cricket in Bangladesh, I have no issues with an editor creating an article like this as long as the subject matter meets the notability guidelines, and according to WP:ATHLETE, he does. Is that too low a bar? Perhaps, but that's an issue to take up there. The "Four Days' Wonder" article you linked to is different, since there isn't even a complete sentence. 02blythed created articles that had what little information he had from the one source that he cited, and included an infobox and a reference. Again, I'm just not seeing the problem people are trying to solve with the mass deletions or moving to draft space. Neil916 (Talk) 18:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's disruptive, as he's been told time and time again not to do this, but continued, even after been given guidance on what to include for a basic stub. The very diff you link to here for Aamer Butt (cricketer) doesn't really help the reader. Key terms are not linked/explained (Faisalabad, List A cricket, etc) and other words are linked to the wrong thing (he never played for the "Pakistan cricket team"). And finally, there is just one category. Is this person alive, example? If you still can't see the problem, then fine, but for someone who has been here for more than 11 years that is very worrying. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I second Lugnuts's comments. Article age is not a valid rationale for keeping junk in the mainspace. You say you would support modifications to WP:ATHLETE, presumably ones which would support this proposal, but per WP:IAR I'm sure it's clear that the creation of these articles goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and is a mere exploitation of the letter of the law. DrStrauss talk 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

[ec] I looked at his talk page to try to find where he has been told time and time again to not do this, and this matter appears to have been previously discussed at length at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_81#New_articles_by_User:02blythed. After scanning that, I didn't go back and finish looking through the user's talk page, but I'm still opposed to moving these articles to draft space. Neil916 (Talk) 19:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

DrStrauss, a few notes about your comment. To clarify, I don't remember saying that the age of an article should be a reason to keep it around. I said that the articles should be kept around because they're about subjects that the community has decided are notable enough. Second, these articles aren't "junk", unlike the example given by Lugnuts above with the "Four Days' Wonder" article. They're very short, and some of them may contain grammatical or typographical errors. Those aren't reasons to delete, or "pseudo-delete" by moving into draft space. Sometimes articles about topics that not many editors are interested in sit around as a stub for years. Then someone comes along and makes it more useful. Sometimes not. Still not a valid reason for deletion. I would likely support a change to WP:ATHLETE, probably along the lines of "one professional match in a sport's highest level in a country" is a standard that is too low, but I'd want to see that discussion before cementing my opinion. Some sports have very few matches in a year, so one match is notable enough (think Olympics). But trying to use that as a reason to apply IAR is, in my opinion, the exact opposite of the situation where IAR should be used.

As an additional note, it might be worthwhile to invite the participants of the Cricket Wikiproject for their input, since it appears from my link above that they addressed it a few months ago. Neil916 (Talk) 20:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

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

• Post-close procedural comment: I'm currently sifting through them with AWB. I'll provide another update after draftification. DrStrauss talk 08:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Done all - speaking with WP:CRIC now. DrStrauss talk 13:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Note, User:DrStrauss has draftified a number of sourced articles not created by by User:02blythed.[39][40][41] Hack (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hack: and as discussed at WT:CRIC, those were either erroneous or have now been improved so that they can be moved back to the mainspace. DrStrauss talk 15:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Move review backlog

We have a substantial backlog now at Wikipedia:Move review so I would ask for an admin to help clear it up. It's kind of disheartening to have unresolved issues there lurking so long (and a couple are rather pressing). Thanks in advance. No such user (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I've done a couple of the oldest ones but I'm out of time now. I'll try to get back to it later today. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

And another. The only stale one left only had four participants - and part of the complaint about the original RM was that it had only three participants. I've commented; if others could also take a look, that'd be grand. GoldenRing (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting closure review

Would an administrator please review the closure of Talk:Westworld (TV series)#RfC on Potential Spoilers, which ended in "no consensus" after only 6 days and while the discussion was still ongoing? The issue concerns the interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and if the issue remains open without a clear answer, it is very likely that the content dispute will perpetuate. -- Radiphus 12:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm on mobile but this isn't a great close. It's by the person who started the RfC very early on and after he participated via comments. If I were at my computer, I'd overturn it in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, discussion was not ongoing and had stalled for three days. Despite all the commentary about concerns with interpreting Wikipedia guidelines, you have yet to point out exactly which guideline I misinterpreted. This is important because I advised everyone to adhere to policy as it stood since there was no consensus. There hasn't been consensus in the multiple discussions:

• Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 1#Notes concerning spoilers in the cast list November 2016
• Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 1#unbelievable. November 2016 to February 2017
• Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 1#Spoiler policy reminder December 2016 to February 2017
• Talk:Westworld (TV series)#Edit to clean up character bios December 2016 to August 2017
• Talk:Westworld (TV series)#Bernard Low being a host, is not a spoiler. March 2017 to August 2017
• Talk:Westworld (TV series)#Bernard is NOT a Host and it shouldn't be in the Cast section August 2017
• Talk:Westworld (TV series)#RfC on Potential Spoilers August 2017

So what I advised others to do was to take it in a case-by-case basis as policy does not (and cannot) speak to each and every case of spoiler-type information that may come up. This had already begun on the page (by none other than you) and I felt that was a more appropriate avenue to reaching an amicable consensus than a general RfC. @BU Rob13: I was not involved in the discussion before or after. Also, see WP:CLOSE and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review. You actually need a reason to close other than "I am an admin." Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have reverted the closure. While it is recommended that this be brought to AN on WP:CLOSE, there is no explicit prohibition against a non-admin reopening, and while reopening of deletion discussions is left to an uninvolved admin at WP:BADNAC, this is not a deletion discussion, and the closure was clearly inappropriate given that the editor both opened and participated in the discusison. TimothyJosephWood 13:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, I opened the RfC as a neutral third party and made a comment as a devil's advocate. I expressed no opinion. So please stop being disruptive. Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You opened and participated in the RfC. You should therefore not close it. That's basically the end of the discussion. TimothyJosephWood 13:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, I was not involved. Second, no where does it say the RfC cannot be closed by the opener, especially since I had no dog in the fight to begin with. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You opened and participated in the discussion. This makes you involved. This is not a particularly difficult concept. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Still waiting for you to point me to which policy was violated. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Nihlus Kryik is now edit-warring to restore his clearly inappropriate close of his own RFC. Nihlus, please stop; you can't close your own RfC, and an active RfC should run for the full 30 days. After 30 days, let someone completely uninvolved, preferably an admin, close it. Softlavender (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • And you are misusing your rollback. Also, I did not edit war as I made two reverts. But thanks for the false report. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I had wished that if someone reverted my close they would do so because my reasoning was not accurate, not because they wish to get involved themselves (WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA) and revert on ridiculous procedural grounds like this is a courtroom or something. Anyway, have at it. I'm done with this conversation. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:RFCEND. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Please look

Would some admin look into [42] and try to figure out what the article talk page creations and content additions are. Joke or something else? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like they were hoaxes. The talk pages I deleted as G8, other edits were reverted and have warned the IP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ryathoma

This is for administrative attention, possibly no action being required. User:Ryathoma has been persistently creating sub-stub articles on Columbia Pictures movies from the 1920s and 1930s, containing no information other than the name and date of the film. He has been repeatedly warned, and was twice blocked, first for two days, then for seven days, by administrator User:Bongwarrior. Some of the stubs were nominated for deletion, and consensus was that they can be retained if they are expanded minimally (e.g., a reference and naming the star) or moved to draft space. I have moved some of them to draft space now that he came off block briefly. He has now been indeffed by Bongwarrior. I don't think that any action is required, but am posting here for information. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone is trying to improve the encyclopedia by adding content contributions and your response, instead of welcoming a newbie and explaining how the system works here, to warn and block? For creating substubs? I'm glad you posted it here so maybe we can have a community conversation about why our community is shrinking and why people don't think contributing here sounds like a fun activity. Andrevan@ 05:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

First, I assume that User:Andrevan knows that I am only the messenger and one of the members of the cleanup crew without a mop. His talk page will show that various editors spent considerable time trying to discuss his stubs with him. He has never replied on talk pages. We have tried reasoning with him. I agree that he was trying to improve the encyclopedia by adding content. I think that he wasn't improving the encyclopedia with his sub-stubs. I agree that it is worth discussing what to do about eccentric editors who are obviously trying to help and are not helping. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with The McClenon here. The editor in question has been here nearly three weeks, has a talk page with about 40~50 non-automated messages on it, and in their time here has made zero edits to Talk space and zero to User talk. That is not an editor behaving in a collaborative manner, and there is only so much aid you can give those who do not wish to let themselves be aided. It's pretty poor, actually, to accuse other editors of contributing to a (so-called) failure of editor retention when in fact it would seem that numerous editors have devoted time and energy (our two most precious resouces, etc.) to trying to keep the editor on-board. — fortunavelut luna 13:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And the user is now blocked. If they respond the block and understand why they were blocked (and promise not to continue and improve their creations) then there's no issue. Or maybe Andrevan has helped talking to the user, explaining the concerns and has fleshed out a stub to show them what to do? But I'm guessing that hasn't happened. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Lugnuts, there was an unfortunate sense of inevitability about that. Curiously- and purely a technical matter- the log, etc., shows them as being blocked about 04:40 this morning- but I'm sure they weren't blocked when I posted a few hours ago! Otherwise, my comment would have been pretty different I guess. Odd! — fortunavelut luna 17:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Someone might want to try emailing them (if possible) - after running a training session with two people recently who had been editing wikipedia for weeks, and had zero clue on what a usertalk page was, how to find it, or that anyone might contact them on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Add the Logged in Protection level

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

---

Create Logged-in Protection level (), which only allows any registered user to edit. Newly-registered users will be able to edit pages with this level. If there is high vandalism from IPs, use logged-in protection. If there is severe vandalism from IPs and any high vandalism from new users, use semi-protection. However, users can request it if the vandalism came from IPs. Please do it. 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:B4 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC) It will use the "Edit=Require registered editor access". 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:C5 (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not likely to be of much use, as it takes less than a minute to create an account. However, even if it was a good idea, this would be the wrong place - try at the Village Pump/Proposals page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I've already asked in the right page. 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:C5 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for uninvolved admin participation

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

---

This request is also contained in the above discussion under this link (currently section 5.13). Purgy (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The thread above "Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata" has been open for about 2 weeks, and seems not to be heading towards any kind of resolution between the disputants. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at it and take whatever action they deem is appropriate? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Update and discussion about the new User Mute features

Hello Wikipedians,

The Anti-harassment Tools team invites you to check out new User Mute features under development and to give us feedback. Join our discussion here about uses and potential improvements.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed this by chance, but feel a very strong urge to warn against a notorious and resilient behaviour of these "Anti-Harrassment" activists, hiding behind the positively connoted term health, to "mute" any opinion they perceive as possible endangering their claims to maximize power for their agenda and conceivabilities. Even when being twice(!) in top-ranked position (by community!), my contributions were muted by the top-level agents of this Anti-xyz.

En.WP with all its fights of bureaucrats against productive editors (in both directons!) is a highly welcoming place, compared to these ganged up social justice warriors, striving for their ultimate vulnerability to achieve ultimate lordship. Purgy (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Most odd. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand that comment at all, either, and I add my own "huh?" and "most odd". I do see a certain potential for this "feature" to become a new source of petty bickering over "who muted who, and how would I know that if I wasn't informed?" though. Also, if a genuinely harassed user might, in future be told to "just mute them" instead of having possibly valid concerns dealt with properly, then that would not be a good thing. -- Begoon 09:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Attempted translation of the "huh" comment: "While enwiki is often a drama cesspit, it is a much better environment compared to meta, mediawiki, phabricator, ... where an incrowd of WMF employees and hangers-on creates a fake "safe space" where they effectively mute every dissenting voice or potentially upsetting opinion on spurious grounds; and this new tool is the first step in their attempt to push their vision and dictatorship on enwiki as well". While some people at meta and phabicator and the like display this behaviour, it seems quite a stretch to paint them all with the same brush and to dismiss this tool immediately for that reason (although I can't see me ever using it and it has clear problems). There are some highly problematic (WMF)-labeled editors, but there are highly friendly and helpful ones as well. Fram (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

In that context I "understand" the comment a little better. Thanks for explaining that. I remain concerned about the "clear problems", a couple of which I mentioned. Seems to me there might be other issues I missed, too - I haven't read everything deeply yet, and may comment further once I have. -- Begoon 09:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Begoon: That is a good point. Please add it here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Done: [43] -- Begoon 10:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry for having created so many "huh"s and even "most odd"s, but I did not want to bore you more with details of me encountering WMF-officials and of how they treat statements, which do not fit in their -meanwhile quite durable and dangerously rolling- bubble, even when those statements are acclaimed by a seizable majority. Fram coined this in his translation quite to the point, which lets me breathe again, for having seen someone, who is not only able, but also shows his willingness, to understand my quirky writings. BTW, I do share his appreciation -expressed in the second part of his comment- of some selected guys, here and there and everywhere, and also, BTW, I do not want to object to you suggesting improvements to a project with a roll out in a few days. Purgy (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder how many instances of people seeing a bubble are actually people seeing others ... outside of a bubble of their own. Or maybe they received blow-back for having a poorly thought out opinion. That's only working off my personal experience, which probably is not representative at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal - drafts now deleted

Hi all,

A load of lists were moved to draftspace per the outcome of this MfD (this isn't about that outcome, but I agree with it). The drafts have been in draftspace there since January and were recently tagged and deleted G13 (again, not really about that, and technically a correct tag n' delete).

Someone on IRC asked me to restore these (~200+) drafts as they state these lists are in active use for Wiki Loves Monuments. I began restoring some, then realised that these were valid deletions/tags and I didn't want to step on any toes. I'd appreciate some input on if these should be mass restored per Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13

Pinging and notifying Anthony Bradbury (who deleted the drafts - again, would like to stress these were good deletes in my book) and Legacypac (who tagged them - again, good tags) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I brought this issue up on IRC earlier, and was referred here. These lists are in use for (among others) Wiki Loves Monuments, which is due to start in 2 days in Nepal. A (very) rapid solution would be appreciated - you can probably imagine that this is especially untimely.

Already the move to draft was quite inconvenient (see among others phabricator:T173726), but I understand that apparently these articles belong in the main namespace. Which is fine, but in the discussion linked the opinions were quite all over the place, which made it hard to act upon. That resulted eventually in moving to the draft namespace, without any warning that this would be deleted after six months if not moved after that. It sounded like a semi-permanent solution. For now, the best seems to be to asap restore the pages, so that the infrastructure is at least back, and then ask the local project team to write an introduction, and add the reference that exists in the central list article also to the district lists. There'sNoTime: your username is very appliccable here :) effeietsanders 12:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support (and could help with) restoring the lists in the draft space. As soon as they get sourced, they can even be moved to the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Do you have any suggestions on how to automate the restoration of these drafts? (if and when it happens) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, not really. I am afraid we need to do it by hand (which, again, I will be willing to participate in). I assume there is a list somewhere or the main page which links to all other pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Drat.. Draft:List of Monuments in Kosi Zone (and its list) is what I restored before opening this discussion. The red links on the template link to each list. I'm sure a list could be generated -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

We do not ebven need this, the zone article pages (which are linked to in the template) are most likely just lists which contain links to real lists. 200 is easily doable as soon as we are sure there is no resistance to the plan (in which case I can take an ownership of the drafts).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This search may also be helpful -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please also restore the talkpages :) I don't know what's on them... but it may or may not be relevant. effeietsanders 13:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: G13 explicitly allows undeletion at REFUND. That's really all that needs to be said here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I am starting undeletion--Ymblanter (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to get some second and third opinions, but you're quite right -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with the result of that MfD. Those lists had a purpose, and they belong in a wikiproject, where editors slowly collaborate. They do not belong in DraftSpace, which is a short term scratch space for things no one cares about, where nobody will find them and do anything with them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with SmokeyJoe with the proviso that they should be in article space once the main problem with the lists are fixed. I have pinged the original author on commons and am still awaiting a reply. Once some information was forthcoming I would have done the WP:Refund myself. He seems currently to be involved with WLM only in an offwiki way, so once the lists are back in draftspace I will try to contact him offwiki. Any non admin related banter should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites#Nepal Agathoclea (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• • • @SmokeyJoe and Agathoclea: The place to disagree with MFD discussions is WP:DRV. I see that both of you contributed to that MFD so to complain 7 months later that the MFD was invalid seems to be in poor taste. Hasteur (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• Have the pages been restored yet? I'm happy to lend a hand doing so. It also strikes me that while draft space may be a slightly awkward fit, they are appropriate for the Wikipedia namespace. The main priority should be restoring the pages, but moving them back to Wikipedia namespace should be considered. Nev1 (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently some of the lists have been deleted as R3 instead of G13. That appears an admin error, not a conscious decision. Agathoclea (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully a full list is at User:Mz7/monuments Agathoclea (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No - there are several different page creators. See my comments below. Legacypac (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that was where I looked first. I know it's not 100% accurate, but I ended up finding a half-dozen extras. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think I got the rest. und-batch, anyone ;) Primefac (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That looks useful, I might have to spend some time getting to used to Twinkle for future use. Nev1 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• I think these restored drafts again qualify for immediate WP:G13 deletion under the newly revamped G13 definition (" not been edited (excluding bot edits and maintenance actions such as tagging) in over six months"}. But then no one would be disruptive, would they? Thincat (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  If a certain G13-tag-happy individual starts re-nominating these pages, then they're clearly not paying attention to anything. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  The point of WP:REFUND is to restore pages that they may (with the inference being quite quickly) be worked on, either in userspace or draftspace. If the articles were refunded to draftspace and no one touched them for a month 6 months (correction per below), anyone would be justified in re-tagging them. If they were refunded elsewhere (userspace) its likely no one would notice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Thincat: Under the plain text term and general practice if a REFUND has taken place that immediately disqualifies a page from G13 for at least 6 months (reset the clock). Some editors think that a REFUND isn't disqualifying nor is other editor initiated actions (like nominating for MFD). I hold myself personally to the higher standard of 6 months unedited really means 6 months unedited (not looking at who or what made the change). Hasteur (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I tagged G13 tagged nearly all of them because I found the linked Deletion discussion and because some of them were amoung the very oldest pages in Draft space. Not a one had a single reference so I coukd hardly suggest promotion. Two good ways to see if you got them all - there was a master page that linked to Regional pages that linked to local area pages. It was one of the first I CSD'd. Second way is to sort the Muzicbot Stale Draft report by name because they all start with List of ... My User:Legacypac/CSD_log is an incomplete record as it was edit conflicting until I archived.

In fairness to the deletion discussion participants, no one knew G13 was coming months later. Not really sure why the people in Nepal have created unreferenced incomplete and in many cases 'lists of one item' pages over at least 3 successive years and appearently abandoned them all. Rather than carrying on this way they should finish and publish something.

@User:Thincat where did you get the idea anyone would re-G13 a restored page immediately. That would be very circular. I've only done that purely by accident once that I know of and only because it popped up on the Stale Draft report. I try to watch the REFUND list for problematic pages and I've sent a couple REFUNDed pages to MfD for various reasons like spam.

Anyway, sorry for accidentally creating work on pages that truly looked abandoned. I hope the Nepal people can bring them to publishing standard or remove them once no longe needed. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If these pages are requested for Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments, then would it possibly be a good idea to move these pages ato be subpages of that page? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a good suggestion, perhaps when the event is over (it is imminent, I think?). For what it's worth, I think everybody has acted in good faith here and it has been a peculiar set of circumstances that led to these pages being deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites#Nepal but due to the issues raised at phabricator:T173726 that should happen after WLM. Ideally we can use the next 6 month to resolve the issues anyway and make just one single move to article space. Agathoclea (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we have a way to ensure that the lists will be be moved in one go, and not one by one? Agathoclea (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Let us do it step by step. Now there is prematurely to move them (sources were added to one list during the night, but others are still unsourced).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That is what I mean. Even though one list might be ready it should not be moved until all are ready. My question would be if there is a way to notify the draft patrolers. Agathoclea (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders: There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 27#Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2014 Nepal and I can foresee that a similar discussion might start for the WLM categories. Would this present a problem? Also note that the first draft has been moved to mainspace, breaking the pack. Agathoclea (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editors at Hurricane Harvey

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

---

The article, which is a current event has a small section on environmental factors/climate connections, sourced from the ongoing coverage in reliable sources, and this section was edited by multiple users such as me, Dave souza (talk · contribs), DSmurf (talk · contribs), DSmurf (talk · contribs), Maltrópa (talk · contribs), William M. Connolley (talk · contribs). Additional Nigelj (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs) and several others took part on the related talk page discussions. However, yesterday, on the talk page discussions started in regards to notability, which was established - see Event attribution. Besides clear notability (literally all the mainstream news run stories with Harvey and climate), editor Jdcomix (talk · contribs) and MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) removed the entire section, arguing the content was fringe. In response I started a sort of consensus finding vote for inclusion, which was established.

However, today editor Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) and Guy Macon (talk · contribs) argue the section does not meet notability, here, here and here - adding (and re-adding) NPOV-UNDUE tag into article space. Additional, Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) rewrote section content and inserted weasel words (is opinion, removal of key words like attribution). Asked on the talk page what the problem exactly is, he claims, quote I respectfully disagree as this is a political issue, and is citing FOX News as a source for his claims. Other users, and above mentioned admins tried to reason with the editors in the mentioned talk page topics, ie. is not fringe or undue. All four users Jdcomix (talk · contribs), MarioProtIV (talk · contribs), Guy Macon (talk · contribs), and Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) were notified on their talk page that the topic of climate change involves arbcom discretionary sanctions. Because this is a current developing event article, and because editors were warned, I suggest to article ban these users for a week. prokaryotes (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I will wait for other editors to weigh in but I feel that WP:BOOMERANG and not assuming good faith should be addressed. This user has broken WP:1RR (If it applies) for the article in addition to refusing to mention my edit summaries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• Since I feel obligated to respond to this, firstly, WP:AGF needs to be applied from everyone here. There's an element of WP:BOOMERANG as well, as Knowledgekid pointed out, though I don't feel the need to expand on it any further. I wasn't the one who added in the undue tags, I didn't do anything else regarding that section of the article after the debate on the talk page, neither did MarioProtIV. Jdcomix (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For reference, JDcomix edit Take to talk, bordering on WP:FRINGE prokaryotes (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This was **before** I participated in the talk page discussion. I said that after I participated in the discussion, no further edits were made to the climate change section. Jdcomix (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I added an undue tag but it had nothing to do with the inclusion of the other material. I made a suggestion on the talk-page before taking any action in regards to expanding the section with balanced coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• You don't need to defend yourself, I wasn't attacking you. :) Jdcomix (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I know, it was an offshoot thought. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Of these I have only dealt with Guy Macon, and my input has been minimal, but enough to be profoundly displeased with their way of editing--more bull in a china shop than collaboration. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies: for what it's worth, that has not been my experience. (And yes, you are a great editor, worthy of the Drmies barnstar!) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna comment here and say I pretty much have the same say as @Jdcomix:, since I only did one edit regarding the "fringe" claim, and did nothing afterwards. I just felt the climate change stuff was a bit borderline on undue weight/fringe so that's why I did that. And honestly, article banning is unnecessary because as far as I know, Jd, Knowledge, me and Guy all are great editors and they've honestly haven't done anything else wrong AFAIK (WP:AGF basically). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I can't speak for all the others, but ain't I a great editor? Drmies (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. *Hands editor of the minute award* - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Crosslink to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_this_something_ANI_can_handle.2C_or_should_I_go_straight_to_AE.3F for them what care Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any conduct to warrant blocks bans. There is a dispute over the content and that is being resolved or ought be resolved in the normal course of editing and by discussion on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem, is if the editor is not taking part in the normal course/discussion (and as outlined above) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Harvey#NPOV_tag ps. suggested was a wee long article ban. prokaryotes (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Im not sure how I even got dragged into this mess. I saw the NPOV tag on the article and chose to move it to the disputed section [44] where I was abruptly reverted by Prokaryotes [45]. He then removed the tag while I took the issue to the talk-page where he asked "what problem". [46][47]. Assuming the issue had been resolved I went about fixing up the section where I was reverted again... [48]. I reverted back asking to take the issue to the talk-page (which he never did) and cited WP:BABY in fixing the assumed issue: [49][50]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what is the problem with the section? prokaryotes (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hold on, you didn't ask that. You removed the NPOV tag from the top of the page while I was asking what specific problem the article had. Slapping an NPOV tag at the top of an article makes things too broad. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You wrote, Having the tag at the top of the article does little to address the specific problem. So I ask you now, what is the specific problem, and while at it, why inject words like opinion? And also reply to this at the talk page, so I can respond to you over there, to resolve the issue. prokaryotes (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not clear. You undid my edit where I moved the NPOV tag from the top of the article to the section about climate change. I was asking you why you did that? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I already sumed up the edits on your talk page .. unresponsive at your own talk page section, adding uncalled notifications, adding weasel - misleading language into content prokaryotes (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. The addition of weasel wording can always be fixed and is a separate issue from the NPOV tag. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• (Oops, I should have said 'ban' and not 'blocks'. :) ) Can you talk over the NPOV issues on the talk page and reach consensus? Is that happening? The placement of the tag is a lesser concern really. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the NPOV issue has been resolved as Prokaryotes removed the tag, I don't know what more is to be done here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For reference Knowledgekid87 added a NPOV here (still part of the article, and is not responding to questions why he added it) Undue weight tag added, I will be taking the issue to the talkpage. prokaryotes (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I addressed this separate issue above in saying I am looking for more balanced opinions by expanding the section. Anyways I have to go offline now I wish you well but I can say I am a bit upset that you wouldn't WP:AGF. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If you do not respond to my questions here, or at the section you have created to discuss specifically NPOV, not citing any reason for tagging, then it is hard to assume AGF. Science is not about opinions, hence your reasoning on this particular topic is flawed, and ignoring questions can be perceived as rude. prokaryotes (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Convenience break for section editing

I do not see any possible path to agreement with, for example, Prokaryotes. I want to follow the best available source (the Draft National Climate Assessment, section 9.2) that clearly says:

"Detection and attribution of past changes in tropical cyclone (TC) behavior remain a challenge ... there is still low confidence that any reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) increases in TC are robust... This is not meant to imply that no such increases in TC activity have occurred, but rather that the data are not of a high enough quality to determine this with much confidence. Furthermore, it has been argued that within the period of highest data quality (since around 1980) the globally observed changes in the environment would not necessarily support a detectable trend of tropical cyclone intensity (Kossin et al. 2013). That is, the trend signal has not had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes."[51]

Prokaryotes insists on removing any content that reflects the above source. He also rejects the EPA as a source, which came to the same conclusion:

The total number of hurricanes and the number reaching the United States do not indicate a clear overall trend since 1878" and "changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know whether tropical storm activity has actually shown an increase over time." [52]

A content dispute becomes a matter for AN when an editor refuses to accept a reliable source or to present a reasonable argument other that "I don't like it" for rejecting the source. I believe that this is the case here. It isn't NPOV to reject the best available sources because of ideology. Normally we see these sources being rejected by the "it's all a huge fraud" fringe theorists. but here we see the same sources rejected by "everything bad is cause by global warming" fringe theorists. The mainstream scientific view is that science does not know the answer to this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The NCS certainly a solid source, but concluding based on one cited study from 2013 presents today's mainstream view seems like too much emphasis to me. Anyway, i didn't saw any RS bring this particular study result up during the Harvey coverage. prokaryotes (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have so far provided the following sources (see Talk:Hurricane Harvey#National Climate Assessment):

• The New York times
• The United States Environmental Protection Agency
• The Draft National Climate Assessment
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
• Nature Geoscience
• Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science

How many citations to reliable sources will it take? A hundred? A thousand? I have yet to see a single argument saying that any of the sources I am citing are unreliable.

In my opinion, Prokaryotes should be topic-banned from the area of climate change for refusing to follow the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Climate change as a topic is under Discretionary Sanctions; an uninvolved admin should probably formally place the DS warning on the Hurricane Harvey talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  I went ahead and tagged the talk page. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  Someone explain to me how the New York Times is a reliable source for climatology? What scholars in the field rely on its assessments? As initial news reports in a disaster are routinely wrong, we should trust its initial reports in nothing, unless in the future when we have a bit saying "Initial reports concluded X, but officials a month later concluded Y". Only solid scientific and major governmental sources, like NOAA, the EPA, or this Oxford encyclopedia, should be used in this situation. Moreover, scientific studies of climate change in general have no business being presented in this specific article; it would be overkill to put such a thing in every single article on recent tropical storms, and there's no reason to put such content in this article without putting it into Tropical Storm Patty (2012) as well, while anything beyond general stuff from general sources is WP:SYNTH. Put general stuff into articles on the subject of climate change and tropical storms; the only way we should have climate-change-related coverage in an individual storm article is if some of these climatologists study the relationship between climate change and the specific storm covered by the article. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times' is generally considered a reliable source because it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:RS) This doesn't mean that the reporters who write articles for the Times on climate change are themselves experts, but it does mean that they are expected to consult with experts and accurately report what they say, and the newspaper is expected to fact check their writing before publication, or publish corrections if errors are discovered after the fact. That is what makes The New York Times a reliable source for climatology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally for climate articles the standard is peer reviewed study. The scientists which are quoted in NYT, WAPO, The Guardian etc, during an event like Harvey coverage, are usually authors of the most reputable, most cited peer reviewed studies. prokaryotes (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. A column by one of these scientists, not being peer-reviewed, is less than ideal, and a column by someone with nothing more than a journalism degree is much worse: we can't trust a guy with a BA in journalism to give a full and comprehensive treatment of the non-peer-reviewed statement, placing it in precisely the context meant by the statement's author. One problem with the climatologist's non-peer-reviewed statement is that it's given without a sense of chronology: it's a solid guess and probably better than any other guesses at the moment, but anything such a person's saying right now is based on far less than a full review of data. Wait until the studies have gone through peer review, or go write a news article, not an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, the stuff written about, went already through peer-review, is published. prokaryotes (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'll say what I've said elsewhere: every non-trivial hurricane that comes through is going to be the subject of "can it be blamed on climate change" clickbait speculation. What the TS people say about this is a matter of record, which Guy has presented: they don't know, and in any case, it's just one storm. This sort of thing has become routine coverage: it's going to happen every time there is a big or unusual storm, and there aren't going to be similar stories when the storms are weak or few in number or wander around terrorizing shipping but not making landfall. Harvey is unusual in that coming up to land and stopping like it did is very rare behavior, but is climate change responsible for that? The problem here is a typical WP issue: whenever something makes the news, there is a tendency to try to cram all the "is this a manifestation of current hot issue?" news articles in. For an encyclopedia, there needs to be some retrospective distance; when scientific papers come out some years from now analyzing Harvey as part of a pattern, then there will be substance, but right now, there isn't. Mangoe (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• FFS, this has been going on all day. Someone put together an RfC or something, or do something somewhere other than here. TimothyJosephWood 00:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This thread should be closed, this is the wrong place for a content dispute discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Disclosure and request for consideration

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

---

When I signed up for a Wikipedia account a few months ago, I barely remembered any of the following at first, and I was only intending to make a handful of edits anyway, so I did not expect this to be of any consequence. But I quickly became sucked back in and ended up becoming an active editor in a matter of days. Even after I began to fully recall the following information, I at first thought it to be of no consequence as I hadn't touched the "edit" button in six and a half years. And besides, my editing pattern is so radically different now than it was before that it would be extremely unlikely that anyone would ever tie me to my previous period of activity on Wikipedia. However, this has been really bothering me the past few days, and I'm feeling that it would be deceptive and dishonest to withhold this information any longer, so I am presenting the following information to allow the Wikipedia community to make a judgement:

Seven years ago in 2010, I edited as User:Access Denied, and after a horrendously disruptive sockpuppetry-fueled vandalism spree in December 2010 and January 2011 I became subject to a community ban, which I deserved 100%. I sincerely apologize to the Wikipedia community for the disruption I created and for everyone whose time I wasted forcing them to clean up after my juvenile mess.

My case for why I should be allowed to return is this: the standard offer for banned editors requires them to stay away for six months; I had been away for over six years before I created this account late last month. I have matured greatly in the past six years and no longer have any inclination whatsoever to repeat any of the behaviors that led to my (fully deserved) community ban. I am truly, wholeheartedly sorry for the harm I caused Wikipedia and I believe that my edits over the past month show that I am now here to build an encyclopedia, which I was definitely not here to do six years ago.

I would be very pleased if the community is willing to allow me back, even with conditions; however, I fully understand if that will not be the case. I will not edit any page other than this one until the community has decided on a course of action.

Thank you, CJK09 (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Lift ban, no conditions. I do actually remember User:Access Denied, and it was indeed a bad episode Oh, no, I've already forgotten ;-). But six years is a long time, and the confession for what does seem like something nobody would have ever noticed counts well with me. Taking a quick look at a few recent edits, I don't see any problems - I haven't done any close inspection, but I'm seeing what looks like properly sourced additions, collegial interactions with others, etc. Unless someone can find anything seriously wrong, I'd say welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Per Zebedee This is a healthy record, with the worse thing apparent being a sloppiness in the use of edit-summaries :p As BsZ says, after seven years and the unliklihood that we would have ever found them out, I suggest that all bets are, as they say, off. Any issues that do arise would be dealt with in the usual fashion. — fortunavelut luna 11:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - if AD had requested, by email, to be permitted to return after 6 years, there's a decent chance we would have allowed it while keeping a close eye on him/her. Given that (s)he created an account, used it for a month without causing suspicion, and then came forward and admitted it could only make things better - and I certainly believe that (s)he genuinely forgot the episode. The user had everything to loose, and nothing to gain except for his/her own feeling of doing the right thing, by admittting tis, and souldn't be penalized for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support As the editor in this form clearly shows, they ARE here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for acknowledging your previous ban in the past and I would feel comfortable in lifting it at this point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, regardless of whether they forgot the episode. Κσυπ Cyp   12:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support given their honesty and being forthright enough to come forward, let bygones be bygones. Blackmane (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per request. People can grow up. Editor could have continued editing an probably no one would have noticed. Editor is now clearly WP:HERE Access Denied who? Welcome, CJK09! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I find reformed vandals genuinely puzzling, and even more puzzling when they become excellent contributors, but it can and does happen, and this seems to be one of those cases. Softlavender (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support No user who is banned cannot be unbanned and this seems one of those cases where it is right to lift the ban. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Let the clouds disappear. Alex Shih^Talk 14:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per B!sZ and others. We all make mistakes. Miniapolis 22:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. -FASTILY 00:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per B!sZ. Regardless of what the user did six years ago, their contributions here under this account seem to be productive. 1000 edits in a month without any problems I can find suggests someone who is now a net positive for the encyclopedia. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Need help

Resolved

 – Someone took care of it. --Izno (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have Administrators create an wikidata item for the article "Dedicated Music Award" and link this article to Giải thưởng Âm nhạc Cống hiến in viwiki. Thank you very much! Mintu Martin (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone needed to look into bizarre IP behavior...

Can someone with some more time than me look into 61.6.172.206 (talk · contribs) and 82.19.95.171 (talk · contribs). The first is making edits to various articles about media networks, while the second follows on and reverts it a few minutes later. I am busy IRL or would look more into it. --Jayron32 16:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

ECP of Kappa Alpha Order

I note that Kappa Alpha Order has been extended-confirmed protected by Plastikspork. This page hadn't been semied for a while. I think the action was intended to prevent a recurrence of the edits by an auto-confirmed editor on 15th of August. A warning would appear to be more appropriate, and, if problems persisted, a block.

Perhaps I have missed something, so I thought I thought I would bring it up here.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with Plastikspork before coming here? His talk page should be your first port of call. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I have tagged him in the post above. His user page says he is semi retired. Despite this, I probably would have gone to the protecting admin's talk page first for other forms of protection. But I thought the point of logging each instance of ECP at AN was so that it can be discussed at AN. Yaris678 (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking for attribution of a translation copied from Wikipedia

s:For Freedom and Truth was copied from For Freedom and Truth on 2006-10-22. There is no attribution of the translator on Wikisource. Is there any attribution of the translator in the deleted edits of For Freedom and Truth? Or is it an original translation by Wikipedia editors? Any assistance will be appreciated. Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

(diff) 23:56, 10 November 2006 . . Newmanbe (talk | contribs | block) (309 bytes) ({{ subst:prod|Source material that is not acceptable on the English Wikisource (Unknown Translator)}}) Agathoclea (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, it came from the book: Bibo, Istvan (1991). Democracy, Revolution, Self-Determination. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. pp. 325-327. ISBN 0-88033-214-X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The edit I found first was reverted due to the apparent copyvio Agathoclea (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit confusing. There's a bit of a debate about whether it was suitable for wikisource on the deleted talk page. The text in English appeared to have been copied from the book and was thus a breach of the translator's copyright rather than the text in the original language being put on the appropriate wikisource and then translated into English with GFDL permissions. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)