Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314) (bot |
Grandpallama (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 681: | Line 681: | ||
:{{ping|Willbb234}} I get your frustration and do agree given the number of copyright problems this editor has had, and their lack of any communication or indication they understand it's not unreasonable to indef them at least requiring some acknowledgement before they are unblocked and allowed to edit here. At the same time, I can also understand the PoV who feel it's best just to wait. The recent copyright problems this editor has caused seem to be minor even if frequent. From what I see, while they did so in June, it looks like they haven't recently added copyvio text from other places to articles which tends to be harder to detect and cleanup, and significant wasted editor time if it's only noticed after significant work. I see some mention of copyvio arising from copying within wikipedia. While I agree this is a significant concern and just recently mentioned the problems in another discussion, it's also sort of different from external copyvios since it can be fixed via proper attribution without needing to delete the text. It looks like their biggest problem is uploading images which they shouldn't be. They're not lying about the source or who own's the copyright of this image or otherwise being deceptive. So these copyvios seem easy to detect and cleanup. Further, while they got a lot of notices and some templates, it seems there has been limited direct discussion and some editors seem to be very poor at reading templated comments. The fact that they seem to be active in an area it's likely we don't cover so well probably also means people are have a greater wish that we turn the editor into a constructive one. So while I won't be objecting if this editor is blocked on what's already happened, I also don't think it's worth persisting in asking they are blocked without further misbehaviour. If they make another copyvio, whether images or copying within wikipedia, then ask again. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 01:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC) |
:{{ping|Willbb234}} I get your frustration and do agree given the number of copyright problems this editor has had, and their lack of any communication or indication they understand it's not unreasonable to indef them at least requiring some acknowledgement before they are unblocked and allowed to edit here. At the same time, I can also understand the PoV who feel it's best just to wait. The recent copyright problems this editor has caused seem to be minor even if frequent. From what I see, while they did so in June, it looks like they haven't recently added copyvio text from other places to articles which tends to be harder to detect and cleanup, and significant wasted editor time if it's only noticed after significant work. I see some mention of copyvio arising from copying within wikipedia. While I agree this is a significant concern and just recently mentioned the problems in another discussion, it's also sort of different from external copyvios since it can be fixed via proper attribution without needing to delete the text. It looks like their biggest problem is uploading images which they shouldn't be. They're not lying about the source or who own's the copyright of this image or otherwise being deceptive. So these copyvios seem easy to detect and cleanup. Further, while they got a lot of notices and some templates, it seems there has been limited direct discussion and some editors seem to be very poor at reading templated comments. The fact that they seem to be active in an area it's likely we don't cover so well probably also means people are have a greater wish that we turn the editor into a constructive one. So while I won't be objecting if this editor is blocked on what's already happened, I also don't think it's worth persisting in asking they are blocked without further misbehaviour. If they make another copyvio, whether images or copying within wikipedia, then ask again. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 01:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
:: On October 24th, he again copied and pasted unattributed text from another article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4th_Infantry_Division_(Thailand)&diff=922957286&oldid=922861084]. And despite being warned about it on the 21st, he continues marking all of his edits as "minor", including the one containing unattributed text [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4th_Infantry_Division_(Thailand)&diff=prev&oldid=922777837]. When he created the article on the 24th, it contained a maintenance template that dated to last May, which tells me it was probably deleted at some point and he recreated it without any of the issues being fixed. [[User:OrgoneBox|OrgoneBox]] ([[User talk:OrgoneBox|talk]]) 03:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC) |
:: On October 24th, he again copied and pasted unattributed text from another article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4th_Infantry_Division_(Thailand)&diff=922957286&oldid=922861084]. And despite being warned about it on the 21st, he continues marking all of his edits as "minor", including the one containing unattributed text [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4th_Infantry_Division_(Thailand)&diff=prev&oldid=922777837]. When he created the article on the 24th, it contained a maintenance template that dated to last May, which tells me it was probably deleted at some point and he recreated it without any of the issues being fixed. [[User:OrgoneBox|OrgoneBox]] ([[User talk:OrgoneBox|talk]]) 03:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::[[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]], the 10/24 copying and pasting looks like a pretty clear repetition of the behavior, post-warning. I don't know if I yet support a full-on block, but it looks like more than just a warning on the user's talkpage is now merited. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 14:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Unable to create wikipedia page for Umaria Sinhawansa == |
== Unable to create wikipedia page for Umaria Sinhawansa == |
||
Revision as of 14:29, 28 October 2019
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 40 | 2 | 42 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 52 | 30 | 82 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 7 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 11 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 128 sockpuppet investigations
- 44 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 5 Fully protected edit requests
- 3 Candidates for history merging
- 22 requests for RD1 redaction
- 110 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 34 requested closures
- 121 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 16 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata
- TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata
- Draft: Operational Chow ring history
- Copy-paste move to undo a move in good faith, causing more problems
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination)
- History of Draft:Microfunction
Again we have editor TakuyaMurata, who seems to believe that they are the only one qualified to edit a nest of Draft sub-stubs that have remained in the Draft Namespace for years with trivial edits designed to allow them to keep their empire of contepts (many of them post-graduate esoteric Mathematics concepts) that either need to see consistent improvement or have any of the Alternatives to deletion forcably enacted. Consider the history of Draft:Microfunction. A user nominates it for G13 on September 15th at 22:10 UTC, and Graeme Bartlett restores it from a WP:REFUND request, I notice it be restored. I look at the previous content and see that it was proposed by Taku to be merged to Algebraic analysis on March 10th 2019 (6 months before the September 15th G13). I presumed that since the page had sat for 6 months and there was no objection in Algebraic analysis that all the content that was presumably worth saving was already spliced over. I redirected citing the MFD and the Merge proposal. I specifically noted that the previous content is in the page history to allow others to grab content if it was missed. This is significantly important. Less than an hour later, Taku claims the MFD was a Keep yet the consensus is quite clear for Merge/Redirect. We go back and forth a few times arguing in edit comments and I decide to let it go. In a little under 25 hours after I first attempted to redirect, Taku merge/redirects it to the same target. This, in my mind screams "Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". The content and formatting previously in the page was still available, yet Taku demands that no page started by them can be changed unless it has their blessing. I specifically chose these ways of redirecting without a move so that the original page history remains so that they could extract content that might be useful.
So, because less strict sanctions have failed to work I therefore propose: TakuyaMurata is topic banned from undoing any action that in part or whole reverts a change done in good faith that promotes content from Draft namespace to Article namespace. Further TakuyaMurata is hereby limited to 1 successful WP:REFUND request for any individual Draft TakuyaMurata is strongly encouraged to take move all current Draft namespace mathematics stubs created by them to their User namespace to work on until they are ready for promotion to Article namespace.
I am attempting to get at the heart of the issue: Taku's stubs that sit around for years that get trivial improvements made to them to avoid the CSD:G13 sweep. Interested users who appear to still be active: Topic ban participants (Cryptic—Unscintillating—Alsee—power~enwiki—Premeditated_Chaos—Beyond_My_Ken—RileyBugz—Johnuniq—Ivanvector—Cullen328) Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination) MFD participants (Robert McClenon—SmokeyJoe—Hut 8.5—UnitedStatesian—Mark viking) Submitted: Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, I have reverted the disruptive edit to the draft page Draft:Microfunction that overrode the outcome of the MfD (which was merger). After revert, I had finished the merger and redirected the page to mainspace. I ask other editors: which is more disruptive? A constant attempt to override the community consensus and disrupt the ordinary content development? Or having math draft pages in the draft space? I personally view this topic ban request itself as a disruption and has been put forth in the dishonest manner (whence, my proposal for interaction ban below). Again what is the real disruption? as opposed to the perceived but unreal one. -- Taku (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- On closing the thread, it is a probably good idea to close the thread after #AfC and G13s is closed; since depending on the outcome of the latter, the problem behind this thread might become moot. —- Taku (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
- Ideally I'd like to count the 1 successful refund backwards, but I understand that may be problematic. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll let TakuyaMurata weigh in before I !vote, but I do feel like the proposal does a good job of addressing the issue while being minimally invasive. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have followed this User:TakuyaMurata & perpetual storage / refunds in draftspace for some years. Although I don't fully understand why Hasteur can't just ignore it all, I do agree that TakuyaMurata is using draftspace outside the ever intended scope of draftspace, and that he is perpetually perverse and obstinate about it his idiosyncratic use of draftspace.
- I would prefer the following:
User:TakuyaMurata is banned from page WP:OWNership in Draftspace. He is banned from creating pages in draftspace, or requesting pages WP:REFUNDed to draftspace. Instead, User:TakuyaMurata should use either his own userspace, or subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics subject to consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.
- --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: The gist of the issue is on how the draft is supposed to use. As can be seen from discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination), there is enough supporting voices that having draft pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages (many of them are not mine) in the draft space is not an issue as long as the drafts are getting completed and moved to mainspace, which they are. (I hope I'm ok to express my view on the draft space in this thread.) -- Taku (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Taku, get the pages you believe to have positive potential out of draftspace, and put them under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/....
Your views on draftspace are an underlying cause of this whole dispute. Put these views in a useressay, and in the meantime stop drafting in draftspace. Draftspace is for random drafts of unlikely potential that should be deleted if no Wikipedian takes ownership of them (either by userfying, moving to a WikiProject, or ideally, mainspacing them). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)- Please see below. -- Taku (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Banning Taku from using draftspace is completely consistent with his topic ban from even talking about draftspace. In fact, I think it is an necessary co-condition that was overlooked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're reading too much into it. If he'd been banned from draftspace, it would have been clearly delineated. It was not:
- "TakuyaMurata is indefinitely topic banned from any policy discussion regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed). He is further topic banned from discussing the applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed). He is further banned from participating in any MfD discussion for which there is a discussion of Draft namespace suitability (broadly construed)..."
- No where in that is he prohibited from using draftspace. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{No where in that is he prohibited from using draftspace}}. Exactly. A foolish oversight that has led directly to this perverse problem. There is no reason for him to use draftspace, and he is doing it in accordance with his mainstream-defying views of draftspace, which he is forbidden from explaining. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
TLDR: Taku was disrupting rule/policy/guideline/suggestion pages so a topic ban was proposed to restrict them from disrupting
As the one who penned the topic ban I'd like to provide some context. The reason why we only went for discussing suitability of pages in Draft namespace is because at the time Taku was making proposals making counter proposals, and edit warring on rule/policy/guideline pages to argue effectively that GSD:G13 is "optional", that WP:REFUND can be requested indefinitely, that the requirement for improvement is only a "suggestion", and that their entire future topic dump is not only allowed, but encouraged by the charter of Draft space. Making counter and retalitory proposals to attempt to get his critics sanctioned or banned (see proposed Interaction Ban below) only demonstrates that TakuyaMurata still does not get the message. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)- @SmokeyJoe: Please be civil. Calling such actions "foolish" or "perverse" is unnecessary and should be avoided. Buffs (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{No where in that is he prohibited from using draftspace}}. Exactly. A foolish oversight that has led directly to this perverse problem. There is no reason for him to use draftspace, and he is doing it in accordance with his mainstream-defying views of draftspace, which he is forbidden from explaining. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're reading too much into it. If he'd been banned from draftspace, it would have been clearly delineated. It was not:
- Banning Taku from using draftspace is completely consistent with his topic ban from even talking about draftspace. In fact, I think it is an necessary co-condition that was overlooked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please see below. -- Taku (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Taku, get the pages you believe to have positive potential out of draftspace, and put them under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/....
- @SmokeyJoe: The gist of the issue is on how the draft is supposed to use. As can be seen from discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination), there is enough supporting voices that having draft pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages (many of them are not mine) in the draft space is not an issue as long as the drafts are getting completed and moved to mainspace, which they are. (I hope I'm ok to express my view on the draft space in this thread.) -- Taku (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support the proposal by User:SmokeyJoe. It makes more sense to ban Taku from all use of draft space than to ban him from talking about it while he can still use it. The current situation makes no sense, but it is clear that Taku is using draftspace as a dustbin. It is also true that Hasteur, and another previous editor, have been going to absurd lengths to keep draft space clean, but there can be abuses both ways. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Query @TakuyaMurata: Why not move these to user space? Where is the harm there? Buffs (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: Because those drafts are not mine and it makes sense to put them at the place for drafts development. The harm would be putting them in the user page would give a wrong impression that they need to be treated differently than other math drafts in the draft space. — Taku (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- @TakuyaMurata: How would they be treated "differently"? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: For example, some might hesitate to make minor or major edits, assuming they are my drafts and instead of drafts belonging to the community. —- Taku (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- They indeed may hesitate to do so, but that is contrary to policy:
- WP:OWN: "All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page...Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user. They are part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier... While other users and bots will more commonly edit your user talk page, they have rights to edit other pages in your user space as well. Usually others will not edit your primary user page, other than to address significant concerns (rarely) or to do routine housekeeping, such as handling project-related tags, disambiguating links to pages that have been moved, removing the page from categories meant for articles, or removing obvious vandalism and/or BLP violations."
- Additionally, you can mitigate that by posting a note right at the top stating that constructive edits are welcome and appreciated. Likewise, there's no reason such information cannot be incorporated into existing articles. Such information doesn't need to be 100% perfect. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: For example, some might hesitate to make minor or major edits, assuming they are my drafts and instead of drafts belonging to the community. —- Taku (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @TakuyaMurata: How would they be treated "differently"? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: Because those drafts are not mine and it makes sense to put them at the place for drafts development. The harm would be putting them in the user page would give a wrong impression that they need to be treated differently than other math drafts in the draft space. — Taku (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Query @Hasteur: What is the harm in allowing a draft to linger? Why the rush to delete at 6 months? Why is it 100% ok in userspace, but not in draftspace? Buffs (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: I have no problem with letting it linger for one or two 6 month periods, however some of these drafts have been sitting (even after repeated reminders) for over 3 years. I have no problem with it living in Taku's workspace for an eventually I'll work on this, but for it to sit in the Draft namespace for years without any substantive (i.e. make some actual effort at improving) improvement suggests that either it's some sort of neologism/WP:MADEUP/Original Research/similar that would (if it is a thing) be best served by using regular editing and inserting it into a parent level article and improving the content enough to justify a WP:SPINOUT. 6 months is the pescribed timer under CSD:G13 which has (over time) been expanded to include both AFC drafts and non-AFC drafts. The purpose of Draft space is to have a collaberative area where multiple editors can edit and improve content to get it to namespace. I believe I have expertiese as I was instrumental in the original drafting of the namespace including defining CSD:G13 and it's various modifications. In Taku's userspace it's not eligible for CSD:G13 plain and simple. In Draftspace the pages show up on the "not edited by a non-bot in the last 6 months" so people who like working backlogs (like myself) see them and try to action them. In some cases we action it by Nominating for CSD:G13, in others we Nominate for MFD, in still others we redirect the page and the talk page to as closely related mainspace page we can find so that energy and effort can be focused into developing a Encyclopedia and not spent chasing these drafts around every 6 months because Taku objects to any of the Alternatives to Deletion yet doesn't make any effort to actually improve the drafts unless it's in front of a deletion process. Hasteur (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- @TakuyaMurata: A year seems like a reasonable time to wait. Why haven't you improved them until an AFD? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: It’s not like I always we wait for an MfD (please see the stats at #Votes below). MfD or not, the drafts tend to get finished and moved to mainspace. I don’t have a particular order for working with drafts, but an MfD is a feedback process (in the form the editors use today): it can raise some issues and I don’t mind working on them when they are raised. If an editor raises a concern at the talkpage (or less optimally make a disruptive edit), I can also respond to that (e.g., Draft:Microfunction); that’s how Wikipedia tends to work. One editor makes an edit and the others respond. —- Taku (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, @TakuyaMurata: see above. I see no reason you cannot incorporate these into existing articles, make them a standalone article, or userfy them. Keeping them in perpetual "draft" state is a pointless endeavor and detracts from other editors. If you're refusing to incorporate into existing articles, make these articles, or userfying them, then I see little choice but to ban you from such creations as you are misusing a process and becoming disruptive via that refusal. 6 months is more than ample time for even someone who is busy. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Again, could you look at the states I mentioned below? "perpetual", I agree that can be problematic. But that's just not true; the drafts started by me do get finished and get moved to mainspace as part of existing articles or standalone articles (or deleted in MfDs); I don't think there is an exception. -- Taku (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't notice your response. I have responded to you below. -- Taku (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, let's keep it here. You have at least 4 articles in draft space for over 3 years that I've seen presented as evidence here: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I don't know if there are more or not...I don't care. There's no reason to hang onto these in draft space this long. Hasteur is coming across as brash and draconian, but he also has a point. Your claims of "I don't have articles perpetually in Draft state" doesn't hold water. You do. By doing so, it unnecessarily adds to a list of articles that need help. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, @TakuyaMurata: see above. I see no reason you cannot incorporate these into existing articles, make them a standalone article, or userfy them. Keeping them in perpetual "draft" state is a pointless endeavor and detracts from other editors. If you're refusing to incorporate into existing articles, make these articles, or userfying them, then I see little choice but to ban you from such creations as you are misusing a process and becoming disruptive via that refusal. 6 months is more than ample time for even someone who is busy. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: It’s not like I always we wait for an MfD (please see the stats at #Votes below). MfD or not, the drafts tend to get finished and moved to mainspace. I don’t have a particular order for working with drafts, but an MfD is a feedback process (in the form the editors use today): it can raise some issues and I don’t mind working on them when they are raised. If an editor raises a concern at the talkpage (or less optimally make a disruptive edit), I can also respond to that (e.g., Draft:Microfunction); that’s how Wikipedia tends to work. One editor makes an edit and the others respond. —- Taku (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @TakuyaMurata: A year seems like a reasonable time to wait. Why haven't you improved them until an AFD? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: I have no problem with letting it linger for one or two 6 month periods, however some of these drafts have been sitting (even after repeated reminders) for over 3 years. I have no problem with it living in Taku's workspace for an eventually I'll work on this, but for it to sit in the Draft namespace for years without any substantive (i.e. make some actual effort at improving) improvement suggests that either it's some sort of neologism/WP:MADEUP/Original Research/similar that would (if it is a thing) be best served by using regular editing and inserting it into a parent level article and improving the content enough to justify a WP:SPINOUT. 6 months is the pescribed timer under CSD:G13 which has (over time) been expanded to include both AFC drafts and non-AFC drafts. The purpose of Draft space is to have a collaberative area where multiple editors can edit and improve content to get it to namespace. I believe I have expertiese as I was instrumental in the original drafting of the namespace including defining CSD:G13 and it's various modifications. In Taku's userspace it's not eligible for CSD:G13 plain and simple. In Draftspace the pages show up on the "not edited by a non-bot in the last 6 months" so people who like working backlogs (like myself) see them and try to action them. In some cases we action it by Nominating for CSD:G13, in others we Nominate for MFD, in still others we redirect the page and the talk page to as closely related mainspace page we can find so that energy and effort can be focused into developing a Encyclopedia and not spent chasing these drafts around every 6 months because Taku objects to any of the Alternatives to Deletion yet doesn't make any effort to actually improve the drafts unless it's in front of a deletion process. Hasteur (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. This whole thread is pretty involved, and I don't really want to support or oppose any particular remedy, but for what it's worth, I wanted to point out this comment and edit summary made by Hasteur to me in an AfD discussion which is apparently related to this stuff. Whatever other issues are going on between these two, it feels like it's spilling over elsewhere (to me in this case, who wandered in fairly innocently). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Present as further evidence: Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory G13ed, restored, G13ed, restored, G13ed again, G13ed again (this time by @Credo2020 Unumisit: and sustained by @Fastily:). Clear demonstration of the same back and forth game of putting things in G13 space only to not do anything about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Proxy edit to keep this discussion open. We need to take action. Previous attempts to sanction that resulted in "archive for stale" and "no consensus have emboldened the editor in question to continue further disruption. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Support as proposer Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I'm amazed that this problem is still hanging on by its fingernails. I agree with Hasteur that an end needs to be put to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Although it is clear that someone is upset, MFDs have also resulted in a keep vote. An MFD that results in merge or redirect also should then not be overridden by a G13 nomination or deletion. Probably drafts that have survived MFD with some result other than delete should be tagged so that subsequent editors know how to proceed. I think that much of what is there should be in Taku's user space if he wants to hang onto it longer than years before promoting to article. Undeleting is fairly simple, and Taku is one of two users that I will undelete for on request even if nothing was done to improve since the previous undelete. Other serial undelete requesters I will question to see how interested they are on improving the draft. But as you can see I agree with TakuyaMurata is strongly encouraged to take move all current Draft namespace mathematics stubs created by them to their User namespace to work on until they are ready for promotion to Article namespace. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. I remember the last time this came up. My take on this hasn't changed since then. I think TakuyaMarata is being absurdly stubborn about this. But, he's also been a highly productive content creator.
What he's doing may be sillyHe's being an ass, but it's relatively harmless and the effort that's been put into this vendetta far exceeds the benefit of chasing down a few ancient drafts. I am reminded of the North-going Zax and a South-going Zax. Move on to more important things. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC) - Support - I will support almost any measure to check Taku's insistence on using draft space as an archive for what are essentially topic titles. The previous topic ban, which had to do with discussions of policy, has not worked because it just causes Taku to engage in preterition about draft space. Something needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as formulated (also see below). First “undoing any action that in part or whole reverts a change done in good faith that promotes content from Draft namespace to Article namespace.” seems moot since I never undo constructive edits (only the disruptive ones). “TakuyaMurata is hereby limited to 1 successful WP:REFUND request for any individual Draft” doesn’t quite work since I also routinely request refunds of drafts created other than me. My understanding is that there is no community consensus that having draft pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages is disruptive. What is disruptive is precisely a thread like this. Drafts are getting completed and moved to mainspace. If some particular old draft is having an issue, there is an MfD for that. I don’t understand the issues here. I agree with RoySmith; I am getting tired too. Can we just move on? See also User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Only_Warning. Is this really how we want to Wikipedia to work? -- Taku (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support this unfortunate solution to TM's WP:Failing to get the point; if he would simply move all his (and he makes it very clear he is the "owner") content to his userspace, we wouldn't be here. But no. The draftspace is for drafting, and abuse of the six-month G13 window is detrimental to the efforts of many editors to build the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see how this benefits the encyclopedia. These drafts are usually viable mainspace articles, or at least viable parts of mainspace articles. I have restored plenty of them at WP:REFUND when I wouldn't have done so for another editor, for exactly this reason. Wikipedia does accept articles on technical or inaccessible topics, denigrating them as "post-graduate esoteric Mathematics concepts" isn't helpful. Preventing somebody from writing them just because they take a bit long and don't do so in their own userspace isn't helpful either. I do also have to object to the statement above that "Less than an hour later, Taku claims the MFD was a Keep yet the consensus is quite clear for Merge/Redirect." The MfD in question was closed as Keep, so Taku has a point there. Hut 8.5 06:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose a topic ban as such, but I do support moving all of these useless substubs to his user space, since a) he's made it clear they're his private personal property, and b) the vast majority are unlikely to ever see the mainspace. Reyk YO! 07:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - doesn't solve the problem with Hasteur's fanatic obsession with keeping the draft space "clean". Prefer interaction ban below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support - draft space isn't meant to hold articles forever. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify? I don't think that's anyone's contention here. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is Taku’s contention, which he is topic banned from talking about, and it is the rationale behind what he does in draftspace, which he s banned from explaining. Perverse? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Without getting into rationale and such, the relevant stats is that (1) like 90% of drafts started by me are moved to mainspace within 1 week (2) almost all other drafts are finished within one month or two (3) there are a few exceptions that can take months or even years to finish (often due to referencing matters) but are eventually moved to mainspace. (4) There are absolutely no drafts that are kept indefinitely. —- Taku (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- If it takes years, there is no reason you can't move them to user space and work on them there. Buffs (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. I have to agree that say "10 years" would be too much (I don't think there is a draft that old). On the other hand, for me, a one-year-old draft don't seem problematic. Technically I am not allowed to discuss the draft usage policy. But, for me, 2 or 3 years seem to be acceptable amount of time to be allowed before the drafts need to be userifyed or require some other form of intervention. If some editors really believe I intend to keep drafts "perpetually", I can agree with some terms making it explicit that's not the case (since the drafts are not kept perpetually anyway, I don't lose anything.) -- Taku (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, please don't bait Taku. The question at hand was directed to another editor. Buffs (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- If it takes years, there is no reason you can't move them to user space and work on them there. Buffs (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Without getting into rationale and such, the relevant stats is that (1) like 90% of drafts started by me are moved to mainspace within 1 week (2) almost all other drafts are finished within one month or two (3) there are a few exceptions that can take months or even years to finish (often due to referencing matters) but are eventually moved to mainspace. (4) There are absolutely no drafts that are kept indefinitely. —- Taku (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is Taku’s contention, which he is topic banned from talking about, and it is the rationale behind what he does in draftspace, which he s banned from explaining. Perverse? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify? I don't think that's anyone's contention here. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not seeing the evidence to support such action at this time. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - prefer #Yet Another Proposal below. – Levivich 02:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - There is nothing wrong with editing a draft to prevent its deletion, nor is there anything wrong with requesting refund(s). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ivanvector. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I keep an eye on the list of math draft pages and have worked to get them moved/merged to main space. (See tropical compactification, Macaulay representation of an integer, sphere bundle, Nakano vanishing theorem.) I've never felt that Taku has tried to "own" drafts he's started in the sense of ruling over their actual content or trying to disallow other editors from making changes. On the face of it, Draft space is a reasonable place to keep these items: the subject matter is sufficiently esoteric that few people would work on them no matter where they are stored, but it's no real trouble to make constructive contributions (fixing notation, adding references, etc.) at a rate that keeps them from all going stale. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alternative proposal: interaction ban with Hasteur
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I completely agree with "an end needs to be put to it". This proposal is a much cleaner and simpler approach to the dispute. This thread itself is enough evidence supporting such a ban. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Update: A few have suggested the proposal is invalid because it is a counter-proposal. That’s not really an argument; please discuss the merits of the proposal independently. — Taku (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, the argument is being made that it is a retaliatory proposal, with no supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Suppose as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Hasteur being the main person voicing objection to Taku's use of draftspace does not mean that Hasteur is the only person troubled by Taku's non-standard use of draftspace. Taku, please take your drafts to userspace. Anyone can collaborate with you there. To generally invite others to work on your mathematics drafts, use subpages of WikiProject Mathematics. Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users with long term activities. You use of draftspace is disrupting the fragile working of draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
And "Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users" is precisely my problem. Because it is not and it is not intended to be. Draftspace is precisely the place for the collaborative development of the content.-- Taku (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- There is so much history of practice that demonstrates this to be wrong. Draftspace is not functionally suitable for collaboration. WP:DUD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- @TakuyaMurata: I believe your statement just above violates your previous topic ban. I suggest you strike it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I assumed that, in this thread which is the continuation of the previous one, I am ok to express my view on the draft space, in order to respond to SmokeyJoe in a meaningful way. But ok I struck that. -- Taku (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I wish to object to the views being expressed here by SmokeyJoe, specifically that
Draftspace is for random drafts of unlikely potential that should be deleted if no Wikipedian takes ownership of them (either by userfying, moving to a WikiProject, or ideally, mainspacing them).
andDraftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users with long term activities.
I do not think these accurately reflect either a general consensus, or current practice. I am an "established user with long term activities" I believe, but I routinely use draftspace when i start new articles. I am actively working on a draft now, started less than a week ago. I also normally advise relative newcomers, particularly at the Teahouse to start new articles in draft space, often but not always under WP:AFC. I have collaborated with other editors (usually one at a time, that is I and one other editor) in Draft space. I cite as an example Holocaust Wall Hangings now in mainspace, but in Draft when i did most of my edits to it.I stongly object to statements that such uses of draft space are "perverse" or not approved, and are evidence of disruption. As to the proposed topic ban, it seems drastic to me, but i have not reviewed the actions on which it is based, and i express no opinion for or against it at this time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)- These "views" are not so much my "views" but my observations of what happens there, both as a wikipedia editor, and from real world experience with others, who didn't know I am a Wikipedian, telling me of there experience with a Wikithon. It is not how I think it should be, but my observation of how it is. For real newcomers, draftspace is a place of isolation from the real community. Newcomers should get into mainspace, where they meet real editors interested in the same pages. Draftspace reviewers may be all nice people, but rarely are they genuinely interested in the draft topic, and rarely do they engage with the drafter before the drafter submits their draft.
Draft is not for established users with long term activities.
I stand by that, with a small exception only that a few admins make use of draftspace (I am aware of you and User:BD2412 doing this). These few admins are very non-representative of long term editors through being admins, and not being intimidated by the routine deletions, or by the considerable apparent power imbalance between drafter and reviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)- Frankly, I think that draftspace is underutilized as a place to start articles on needed subjects. I think every red link in a list of notable people or topics, or in our lists of requested entries, should automatically get a draft to be built upon. I would allow drafts on topics like those (such as my thousands of drafts of missing state supreme court justices) to be tagged with a bypass to the six-month deletion protocol. bd2412 T 01:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:BD2412, I am not familiar with your thousands of drafts. Why is it not a good idea to create each as a stub? I notice that you get your drafts up to a high standard, much higher than minimally required, before moving to mainspace. Is this excessive meta:immediatism? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: I mean these thousands of drafts. Well, now under 2,000. The typical one of these currently looks like this, which is below stub standards, but these are all obviously inherently notable subjects for which sources can be found, and I get one fixed up and moved to mainspace every few days or so (or someone else does), so they should all be done before 2030. I'm working on the no-deadline model here. bd2412 T 03:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Impressively organised list! I strongly support the "no deadline" model. I think it is an option to mainspace the lot, even with "YEAR to YEAR" text, although I understand that others differ, and less organised people than you would make a horrednous mess. It would be nice if trusted people could apply a {{G13-exempt}} tag, so that non-admins could use draftspace on longer tie periods. I have suggested that people, like Taku, could use WP:WikiProject subject pages or userspace, but the "Draft:" is desirable other the others. Like I said to DES, my statements are my observations on how draftspace works for newcomers (i.e. badly), and they do not reflect my preference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: I mean these thousands of drafts. Well, now under 2,000. The typical one of these currently looks like this, which is below stub standards, but these are all obviously inherently notable subjects for which sources can be found, and I get one fixed up and moved to mainspace every few days or so (or someone else does), so they should all be done before 2030. I'm working on the no-deadline model here. bd2412 T 03:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:BD2412, I am not familiar with your thousands of drafts. Why is it not a good idea to create each as a stub? I notice that you get your drafts up to a high standard, much higher than minimally required, before moving to mainspace. Is this excessive meta:immediatism? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think that draftspace is underutilized as a place to start articles on needed subjects. I think every red link in a list of notable people or topics, or in our lists of requested entries, should automatically get a draft to be built upon. I would allow drafts on topics like those (such as my thousands of drafts of missing state supreme court justices) to be tagged with a bypass to the six-month deletion protocol. bd2412 T 01:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I wish to object to the views being expressed here by SmokeyJoe, specifically that
- I assumed that, in this thread which is the continuation of the previous one, I am ok to express my view on the draft space, in order to respond to SmokeyJoe in a meaningful way. But ok I struck that. -- Taku (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Again WP:Failing to get the point, TM ignores all the other editors that have a problem with his edits in the draftspace and his misuse of WP:REFUND. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose- silly tit-for-tat retaliatory proposal. Reyk YO! 08:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose just talk calmly to each other, and interaction can continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Except the user seems incapable of working with other editors in civil manners; here is one evidence User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Only_Warning (maybe it was a bait for me to make mistakes?) —- Taku (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support one-way interaction ban (Hasteur banned from interaction with TakuyaMurata) - by their own words Hasteur came back from an extended wikibreak just to push this issue, and wasted no time recruiting all their old allies to go after TakuyaMurata again. Hounding is defined as "the singling out of one or more editors, ... to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, ... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." Many editors commenting here are not familiar with the history of this dispute but I am, and it's been going on for years. Every time it comes up we see that Hasteur (or rarely one or two other users) has a bee in their bonnet because someone has got in the way of their principal activity of purging things from draft space. The problem of draft space being used contrary to Hasteur's personal criteria is a problem for Hasteur. The problem for the community is the massive waste of time and energy we go through each time six months passes from the previous dispute when Hasteur brings it up again. Forcing Hasteur to stay away from TakuyaMurata will solve that problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as malformed. As phrased, such an IBAN is not clear as to whom is banned and who isn't or if it's both. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn’t think that matters; it is all the case that User:Hasteur first makes a disruptive edit (e.g., vandalism on draft pages or overriding the community consensus) and I revert the edit. One way ban on him or two ways don’t make a difference. — Taku (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Retaliatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is quite odd; it is ok for User:Hasteur to raise a concern but I, on the other hand, am not allowed to raise a concern? I have been thinking that an interaction ban is needed for some time and this thread just gave me a push for proposing it. Perhaps this emery vote shows you actually don’t have a counterargument for this proposal. — Taku (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I invite the proposer to read WP:PUNISH and self strike this proposal. On one hand we have a demonstrated pattern of disruption including attempting to get their critics Interaction banned from TakuyaMurata, and on the other hand we have repeated suggestions/warnings/consensus debates all saying the same thing. I further refer to TakuyaMurata's continued WP:NOTTHEM arguments that everyone except themselves is responsible for their current position. Hasteur (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Solomon-like alternate proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata are topic banned from draft space (broadly construed). Anything currently in draft space for which TakuyaMurata is the primary author is moved to their user space. Two-way interaction ban between User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support, second choice to what I guess is proposal 4 (see my comment under the original "alternate proposal"). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Support- When cutting Gordian knots, a two-edged sword is often useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)- Abstain: This is not something I can support, obviously. (People forget but I routinely work on math drafts started by editors other than me). But I am not going to oppose it either (otherwise I will probably be ass). — Taku (talk)
- Oppose Going with the a pox on both your houses or the "cut the baby in half solution" is a non-starter for me. Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as absurd. Hasteur is needed to help with draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Goes way beyond anything needed to solve the problem. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I see good edits from both people...they just need to know when to back off rather than continue discussing. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the solution below better, which addresses the issues without resulting in the encyclopedia losing both editors' constructive contributions to draftspace. – Levivich 02:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - User:SmokeyJoe has persuaded me. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yet Another Proposal
Specific TBAN: User:TakuyaMurata is prohibited from editing/contesting the deletion or of articles in draft space that he created that are over 1 year old and are not currently under dispute as of 1 October 2019 and may not contest edits to such drafts after community consensus for deletion or merging/into an article, broadly construed. Exceptions: TakuyaMurata may continue such discussions as that already exist and may request pages to be restored in his own user space, but cannot create new drafts to circumvent this process. TakuyaMurata is also permitted to contest such edits in relevant fora: AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom, but is cautioned to not use such an option outside of exceptional circumstances.
Limited IBAN for Hasteur: User:Hasteur must cease all direct communications with TakuyaMurata except as required by policy (such as notifications or technical requirements), broadly construed. Exceptions: Hasteur may bring Draft pages primarily edited by TakuyaMurata to relevant XfD pages, but must be solely for procedural reasons; remarks about TakuyaMurata are not permitted. Hasteur may also bring disputes with TakuyaMurata to relevant AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom pages, but must not engage with TakuyaMurata in such a discussion outside of ArbCom. Hasteur is reminded be brief in such a discussion, to WP:AGF, and to be WP:Civil.
Rationale: TakuyaMurata is dragging out the draft process and keeping items in draft space much longer than necessary and has reached the point of being disruptive. There is no significant difference with the same information being contained on a user page. Hasteur is addressing this issue with a level of tenacity that is unnecessary and uncivil. Both users have noble intent, but have taken their views to such an extreme that they are actively causing disruption to Wikipedia and its processes/improvement and need to back down. Additionally, other proposals seem to lack consensus and do not appear to be capable of gaining consensus. This seems like a good time to produce another option that may. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
OpposeI perceive this to be a "dilute any consensus to effectively nothing" proposal (when a RFC is initially proposed with 3 options and progressively gets counter-proposed up to 13 different options) to make closing this even more difficult. Second I note that the TBAN (as currently written) could be interperted as prohibiting TakuyaMurata from making any improvements to articles already in draft space. Should Taku wish to make an improvement they will have to move it to WP Mathematics space or to their userspace. I perceive this to be less than desirable. My goal is to get the drafts off the CSD:G13 rail and actually moving towards being workable mainspace content. Third, The locus of dispute moves is intermixed between a content (the drafts and their stale-ness) and conduct (labeling Bold actions as Vandalism, yelling at opponents through edit summaries, accusations of lying, etc) that makes it such that conduct and previously observed patterns of behavior are germane to the topic of "willful/WP:IDHT/WP:NOTBURO resistance to community improvement". Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)- It should not be interpreted in that manner. The ban is on articles HE'S created in draft space that are over a year. If he's contributing to drafts of others, I see no problem with it; that's behavior we WANT on Wikipedia. Buffs (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: Only to help me understand I wish to pose 2 hypothetical cases to understand the scope of the iBan.
I discover (through some method) that Draft:Example Math Stub has been created by TakuyaMurata in the past, has been unedited in at least 200 days giving the impression that it is abandonded/stale, and has a practical mainspace larger topic. To affirmatively test the community consensus I nominate for XfD and request a redirect-merger so that content is preserved and I introduce into my nominating statement the history of the page. Does this fall afoul of the interaction ban?
Second: Effectively same as the first, except instead of nominating for XfD I redirect the article to what appears to be an appropriate mainspace partent topic as a WP:BOLD action, leaving the actual merger as an exercise for a knowledgable editor to perform at their leisure through the page history of the Draft still being available. Does this fall afoul of the interaction ban? Is TakuyaMurata prohibited from reverting the redirect?
Hasteur (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)- Valid questions. No, none of these fall afoul of such a ban as you aren't addressing TakuyaMurata. Based on the limited information you provided, TakuyaMurata is allowed to contest such a redirect. We aren't looking to just delete everything. I'm seeing a lot of drafts that are resulting in good additions to articles. Edit warring will result in standard bans. Buffs (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: Only to help me understand I wish to pose 2 hypothetical cases to understand the scope of the iBan.
- After seeing clarification, Support Topic Ban, Oppose Interaction Ban As referenced below, providing the perverse incentive to silence one of your critics is never appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- It should not be interpreted in that manner. The ban is on articles HE'S created in draft space that are over a year. If he's contributing to drafts of others, I see no problem with it; that's behavior we WANT on Wikipedia. Buffs (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support (but prefer 2 year period to 1 year): This seems the most sensible proposal yet (kudos to proposer Buffs). As I said, if some editors really believe I have been and still been planning to use the draft space (or user space) for the purpose of keeping my personal study notes, this agreement would address that concern very well. My only gripe is that “1 year” seems too short (just because sometimes I don’t have time to edit Wikipedia as much as I like, depending on my real lift situations). — Taku (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose without the interaction ban: I cannot understand User:Hasteur couldn’t agree with the requirement to be civil. I hate to say but it proves once again that the whole thread is ALL about their personal grudge against me. The community needs to send a strong message that Wikipedia is not their playground. —- Taku (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Taku is invited to read AGF is not a suicide pact and reconsider this incivil aspersion. It's not a personal grudge, it never has been. It's always been about your use of the Draft namespace and how it is significantly divergent with the community consensus. Following the edits of a editor who has repeatedly demonstrated a deficiency in their understanding of standard operating procedure is not just acceptable but endorsed. This is something I would have expected an editor who has been editing wikipedia for over 17 years 12 July 2002 to have learned long ago. Hasteur (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose without the interaction ban: I cannot understand User:Hasteur couldn’t agree with the requirement to be civil. I hate to say but it proves once again that the whole thread is ALL about their personal grudge against me. The community needs to send a strong message that Wikipedia is not their playground. —- Taku (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support and kudos to Buffs for the well-rationalized proposal. As for the length of Taku's restriction, 1 year is plenty; if you haven't addressed a draft in a full year and some other editor wants to do something with it, let them. If someone improves it then that's what we're all here for, and if it gets deleted you can ask for it to be restored to your user space for when you do eventually have time for it. While wanting them to stay in draft space for others to collaborate on is a noble goal, the simple reality is that in several years none actually have attracted anyone to collaborate. I would offer to help, and I think I have before, but your topics are well above my level of knowledge. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support – 3 years is too long for a draft to be in draftspace, but Hasteur also needs to step back from policing Taku. This is a simple but surgical solution. – Levivich 02:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support topic ban. This is a user who seriously believes that it's appropriate for mainspace to have content like "Let M be a real-analytic manifold and X its complexification. (The definition of microfunctions here)." Diff You need to be followed carefully (no interaction ban), and if you do this frequently despite cleanup, you need to be shown the door. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- You're looking for this diff I think, not the idly adding a reference diff you actually linked to. But yes, this is typically how mathematical information is presented. Maybe it shouldn't have been presented this way in an encyclopedia article, but you could have tried to fix it instead of just blindly reverting, couldn't you? This seems very "damned if you do (promote your work to use in an article), damned if you don't (develop article stubs left in draft space)", doesn't it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support TBAN for Taku / Oppose IBAN for Hasteur (Also there's a typo in the first line, "or" for "of".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support TBAN for Taku / Oppose IBAN for Hasteur as BMK. Taku is exploiting everyone's WP:AGF while Hasteur is trying to apply the norms that apply to draft space: it is not perpetual storage for someone's notes. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support for the specific TBAN. I think it is a more complicated version of my own proposal:
"User:TakuyaMurata is banned from page WP:OWNership in Draftspace. He is banned from creating pages in draftspace, or requesting pages WP:REFUNDed to draftspace. Instead, User:TakuyaMurata should use either his own userspace, or subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics subject to consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics."
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC) - Oppose the limited IBAN. Apart from some heated uncivil comments, for which I blame the community for allowing this long running perverse situation of allowing someone the idiosyncratic draftspace behaviors while banning them from talking about it, there is nothing in support of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as far to complex to enforce. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Extremely complex and difficult to follow. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If there is any doubt that the issue revolves around TakuyaMurata's misuse of Draft space consider Draft:Simple Lie algebra that was nominated by @CASSIOPEIA:, the G13 was sustained by @Fastily:, Taku then turns around an immediately gives a misguided REFUND request that Hut8.5 does. [5] This is precicely the kind of behavior that needs to be curtailed and demonstrates it's not just me that finds Taku's usage of draftspace problematic. Hasteur (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please see the comments at #Votes. No matter how you frame it many (majority?) other editors don’t share your view. — Taku (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support (both): Taku contributes constructively to WP as a whole, but the particular aspect of draft usage by Taku involving old drafts is unusual and has been the source of heated discussions. It's reasonable for Taku to be able to contest deletions raised at MfD, but the consensus should be the end of any such matter. The behavior of Hasteur towards Taku has been uncivil and hounding on more than one occasion (e.g. a few hours ago 1, 2, 3); a limited IBAN in that direction would prevent future issues. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Last attempt
Rationale: (same as above, but now easier to enforce + clarification). TakuyaMurata is dragging out the draft process and keeping items in draft space much longer than necessary and has reached the point of being disruptive. There is no significant difference with the same information being contained on a user page. Hasteur is addressing this issue with a level of tenacity that is unnecessary and uncivil. Both users have noble intent, but have taken their views to such an extreme that they are actively causing disruption to Wikipedia and its processes/improvement and need to back down. Additionally, other proposals seem to lack consensus and do not appear to be capable of gaining consensus. This seems like a good time to produce another option that may.
It's obvious the community's patience is wearing thin, but package deals like the one above won't pass muster as they are all-or-none (despite attempts to separate them...not the intent at the time). Ergo, it's worth looking at each in their own regard in as simple of terms as possible. We can always lessen them or make caveats later. Buffs (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Simplified version of the latest proposal Part 1
Specific TBAN: User:TakuyaMurata is prohibited from editing/contesting the deletion of articles in draft space that he created that are over 1 year old.
- Support as proposer Buffs (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support though I would prefer striking the
that are over 1 year old
Time for him to prove that the contents are worthy to be moved to mainspace, or to move them to any of the numerous alternatives. Hasteur (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I think that the general consensus in this thread is that drafts started by me are generally worth of moving to mainspace. The issue at hand is a matter of usage not quality of content from what I can see. —- Taku (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is you create these, and don't do diddly with them until someone points out the things you've appeared to forget about for years. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hasteur, you've made your point a month ago. Please, let the community put in its input now. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: with respect please observe Taku's replies of "22:56, 21 October 2019" and "01:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)" in which they claim not getting sanctioned is the same as explicitly authorizing their behavior. If that is the behavior from Taku then every member of the community is strongly encouraged to expediently dispel the misconception. Hasteur (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not addressing whether he gets it (I don't think he does). I am addressing that you are not his personal arbiter. You are not the gatekeeper for his actions. I'm saying YOU have made your point and enough is enough. Buffs (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: with respect please observe Taku's replies of "22:56, 21 October 2019" and "01:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)" in which they claim not getting sanctioned is the same as explicitly authorizing their behavior. If that is the behavior from Taku then every member of the community is strongly encouraged to expediently dispel the misconception. Hasteur (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hasteur, you've made your point a month ago. Please, let the community put in its input now. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is you create these, and don't do diddly with them until someone points out the things you've appeared to forget about for years. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I think that the general consensus in this thread is that drafts started by me are generally worth of moving to mainspace. The issue at hand is a matter of usage not quality of content from what I can see. —- Taku (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support, without the "over 1 year old" if necessary. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Abstain: Buffs makes a good point that the drafts can still be developed outside the draftspace. So, I’m not going to oppose it. But I oppose removing “over 1 year old” (as I don’t think short-term drafts are an issue). —- Taku (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support as a solution. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support: Taku contributes constructively to WP as a whole, but the particular aspect of draft usage by Taku involving old drafts is unusual and has been the source of heated discussions. It's reasonable for Taku to be able to contest deletions raised at MfD, but the consensus should be the end of any such matter. It's not clear to me if "contest" here means giving an oppose !vote and reasoning at MfD or for WP:REFUNDs and deletion reviews. Taku should be able to participate in MfD (at least in some limited capacity). — MarkH21 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - A solution, as one of the supporters puts it, implies there is a problem. I see many complaints regarding the user this would affect, but I do not see where they have gone awry of tangible guidelines. I simply see an individual doing their best to cope with our flawed draft system and overboard cleanupism (just as percievebly "bad") from other parties. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Simplified version of the latest proposal Part 2
Two-Way IBAN for Hasteur/TakuyaMurata: User:Hasteur must cease all communications with/about TakuyaMurata, broadly construed, and vice versa.
- Support as proposer Buffs (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Misbehavior should not be rewarded with getting their critic silenced. Hasteur (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the community has already weighted in this option. I personally think this is the simplest/least disruptive way to put an end to the dispute, though. —- Taku (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose No logical reason for this. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- The bickering and needling between Hasteur and TakuyaMurata in this section alone are evidence enough, IMHO, but YMMV. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- That shows a need for people on this noticeboard to decide whether indefinitely keeping sub-stub drafts is desirable in terms of the purpose of draft space and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- The bickering and needling between Hasteur and TakuyaMurata in this section alone are evidence enough, IMHO, but YMMV. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support: I think that the Hasteur -> Taku direction is more problematic than the other direction with incivility and hounding (e.g. a few hours ago 1, 2, 3), but if Part 3 is not passed then this would also help solve the relevant issues. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Simplified version of the latest proposal Part 3
One-Way IBAN for Hasteur: User:Hasteur must cease all communications with/about TakuyaMurata, broadly construed.
- Support as proposer Buffs (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Misbehavior should not be rewarded with getting their critic silenced. Hasteur (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose And definitely no logical reason for this. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose No reason given. Please address the fundamental issues about whether sub-stub drafts should be kept indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support: The behavior of Hasteur towards Taku has been uncivil and hounding on more than one occasion (e.g. a few hours ago 1, 2, 3); a limited IBAN in that direction would prevent future issues. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Simplified version of the latest proposal Part 4
One-Way IBAN for TakuyaMurata: User:TakuyaMurata must cease all communications with/about Hasteur, broadly construed.
- Support as proposer Buffs (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral. False equivalence and you should have known it. Hasteur (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comments like this are part of the problem. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Not the point. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support for limited IBAN for discussions; in fact, I will just start self-banning myself right away. I here declare I stop engaging in the discussions with Hasteur. (Just not productive as we all know). —- Taku (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: The communications in this direction don't seem to really be the issue. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Taku's alternative proposal: the math project takes over
Proposal: Let Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics take over the matter; precisely, let the project decide where to put long-term math drafts (in draft space? user space? project space?), promote them to the mainspace, delete them, etc.
Rationale: From reading the comments in the thread, some users clearly believe/suspect that (1) I'm using the draft space to keep my personal notes indefinitely as opposed to draft articles worth of moving to mainspace and that (2) somehow I "own" them and oppose moving them to maispace. If the problem is with me as an individual, as opposed to a process, I think this proposal would mitigate such concerns in the simple non-disruptive manners.
- Support as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Opposed No. NIEN. NIET! That's been done before only to have you object and we go back to where we started before. We just move the pile of smelly offal from one location to another. Clean up the pages already in draftspace like Draft:Hamiltonian group action and many others. Also your old history in draftspace is littered with numerous Copy-paste moves with are Copyright violations because the attribution history is missing, yet another indicator that there's still numerous garbage in draft namespace that needs to be fixed. Hasteur (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you opposition is based on the fact that Taku objected to this in the past, then it's no longer relevant because Taku is clearly willing to agree to it now. If you were in favor of this proposal in the past, and Taku is in favor now, then wouldn't it solve the issue? — MarkH21 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Nope. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- So you’re perfectly happy with the things as they are right now???? I routinely work on the the drafts started by me and the others and finish them to the mainspace I’m lost. Maybe you just want to disrupt Wikipedia because you’re bored or something??? The problem is, as you clearly keep proving, is that you have a problem with me as an individual personally obsessively. So the only way to somehow dipersonalify the problem. This proposal can help that. —- Taku (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I routinely work on the the drafts started by me
And we determined that was a false when I can go through your edit history and find at least 10 pages created in 2014 and 2015 that have not been touched or improved except when someone has to take you to task for it. Please, dig yourself annother deep hole. Hasteur (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)- By “we” you mean you. I get you don’t like the way I use the draftspace, as you have amplified proved. It’s just you (and the others who are unfamiliar and misinformed or have differing point of views). The draftspace is not your toy. It doesn’t belong to you. It is the community that decides some usage is wrong or not. There is no general consensus that there is a problem with my usage of the draftspace, as the thread has shown.
You’re the problem; that’s the general consensus of the thread.(Sorry, this was not called-up on). — Taku (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC) we- If you're going to assert falsities to defend your position, any editor is right to disprove the statement. Please be so kind as to redact this personal attack as it only demonstrates which layers of the Hierarchy of Disagreement you argue from and which I do. Hasteur (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- The community has already spoken; see #Votes above. — Taku (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- You keep saying that like it authorizes your behavior. It does not. Hasteur (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Let’s step back then: there are clearly differing views on the draftspace usage. We belong to the different camps. It is not you who choose what behavior is acceptable or not. You and me both need to let the community makes a decision. There has been an ample time and the conclusion is that, while some prefer me to alter my usage in the draftspace (to make you happy), there is no consensus that my behavior is against the goal of Wikipedia as a whole. —- Taku (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- If there is really a community consensus that the long-term drafts need to be touched in some forms in a non-disruptive constructive fashions (e.g., moving out of the draftspace), this proposal at least prevents me from opposing that action. —- Taku (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please strike your comment of 01:54 as that is commentary on the suitability of Draft Namespace and G13 and therefore a direct violation of your Topic Ban enacted here. G13 is broadly endorsed by a wide consensus of the community. What is suitable for Draft namespace is broadly endorsed by a wide consensus of the community. Hasteur (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- No reminder should be needed. Could a block be enacted please? (Colored and Bolded for attention) Buffs (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is no topic ban violation; I merely stated the fact we disagree and explain the rationale of the proposal. In your logic, I cannot even mention a topic ban or make a proposal here. That’s perverse. —- Taku (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please strike your comment of 01:54 as that is commentary on the suitability of Draft Namespace and G13 and therefore a direct violation of your Topic Ban enacted here. G13 is broadly endorsed by a wide consensus of the community. What is suitable for Draft namespace is broadly endorsed by a wide consensus of the community. Hasteur (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- You keep saying that like it authorizes your behavior. It does not. Hasteur (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- The community has already spoken; see #Votes above. — Taku (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you're going to assert falsities to defend your position, any editor is right to disprove the statement. Please be so kind as to redact this personal attack as it only demonstrates which layers of the Hierarchy of Disagreement you argue from and which I do. Hasteur (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- By “we” you mean you. I get you don’t like the way I use the draftspace, as you have amplified proved. It’s just you (and the others who are unfamiliar and misinformed or have differing point of views). The draftspace is not your toy. It doesn’t belong to you. It is the community that decides some usage is wrong or not. There is no general consensus that there is a problem with my usage of the draftspace, as the thread has shown.
- So you’re perfectly happy with the things as they are right now???? I routinely work on the the drafts started by me and the others and finish them to the mainspace I’m lost. Maybe you just want to disrupt Wikipedia because you’re bored or something??? The problem is, as you clearly keep proving, is that you have a problem with me as an individual personally obsessively. So the only way to somehow dipersonalify the problem. This proposal can help that. —- Taku (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This doesn't solve anything. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: I don’t understand: it precisely does that: many users excluding you and Hasteur are voting on the ground explained in the rationale. Letting the math project to have a control over me *precisely* solves the heart of the problem. For example, it may decide to use the project space for draft articles development. —- Taku (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- This has been going on for a disproportionately long time and is now a time sink. As a non involved admin I have reviewed all the discussions and if there is no clear consensus from admins to the contrary within the next 48 hours, I am going to effect an indef block for clear violation of the terms of the Tban per this ANI as enacted by Primefac. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Wait, wait, that’s absolutely unfair. I agree that the patience is wearing thin. But am I the only one who is solely responsible for that? I didn’t start the thread; I am merely responding here. The discussion is dragging on because there is no clear consensus. Again that’s my fault?? I will stop editing this thread if that alleviate the topic ban concern. —- Taku (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Also, if it helps, I can agree with the term “I am prohibited from editing and participating in the deletion discussion of draft pages in the draftspace that are started by me over 1 year ago.” We can close the thread with that consensus to save everyone’s time. —- Taku (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Kudpung a unilateral indef block seems inappropriate. Given his block history he doesn't seem to have violated his TBAN before. Indef seems a little steep for a first offense; perhaps a month or a year? A TBAN on draftspace articles over a year or a complete TBAN of draftspace seems most appropriate given the consensus above. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: if you were going to block because of the topic ban violation highlighted above you should have just done it. Saying you're going to block for no other reason than this having become a timesink (which is accurate) but you're only going to block one of the editors involved would make your action pretty open to criticism for administrative abuse. You cannot seriously evaluate the timesink effect here without also considering Hasteur's repeated obstruction to doing anything about it that isn't deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ivanvector that's not what I said nor even implied. Guard yourself against casting aspersions or putting your own spin on my words, but if that's your take, just get on with it and close this shambles yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I side with Ivanvector on this one. I see no aspersions being cast, only reasoned criticism and alternatives to something that could be seen as contentious or heavy-handed. It was a factual description and, like my concerns, one based on the facts of this situation, not you personally. Buffs (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ivanvector that's not what I said nor even implied. Guard yourself against casting aspersions or putting your own spin on my words, but if that's your take, just get on with it and close this shambles yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: (of 15:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC))With respect, the link to the block log shows quite clearly that the @DeltaQuad: block of Feb 14 2018 included in its reasoning Topic Ban violations. As such, coupled with the continuing disruptive and tendentious editing and the age of this account that there should not be soft hands conducted with respect to this account and the voluminous discussions that have been had.Hasteur (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: if you were going to block because of the topic ban violation highlighted above you should have just done it. Saying you're going to block for no other reason than this having become a timesink (which is accurate) but you're only going to block one of the editors involved would make your action pretty open to criticism for administrative abuse. You cannot seriously evaluate the timesink effect here without also considering Hasteur's repeated obstruction to doing anything about it that isn't deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Kudpung a unilateral indef block seems inappropriate. Given his block history he doesn't seem to have violated his TBAN before. Indef seems a little steep for a first offense; perhaps a month or a year? A TBAN on draftspace articles over a year or a complete TBAN of draftspace seems most appropriate given the consensus above. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- This seems a bit inappropriate. If I understand it correctly, this proposal from Taku is removing himself from the draft process due to concerns about his usage of Draftspace. This proposal does not regard
policy discussion regarding Draft namespace
northe applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace
, it's a proposed delegation of these drafts to another entity. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support As a participant in WikiProject Mathematics, I think this sounds fine. (I'm not an admin, don't plan to be one, and don't generally pay attention to AN; I just drifted in from the WPM talk page.) Why not let the only people who have the background and interest to work on abstract mathematics articles decide which of these fragments are worth keeping and which might as well be discarded? Seriously, it's not that big a deal. Really: check out the list of math draft pages — it's not very long at all. check the page history, too — things do get promoted from there, even if some hang around and grow stale. And I think describing these as
smelly offal
is a bit uncivil. At worst, they're back-of-envelope kind of notes, not things found in the liquid at the bottom of the trash can. (I have worked to get these improved and promoted, when they fall close enough to topics that I recall from my miscellaneous studies; see tropical compactification, Macaulay representation of an integer, sphere bundle, Nakano vanishing theorem. As I said earlier, I've never felt that Taku has tried to "own" drafts he's started, in the sense of controlling their content or trying to forbid other editors from making changes.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)- Noting that this response appears (in my perception) to have been sollicited in a non-neutral manner in violation of WP:CANVAS Hasteur (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think you know what canvassing is. Please stop trying to maximally extend your dispute. (Note that I do not take any position on the question under discussion here, just that I do not want productive fora to become further loci for unproductive arguments.) --JBL (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Noting that this response appears (in my perception) to have been sollicited in a non-neutral manner in violation of WP:CANVAS Hasteur (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support per XOR'easter. What this dispute has needed for years now is for someone else with the mathematics expertise to weigh in with a non-WP:TNT approach to the content - I'm expecting that to be something like "keep what is useful and delete the rest". If it took a mild canvas to get there then that's pretty much exactly what we wrote WP:IAR for. I support whatever XOR'easter (or anyone else from WikiProject Mathematics) thinks should be done with these. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- So, you'd support some good reasoned IAR to: Redirect these topics to Mainspace articles that are close to the described topic? (Rejected by Taku) Enroll all of these drafts in the Articles for Creation process to give a clear indicator of what a 3rd party editor thinks needs to be done in order to get these drafts to mainspace (also rejected by Taku), or maybe Move these drafts to Wikiproject Mathematics space (also previously rejected by Taku), or moved to Taku's userspace (also rejected previously by Taku). It's only when significant sanctions being threatened that cause Taku to suddenly be more accomodating for a few months only to come back and quietly undo the agreement after the heat is off them. I hope you'll see that this is it a persistent problem. Hasteur (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- I see that that's your view of the problem, yes. In my view, the problem with all of those approaches has been that these are very specialist math topics, and none of us who have tried to move things along have had anywhere near the level of competence to properly assess them. I have some background in applied (not pure) math and in one of the cycles that these came up I tried, but they're way over my head. That, coupled with the unfortunate fact that Taku (like many academics) is just not very good at communicating specialist knowledge to those with different levels of education, and also persistently poor at following through on the stub drafts they've peppered about here and there. I'm sure part of that reluctance is a result of your persistent badgering but at some point the other shoe has to drop - as you said and I agree, the draft namespace is not for storage of one's highly technical notes on topics they might write about some day in the indefinite future. From observing this over years I have faith that Taku's behaviour has been an effort to prevent these notes from being handled improperly by editors who don't have the knowledge to handle them correctly, not just obstruction for obstruction's sake. I've been confident all along that as soon as some other specialist mathematics editors offered to take this on that it would be resolved in short order, and since they now have, I'm willing to give it a chance. But this is really, really, the end of the road for these stubs. If Taku and editors from WikiProject Mathematics don't find a use for them, and we're back here in six months with the same pages still with no significant progress, don't even post a thread, just ping me and I will mass delete the lot of them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support Totally agree with XOR'easter. Again, I am interpreting this to mean that Taku steps away from the long-term fate of old math drafts. If other remedies are undesirable to others, this would work fine. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable, but it is not clear how namely can the project “decide” what to do, specifically. Holding a vote for each case would make too much distraction. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
AfC and G13s
Worldbruce correctly pointed out that the oldest AfC drafts are approaching the 6 month mark and thus vulnerable to G13s. I'm duplicating here for two things:
1) An immensely non-subtle request for some more reviewers (and active reviewers) to work on the oldest drafts to work us away from that time.
2) Notwithstanding the above, we were hoping those admins who handle G13s as part of their workflow would agree that drafts awaiting review are not subject to G13s. This is distinct from the 2nd criterion of G13 which reads "Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template" - with modern AfC the issue lies on us not being able to review quickly enough rather than a specific abandonment by the user.
Thanks in advance, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- As an interim solution, one could just mass-edit drafts which are up to review.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't G13 apply?
- We have a problem with good drafts getting lost in our broken article creation process (the only way I know to write articles is for a permissioned-up editor to write them offline and then paste them in as a fait accompli, already robust against CSD and PROD – everything else is broken). We also have a large backlog of drafts. However when I review those drafts, I typically find just a couple which are worth adopting and moving to mainspace, and several thousand which are barely more than obvious spam.
- I'd like to see more people filtering through the drafts backlog and saving what's appropriate (even just editing them a bit will delay things). But for the vast majority, I'm not going to miss them in the slightest. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- The whole idea behind the introduction of G13 was to remove stale drafts, which have no chance to be accepted and are not of any interest to anybody, including the creator. The means to prove this is to see whether the draft has been recently edited. This is not an ideal means, but one can argue that indeed if a draft has not been edited in a long time then nobody is interested in trying to get it moved to the article space. However, if the draft has been submitted, somebody is interested in getting it out of the draft, but usually it does not make sense to edit submitted draft, because important feedback would be coming as a result of the rejection (or even the draft will be moved). Thus, the fact that a submitted draft has not been edited for half a year does not mean it became stale, only that we do not have enough reviewers. This is why they should not be eligible for G13.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- So you're talking only of drafts where they've been waiting for review a long time? I'd be happy that they're not G13'ed, agreed. Any delay there is WP's issue, not the author's.
- But most of what I see have been submitted and have been reviewed (and rejected). The delay has come in at that point, where no rework has been done, and I'm still happy to G13 these. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I fully agree on both points, and indeed this is what I (and, if I understood correctly, also Nosebagbear) was talking about.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- The whole idea behind the introduction of G13 was to remove stale drafts, which have no chance to be accepted and are not of any interest to anybody, including the creator. The means to prove this is to see whether the draft has been recently edited. This is not an ideal means, but one can argue that indeed if a draft has not been edited in a long time then nobody is interested in trying to get it moved to the article space. However, if the draft has been submitted, somebody is interested in getting it out of the draft, but usually it does not make sense to edit submitted draft, because important feedback would be coming as a result of the rejection (or even the draft will be moved). Thus, the fact that a submitted draft has not been edited for half a year does not mean it became stale, only that we do not have enough reviewers. This is why they should not be eligible for G13.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Do we have appropriate links to the best categories by which to find these sets of drafts? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Is the problem here less about lack of reviewing, and more about lack of reviewers? It's a walled garden where only "accepted" reviewers can take part. No wonder there aren't enough of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what it was at before this thread but I did a few and saw some others doing a few and we're currently at the 5 month mark for the old submitted for review. This is obviously closer to 6 than ideal. I will state, as I have whenever G13 are brought up, that I think G13 should not be a speedy but instead a PROD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I find it likely that the backlog is due to well-written, properly formatted, borderline notable drafts/articles, which would take effort (shifting through more than three refs not always clear which three, more than one page of google search result, foreign language sources). Agreeing to accept all borderline cases (perhaps adding the notability tag) that have no other problems might be the way to solve this problem long-term. The volume of new drafts/articles is only going to increase, while even admins seem to have problem with being versed in all notability/deletion guidelines. If the focus was on
the most critical problems (are) vandalism, obvious hoaxes, copyright violations , and defamatory material about living persons, followed closely by pages that exploit Wikipedia for money (think spam/promotion)
-WP:NPP, the users that currently are active (or want to be) might be able to handle the load. I could have already reviewed hundreds of pages if it were so, while right now, while I try to get myself well-versed in PAG (an endeavor that will take months), all I'm doing is handling only the most obvious cases, and going by the competition at that end of the pie (don't tell me pie has not, ends or corners), I'd say many, if not most, others are, as well. An overworked, understaffed security system ought to be guarding against utter shite, no more. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 17:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC) - Why not just move them to userspace and leave redirects in place to that user space? Buffs (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well G13 should not apply to a submitted but unreviewed draft. Anybody tagging to delete or deleting such pages should put their effort into reviewing them instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- If the AfC backlog is causing a conflict with G13, suspend G13 until the situation is resolved. I would also support indefinitely suspending G13, because it's dumb. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps drafts are indeed cheap. But what's the spam-prune mechanism for AfC? Is there one? At present, G13 fills (slowly!) that role. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- G11 works just fine. My feeling is that if it's not really csdable aside from g13, it probably shouldn't be g13'd (some exceptions.) Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Like Praxidicae said, the spam-prune mechanism for AfC, like the rest of Wikipedia, is G11. And it's much faster than G13. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- But is G11 faster? (on average). Most (well, practically all) of these drafts aren't being reviewed at all for G11. G11 needs some active intervention by a reviewer, G13 gets there eventuall by inertia.
- I've seen two G11, both of which were pretty obviously WP:N even if their current articles were problematic Draft:Gin Mare (already discussed on WP:CSD) and Draft:The Savile Row Company. I challenged Savile Row Company's CSD this morning, but another admin deleted it anyway, without discussion. So it's also a problem that CSDs aren't challengable or discussable, they're just deleted anyway (see WP:CSD, where even discussing the problem attracts threats of blocks). G11 is neither appropriate for Drafts (at least, as practiced today) nor is it practical, as no-one is doing bulk reviewing to apply it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Like Praxidicae said, the spam-prune mechanism for AfC, like the rest of Wikipedia, is G11. And it's much faster than G13. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- G11 works just fine. My feeling is that if it's not really csdable aside from g13, it probably shouldn't be g13'd (some exceptions.) Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps drafts are indeed cheap. But what's the spam-prune mechanism for AfC? Is there one? At present, G13 fills (slowly!) that role. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I would also support indefinitely suspending G13, because it's dumb
I very strongly support this. Praxidicae (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. If a draft is either a) abandoned without ever being submitted for review or b) reviewed and rejected and then ignored for 6 months it should still be eligible for G13. By excluding submitted and unreviewed drafts, it is clear we aren't holding our shitty processes against people. --Jayron32 16:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- +1 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to make two distinct points here.
- First, it's obvious that the G13 clock should start from when the draft was last reviewed. Most review systems (code review, manuscript review, responding to a parking ticket, whatever) have some concept of who's turn it is. When the author submits something, it becomes the reviewer's turn. When the reviewer comments, it's back to being the author's turn. Depending on the process, there may be more than two parties involved, but it's always somebody's turn to do something next. In our case, we don't have assigned reviewers (or, for that matter assigned authors), but there's still clearly times when it's the author's turn, and times when it's the review team's (i.e. our) turn. It's absurd to count time when it's our turn against the author's clock.
- Second, the definition of G13 talks about, "not been edited by a human in six months". I often find declined drafts that were last edited several months ago that I think should never make it to mainspace. Sometimes there's a useful comment I want to make, but I don't because I know doing so will reset the G13 clock. That's just stupid. I shouldn't have to play wiki game theory to decide whether the benefit of adding my comment exceeds the harm of resetting the clock. So, the clock should not be reset by a reviewer leaving a comment.
- -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Draft:Running on Waves is a perfect example that I found today. It was last declined on 18 March. Since that time, nothing significant has happened. On 21 May, it was resubmitted with zero changes. On 30 September (i.e. earlier today), a reference was removed because the URL was redirecting to a porn site (don't say I didn't warn you if you go look). And, then I came along a few minutes ago and declined it again. Why should any of those things reset the G13 clock? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comments: A few observations as I precieve that several editors are trying to hijack this for their personal objectives:
- CSD:G13 says unedited (absent a bot edit) for 6 months. The goal is to keep pages improving or admit defeat on them. Originally it was just pages that were enrolled in AFC as the editors knew that they'd get a review to help them fix issues. It was subsequently expanded to all Draft namespace pages as it was discovered that there was just as much Adspam/BLPVIO/Test pages/hopeless content that was in draft space but not tagged for AFC.
- If pages are falling out the back of AFC for being submitted but not yet reviewed, then we need more people reviewing submissions (or commenting on issues) which magically resets the Last Edited date and saves it from being G13d. I note it appears the current backlog is 2+ months.
- If people want to disable G13, then we will start racking up more and more questionable content that will never serve the purpose of Mainspace improvement/content. Hasteur (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. I like to think that no admin would ever do a G13 on a never-reviewed draft.
- A better response would be an alert to submitted drafts approaching six months. Possibly, specify “never reviewed” drafts, separated from resubmissions. Is there an easy link to navigate to these? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: only to make sure your intention is clear, you are referring only to pages that are in the AFC pipeline that are being requested for review, not pages that aren't in the AFC pipeline i.e. just random pages without an AFC header on them. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Referring to the hypothetical case of a properly submitted AfC draft that has failed to receive any review. Has such a case occurred? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Draft:List of qadis of Mbarara District is the oldest never-reviewed draft, and it's from 8 May 2019. As far as I know there's no fool-proof way of determining if a page has never been reviewed unless you do a quarry looking for only a single submission template. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, Primefac has found one (and one that I was reviewing in the meantime). I figure if I'm going to defend CSD:G13 and not claim that things are falling out the back end, I should review some of the oldest AFC submissions and deal with them. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- G13 does not *require* the admin to delete the page, but there are so many routine G13 deletions that it is probably unreasonable to expect every G13 to be given a critical look, even brief. Are G-13 eligible pages that are pending review specially flagged? I see that Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions is empty, which suggests to me that some admins are very quick to empty it. Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old is large at (1,088 P). It contains pages that were submitted for review (including re-review) over 6 months ago, but these pages have been edited post-review. Is the tracking of pending submissions robust? How many could be quietly falling off the backend deleted per G13? I note that these pages are, broadly, difficult to review. From a review of several, I think it would be better to auto-move to mainspace than to silently speedy delete (delete by the standard G13 process). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's a fair amount of scare-mongering, and completely untrue. The oldest extant draft awaiting review at this exact moment is from 13 May, which is still 1.5 months away from being G13-able. No, G13 pages that are also pending review are not flagged (other than being theoretically in both the "pending" and "G13-eligible" categories). At the moment none of the pending drafts will be "falling off the backend" for at least a month or two. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- My questions were genuine questions. I am not up to speed with these things. Are you guaranteeing that no submitted draft will be deleted before being reviewed? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies, I took
It contains pages that were submitted for review (including re-review) over 6 months ago
as your preface to concerns about pages being deleted. As I said, there is no "pages that are 6+ months old that are both pending and G13-able" category, likely because it's never been an issue (and still very unlikely to be one). - I am going to interpret your latest question as "deleted via G13" (as unreviewed pages are G11'd etc all the time), but no, I can only guarantee that will not happen for at least two months from now because there are no pages that fit that bill; there is no technical way of preventing it at the moment. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies, I took
- My questions were genuine questions. I am not up to speed with these things. Are you guaranteeing that no submitted draft will be deleted before being reviewed? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's a fair amount of scare-mongering, and completely untrue. The oldest extant draft awaiting review at this exact moment is from 13 May, which is still 1.5 months away from being G13-able. No, G13 pages that are also pending review are not flagged (other than being theoretically in both the "pending" and "G13-eligible" categories). At the moment none of the pending drafts will be "falling off the backend" for at least a month or two. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- G13 does not *require* the admin to delete the page, but there are so many routine G13 deletions that it is probably unreasonable to expect every G13 to be given a critical look, even brief. Are G-13 eligible pages that are pending review specially flagged? I see that Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions is empty, which suggests to me that some admins are very quick to empty it. Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old is large at (1,088 P). It contains pages that were submitted for review (including re-review) over 6 months ago, but these pages have been edited post-review. Is the tracking of pending submissions robust? How many could be quietly falling off the backend deleted per G13? I note that these pages are, broadly, difficult to review. From a review of several, I think it would be better to auto-move to mainspace than to silently speedy delete (delete by the standard G13 process). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, Primefac has found one (and one that I was reviewing in the meantime). I figure if I'm going to defend CSD:G13 and not claim that things are falling out the back end, I should review some of the oldest AFC submissions and deal with them. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Draft:List of qadis of Mbarara District is the oldest never-reviewed draft, and it's from 8 May 2019. As far as I know there's no fool-proof way of determining if a page has never been reviewed unless you do a quarry looking for only a single submission template. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Referring to the hypothetical case of a properly submitted AfC draft that has failed to receive any review. Has such a case occurred? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: only to make sure your intention is clear, you are referring only to pages that are in the AFC pipeline that are being requested for review, not pages that aren't in the AFC pipeline i.e. just random pages without an AFC header on them. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. I've seen plenty of admins who speedy-delete pages that obviously don't qualify except under a blatant misreading of the criterion (e.g. a page is deleted at XFD, and a completely different page on that topic is G4 deleted as a repost), and just like with the other criteria, G13 needs to reflect its intention clearly. The point is to delete content that's been forgotten by its writer or that's been rejected as inappropriate for the encyclopedia: if it's still waiting for review, and none of the other speedy criteria applies, there's no way it should be deleted without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposal
- Draft articles subject to a good-faith submission for review are not eligible for G13.
- Maintenance edits, including declining review, are not counted when calculating staleness.
That would seem to fix the problem? Guy (help!) 11:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I can't quite see how those would work. They seem right, but are a bit vague in their expression. Consider the following:
- Valid timeouts (and thus automatic processing to G13 is practical):
- Not submitted for review. There have been no reviews.
- Submitted for review. Reviewed, failed. No more edits until timeout. The last edit was a failed review.
- Timeout was WP's fault for slow processing (so no G13 is appropriate):
- Submitted, not yet reviewed. Last edit is a review request.
- Submitted, reviewed, re-submitted, but still pending a re-review (any number of times). Last edit is a review request.
- Impossible to judge automatically or trivially, thus must not be actioned automatically.
- Last edit is a "non-content, non-review edit". Neither a review, nor a review request. Automatically we can't tell what else it was, either a "content edit" or a "maintenance edit". In such cases though, we should err on caution, not G13.
- Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think the principles Guy lays out are correct but agree with Andy that if we're codifying them in some sort of way (which is probably needing an RfC) that the language would need tweaking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Noting for the record that I originally argued that any edit (regardless of if it was a bot/non-bot) should reset the G13 clock to the the most objective measurement possible instead of leaving it to discretion to determine if the edit qualified for substantial. In fact when I ran a bot to action ArticlesForCreation and Draft space I followed the more strict interpertation to prevent accusations of bias in the evaluation of G13. I strongly suggest that JzG (and all those that want to change G13's interpertation/operation) to go WT:CSD and propose a change to the interpertation via WP:RFC and establish consensus. Hasteur (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose any alteration of WP:CSD policy from a page other than WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support "Draft articles subject to a
good-faithsubmission for review are not eligible for G13. Oppose the "good-faith" clause, bad-faith submissions are easily REJECTED/DECLINED by the ACFH tool, and resubmission without improvement is an existing reason to nominate and delete at MFD (see WP:DMFD). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC) - support bot-like maintenance edits, not including reviewer responses, not resetting the G13 clock, however, it is unimportant. The point of G13 is that abandoned drafts don't exist unwatched forever. Another six months doesn't hurt. Support gnomes using a key edit summary code to work with G13 bots, if someone wants to do that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose declining a review not counting when calculating staleness. A declined review should include a meaningful explanation, and it should be presumed that the drive-by contributor will need time to read and respond.
- Oppose use of the word "staleness". wikt:stale is ambiguous. Stale does not equal old. Some topics are timeless and not prone to go stale. Others go stale overnight. If you mean "unedited for six month", use those words. Use words that newcomers can use without the barrier of enculturation to Wikipedia jargon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm basically on-board with this, but agree with the objections that criteria need to be clear-cut. So, to reiterate the "whose turn is it?" theme I talked about earlier (see the picture of the chess clock, above), I suggest:
- A draft exists in exactly one of two states (not counting rejected). It's either waiting-for-review, or work-in-progress.
- As soon as a new draft is created, the state is work-in-progress. When it's submitted (or re-submitted), the state becomes waiting-for-review. When a draft is declined, the state changes back to work-in-progress.
- The draft template should prominently display both the current state and the amount of time since it most recently entered that state.
- The current state and clock should be easily parsable, so people can write tools to do useful things. Useful things might be alerting the author that they're running out of time, possibly offering them the option of moving the draft back into their user space. Or alerting the review team that they're falling behind on processing the queue. Or tagging a stale draft for G13.
- Once you've got that basic architecture in place, you could imagine all sorts of incremental improvements. Maybe a "I want more time" button. Anybody can click it to reset the clock back to zero. If you want, think of that as faking a state transition. People do that anyway by making a pro-forma edit; this just makes it explicit. Or, a way for somebody to edit a work-in-progress draft and explicitly request that the clock NOT be reset. You might want to do this if you're removing a copyvio or BLP violation, for example. Bot edits, of course, would not reset the clock.
- The important thing here is that the state and clock are explicit. No fuzziness about "good-faith edits" or "content edits" vs "maintenance edits". This provides a clean separation between the logic that decides what state transitions to perform, vs the logic that takes actions based on those states. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: RE "I want more time" please review {{AfC postpone G13}} which resets the clock for annother 6 months. Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I've been around for a while, and didn't even know that template existed. My guess is essentially none of our draft authors do either. Having a button right up there on the AfD template that said, "Click me for more time" would be more obvious. And, as I said, having specific, well-defined, states would make it easier for people to write better tools. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose both (but for a strange reason): I will concede that drafts that are waiting for AFC to review them that are nearing the 6 month unedited mark should not be G13, but we don't need a hard and fast rule to do that. I am invisioning a new BRFA that will modify Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 2 that will put an {{AFC comment}} in indicating that the page was in danger of being G13ed, but had an active submission template on it, thereby kicking the G13 down the road (from the bot's perspective). I opposed the inclusion of maintenance edits into G13 because it took the criteria from being 100% objective (it either has or has not been edited in the past 6 months) to a judgement call that invites wiggle room. Should Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 be approved, I intend to uphold the more strict interpertation with the bot and let editors make the judgement calls (and the responsibility for them). Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- I like some of this proposal, but only with modifications:
- First of all, I think the result of this discussion should be formally proposed at WT:CSD and gain consensus there, before the actual G13 criterion text is modified.
- Secondly, I think that a review whose outcome is "Decline" should reset the G13 clock, because the draft author ought to read the decline reasons and any feedback, and have time to edit to address them.
- Thirdly I agree that the clock should be, in effect, suspended while a draft has been submitted for review and is awaiting review. It is not reasonable for an editor to be told 'wait patiently" only to have the draft deleted because there was too large a backlog of drafts. I understand that this has not happened, and cannot happen for some time even if all reviewing stops, but the policy should be made clear. I would welcome an improved version of HasteurBot, and that might help avoid any such issue occurring, but I think it is better to spell out the procedures clearly.
- Fourthly, I like the idea of states, but I would define them slightly differently than RoySmith. I think any AfC draft should be considered to be in one of the following states:
- a) Never submitted for review;
- b) submitted and awaiting review;
- c) declined, awaiting further edits and re-submission; and
- d) rejected.
- In state b (awaiting review) G13 would not apply. The AfC template should ideally explicitly display one of these states. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: With respect, to your second modification, when the AFC reviewer declines the submission the clock is automatically reset because the decline constitutes a page edit by an editor. As to your fourth point, States C and D are effectively the same. I do agree that if a page is in state B, the G13 rule should be suspended, but this can be taken care of by a bot task to go through and add a AFC comment indicating the page was eligible for G13, but has been bumped because it was still awaiting review. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hasteur Under current policy, you are correct that a decline causes an edit which resets the g13 clock, but elsewhere in this thread and in discussions on WT:CSD it has been suggested that "maintenance" edits, specifically including decline notices, should not reset the clock, so I wanted to make clear my view that a decline should reset the clock. In short my second point is arguing for the retention of the current procedure, and against a change in that regard. In my view state c (declined) and state d (rejected) are different in several ways. I think that a reject should arguably not reset the clock, as a reject says that the draft is hopeless and there is nothing for the submitting editor to do, but I wouldn't feel strongly if it did reset the clock. In any case if the AfC templates are to explicitly display a state indicator, c and d should display differently. Have I clarified my comments helpfully? DES
- @DESiegel: With respect, to your second modification, when the AFC reviewer declines the submission the clock is automatically reset because the decline constitutes a page edit by an editor. As to your fourth point, States C and D are effectively the same. I do agree that if a page is in state B, the G13 rule should be suspended, but this can be taken care of by a bot task to go through and add a AFC comment indicating the page was eligible for G13, but has been bumped because it was still awaiting review. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, and without an explicit statement in the CSD text, some editors may ignore a bot comment when manually tagging for G13, and some admins may also ignore such an edit when doing G13 deletions. It is better to nail down the procedure, in muy view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: Interesting fact: The Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions are populated by
{{AFC submission/draft}}and{{AFC submission/declined}}as far as I can tell. Both of those templates don't have exclusions for the discretionary level. As such, the only way for someone to find these drafts that aren't in those tracking categories would be a back end query for all the draft pages and evaluating everything. While consensus may authorize a more loose interpertation, none of the categories actually support that Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: Interesting fact: The Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions are populated by
- Oh, and without an explicit statement in the CSD text, some editors may ignore a bot comment when manually tagging for G13, and some admins may also ignore such an edit when doing G13 deletions. It is better to nail down the procedure, in muy view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm game for anything that lessens the scope of G13, but I oppose anything that broadens it even in the slightest. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support the exceptions but the "staleness clock" should apply from when the draft was last declined and/or significant edit, whichever is later. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- QEDK what defines a "significant" edit, and in particular, how should a bot be able to distinguish one? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: I don't know why a bot needs to distinguish it necessarily? Admins perform the deletions afterall, a significant edit is simply where the version that is resubmitted is not identical to one that was submitted previously (anyone gaming the caveat is pointless since speedy deletion is via discretion of the deleting admin). The AFCH helper tool can be modified to add a magic keyword for declines and the bot can deal with it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- QEDK When G13 was first implemented, pretty much all tags were placed by a bot. There have been several such bots run over the years. I believe that none is running now, but one is being proposed, as discussed just a bit above in this thread. Moreover, the category Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions is, as Hastur points out above, populated by AfC templates. Unless the AfC Script, templates, and proposed bots vcan detect what a "significant" edit is, neither the category nor any bot-placed CSD tags for G13 will match the modified CSD, which will make it much harder to find and tag G13s, even manually. So any rule should be one whoich can be in some way implemented by a bot or a script. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: I don't know why a bot needs to distinguish it necessarily? Admins perform the deletions afterall, a significant edit is simply where the version that is resubmitted is not identical to one that was submitted previously (anyone gaming the caveat is pointless since speedy deletion is via discretion of the deleting admin). The AFCH helper tool can be modified to add a magic keyword for declines and the bot can deal with it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- QEDK what defines a "significant" edit, and in particular, how should a bot be able to distinguish one? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Noting that HasteurBot is back on the beat and is reminding all the pages that are at least 5 months completely unedited that their pages are in danger of being G13ed. Hasteur (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support as clearly and simply proposed by Guy: G13 should not apply to a submitted but unreviewed draft. Bot , AWB, and other minor maintenance edits should not restart the clock.
- Why now make it complicated? G13 was an excellent deletion criterion when created and deleted drafts are open to refund. Hasteurbot does an excellent job; enough concerned admins, such as for example DGG, are checking the appropriateness of the G13s before actually pressing the delete button. On any G13 that can be sensibly salvaged, the G13 is declined - and there aren't many of those. With 6mio articles, Wikipedia is now well beyond the stage where every article should be kept if the author - mainly SPA - can't be bothered to complete it, even if it has a potentially reasonable title. As our founder once stated somewhere, the major effort should now be expended on keeping clean what we have. AfC and NPR generally do a good job of sifting out the new rubbish and that's what they're here for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose What we have includes what we have in Draft space, even if unsubmitted. For many months, I have taken unsubmitted hopeless somewhat promotional drafts to MfD, currently, they have more and more been kept, with the rationale, G13 will get rid of them, so why should we bother considering them individually. Junk anywhere in WP degrades the encyclopedia. Agreed, it's hard to find by searching, but not impossible. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Is this uncivil? It certainly is incendiary.
I'm not sure if this is the proper place to post this, but considering there was a discussion less than a month ago about User:Incnis Mrsi, it seems worthy to me.
I was doing a series of tautological edits, when Incnis Mrsi wikihounded me on three unrelated pages discussed at this edit warring arbitration page, insinuating I had an "agenda" and that I was a "stalker"[6]. That seems uncivil to me, definitely incendiary, and definitely baiting. This seems to be further proof that the uncivil behavior per WP:AGF continues. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, an agenda – underwater (and other) tunnels exist too. A diff where the word “stalker” was directed at Leitmotiv or it did not happen. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
| “ | Some stalkers surreptitiously advertise this essay by tagging individual messages with {{tps}} replying to the message on the talkpage that they stalk. {{tps}} produces: (talk page stalker) | ” |
- What now? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oh I see, yeah I'm clearly unfamiliar with the term. You are self-celebrating the stalker term and it wasn't directed at me. Got it. Still my point stands: wikihounding, edit-warring, and using baiting language on my own talk page, and that my personal editing interests are an agenda (a loaded-term, if we are to be honest with ourselves). Leitmotiv (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Is anything wrong with calling ongoing mass mangling of articles in disregard of objections an agenda? Nobody authorized the user to do this stuff, and WP:BRD is expectedly in action. There are several kinds of tunnels. An immersed tube is no less a tunnel than an underground tunnel. Also, some tunnels have sections protruding above the ground. Readers of Wikipedia should not be forced to make guesswork, especially if it’s only one user who wishes so. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've already addressed most of this in a previous comment. However, I do find it interesting that only now are you willing to discuss the technicalities of "underground tunnel" but ignored that opportunity on my talk page when I pinged you [7].
- Only now? Again, the discussion for Gun-type fission weapon (where underwater vs underground ambiguity was brought to attention) was started at 19:06 UTC. Five minutes before Leitmotiv blackmailed me with an edit summary, 41 minutes before Leitmotiv ran to AN/EW, and 1h 25m before beginning of this thread. Moreover, some 23 hours earlier I suggested the user to “cease… drive-by replacements” and encouraged him to edit out whichever is truly redundant. Can anybody instruct Leitmotiv, at last, to stop wasting resources of other Wikipedians on pointless lawyering? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've already addressed most of this in a previous comment. However, I do find it interesting that only now are you willing to discuss the technicalities of "underground tunnel" but ignored that opportunity on my talk page when I pinged you [7].
- Is anything wrong with calling ongoing mass mangling of articles in disregard of objections an agenda? Nobody authorized the user to do this stuff, and WP:BRD is expectedly in action. There are several kinds of tunnels. An immersed tube is no less a tunnel than an underground tunnel. Also, some tunnels have sections protruding above the ground. Readers of Wikipedia should not be forced to make guesswork, especially if it’s only one user who wishes so. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oh I see, yeah I'm clearly unfamiliar with the term. You are self-celebrating the stalker term and it wasn't directed at me. Got it. Still my point stands: wikihounding, edit-warring, and using baiting language on my own talk page, and that my personal editing interests are an agenda (a loaded-term, if we are to be honest with ourselves). Leitmotiv (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- What now? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: Incnis Mrsi is also editing my personal comments on the edit-warring discussion and disingenuously calling my edits slander. I believe editing another user's comments is generally not permitted, even if they are right. In this particular case it wasn't a personal attack or slander, but misidentifying his previous blocking as a ban, which somehow was interpreted as a personal attack. Rather than correct the mistake, he hid that potential information altogether. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Removing calumny (which may also be called slander) is hopefully a legitimate action. As there are no templates {{calumny}} or {{calumny removed}}, another one was used. Also note the sequence of Leitmotiv’s actions:
- 19:11 UTC – tries to intimidate me with an edit summary,
- 19:17 UTC – posts a reply in talk:Gun-type fission weapon #Operation Nougat.
- 19:57 UTC – catches me on 3RR without a talk-page activity during those forty minutes.
- Moreover, Leitmotiv supplied an irrelevant tangent hoping to deter criticism. But attempts to intimidate me here on en.Wikipedia are not cost-effective. Let Leitmotiv learn on own mistakes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Occam's Razor. You can call it slander or calumny, or a conspiracy for all I care, but it was simply a case of transposing "block" with "ban". Either way, the end result is the same: you were recently reviewed for uncivil actions and editing another's comments whether you think it to be a slander against you or not, is more uncivil and disrespectful behavior. Your comments that I have an "anti-underground agenda" is incendiary, confrontational, baiting, and not assuming good faith. In fact, I had to make a new rule for my talk page because you wouldn't respond to me, which in a roundabout way, is also not being civil in the most basic of ways: communication - meaning you're not looking to solve the perceived problem, only throw mud and wikihound. Now that I think of it, please assume good faith in my blunder of mistaking a block for a ban. I mean, I certainly didn't get that you were directly outing yourself as a stalker on my talk page. I assumed you were talking about me in some manner because of the language you used. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- The user who dismissed feedback and resorted to intimidation in edit summaries, all within the last 40 hours, feels now wronged by alleged “mud and wikihound”. Not worthy any further analysis and any more edit in this thread by me. The site has a thousand of admins to dispose of trash here – good luck. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Occam's Razor. You can call it slander or calumny, or a conspiracy for all I care, but it was simply a case of transposing "block" with "ban". Either way, the end result is the same: you were recently reviewed for uncivil actions and editing another's comments whether you think it to be a slander against you or not, is more uncivil and disrespectful behavior. Your comments that I have an "anti-underground agenda" is incendiary, confrontational, baiting, and not assuming good faith. In fact, I had to make a new rule for my talk page because you wouldn't respond to me, which in a roundabout way, is also not being civil in the most basic of ways: communication - meaning you're not looking to solve the perceived problem, only throw mud and wikihound. Now that I think of it, please assume good faith in my blunder of mistaking a block for a ban. I mean, I certainly didn't get that you were directly outing yourself as a stalker on my talk page. I assumed you were talking about me in some manner because of the language you used. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Leitmotiv and Incnis Mrsi, both of you should be ashamed of yourselves for your unnecessarily combative behavior on full display here. This is a collaborative project. Please start acting that way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- I noticed that the only people who have commented in this section prior to your note was Leitmotiv and Incnis Mrsi; that's quite telling of their hostility. Incnis Mrsi's conduct problems are not limited to Leitmotiv or even the English Wikipedia, but I do believe here that both parties are at fault. Vermont (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- It could also be that because the thread was neglected till now. Had it been nipped in the bud with a response early on... ...? I don't think my responses were the best, but marginally better. I felt forced to come here considering the edit warring from the other party and the past history. Sorry to bother you all. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Just what is it you want from the community, Leitmotif? (Since you were the one who brought it up.) Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- @BeenAroundAWhile: I thought that was clear in the header of this thread. Is this uncivil behavior? No one has addressed that. I even wondered if this was the correct place to post this (no response). Incnis Mrsi has corrected me that his stalker comment was in reference to him. But on my talk page he accused me with baiting words that don't assume good faith by saying I had an "anti-underground agenda" (loaded words) and that I needed to be stopped. Since then he has added uncivil behavior in the form of editing my comments erroneously and representing them disingenuously. No one has addressed this either. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Just what is it you want from the community, Leitmotif? (Since you were the one who brought it up.) Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- It could also be that because the thread was neglected till now. Had it been nipped in the bud with a response early on... ...? I don't think my responses were the best, but marginally better. I felt forced to come here considering the edit warring from the other party and the past history. Sorry to bother you all. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- More of the same: Character encodings in HTML
- Is there nothing where this editor can't turn a trivial issue into an angry time-sink for other editors? We would be so much better without them here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, missed that Andy has butted in. He has a “rich history”.
- Insulted me (without provocation) in talk:Nutation;
- Referred to me as to a troll and posted profanities;
- Used his user_talk for defamation;
- Tried to intimidate me with template boxes
- indeed, I removed his defamatory drivels, including that one in the preceding item;
- Yet another “troll” in edit summary;
- Menaced me again and posted ad hominem argumentation
- for comparison: the same exactly Andy vocally expressed indignation about me attacking other editors with edit summaries like “fixed consequences of atrociously poor categorization by the uploader”);
- No Andy’s activity in talk:Character encodings in HTML during the last seven years.
- In short, I propose to dismiss any thing by Andy_Dingley intended against me. Because of hypocrisy and obvious hostility to my person. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- … and the fresh stuff: Andy baits me, hoping to tarnish my reputation with edit warring Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oops, missed that Andy has butted in. He has a “rich history”.
- Note: Incnis Mrsi has also closed a thread here at WP:ANI that I disagreed with. They are correct that the subject should be notified, but that should be handled by notifying said subject - not shutting down the thread without any input. Also noting that on first blush, it appears that Incnis Mrsi is quickly headed for another block (likely lengthy) if their confrontational approach doesn't change, and change quickly. — Ched (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Any Wikipedian having a dozen uploaded files can be accused of file copyvio just with empty words – without any kind of supporting evidence such “tip” has zero merit. Moreover, an IP rapidly escalating his/her content dispute to an AN/I report already looks highly suspicious. Hence the thread should be dismissed by a reasonable admin. We likely see another threat directed at me – the third, at least, during the last two weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- How is it possible that you haven't yet understood that your constant combative behavior is what everyone objects to? If you merely endeavored to engage with less than maximum assholishness, no one would want you blocked. If you spend a few seconds, every time you address someone, to reduce the level of aggressiveness and hostility in your comments, the problem will be solved. Conversely, if you continue doing exactly the same things that led to being blocked for a month, as you have been, it will not be surprising if eventually you are blocked for longer, or indefinitely. --JBL (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I do not aim to please everyone. Few extant Wikipedians (and more so certain banned one) hate me, but it fits into a usual wiki life full of acrimony. I also was harassed by several known long-term abusers, hence it is not easy to scare me. Certainly there are people who desire me to become gagged Commons-style. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- JBL reflects my sentiments exactly. This is my first run in with you. You came to my talk page very aggressively and unwilling to talk. My advice is the same as JBL's: had you approached me willing to discuss the matter instead of ignoring me on my own talk page, I would take your demeanor to be good-willed. But I don't believe that is the case, and that's just like my opinion man, and apparently everyone else's. This reminds me of the adage... if you have a problem with many people, maybe they're not the problem. You may not aim to please, but you should aim to finish a discourse you started, and civilly (civilly ≠ "aiming to please"). Leitmotiv (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I do not aim to please everyone. Few extant Wikipedians (and more so certain banned one) hate me, but it fits into a usual wiki life full of acrimony. I also was harassed by several known long-term abusers, hence it is not easy to scare me. Certainly there are people who desire me to become gagged Commons-style. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- How is it possible that you haven't yet understood that your constant combative behavior is what everyone objects to? If you merely endeavored to engage with less than maximum assholishness, no one would want you blocked. If you spend a few seconds, every time you address someone, to reduce the level of aggressiveness and hostility in your comments, the problem will be solved. Conversely, if you continue doing exactly the same things that led to being blocked for a month, as you have been, it will not be surprising if eventually you are blocked for longer, or indefinitely. --JBL (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Any Wikipedian having a dozen uploaded files can be accused of file copyvio just with empty words – without any kind of supporting evidence such “tip” has zero merit. Moreover, an IP rapidly escalating his/her content dispute to an AN/I report already looks highly suspicious. Hence the thread should be dismissed by a reasonable admin. We likely see another threat directed at me – the third, at least, during the last two weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- This has been open for ten days - with so little input, imo it is close to harassment now and should be closed. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposals
- Indef block
- Long block
- Short block
- Do nothing
Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- #1 Indef (which, yet again, doesn't mean infinite). But there's absolutely no insight here into what the problem is, and so many editors are clearly tired of dealing with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- # Dispute resolution or an interaction ban between Andy Dingley and Incnis Mrsi - Andy Dingley repeatedly calling Incnis Mrsi a troll, which they are clearly not are imo personal attacks and need to stop. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Govindaharihari: DR is not possible because (as can be seen in the response to my comment above) IM is unwilling to contemplate criticisms or change their problematic behavior. --JBL (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- In light of the continuing aggressive and hostile behavior and the response to my comment above, I support an indefinite block: the behavior is unacceptable, a 30-day block led to no change, and there is no reason to suppose another bounded block will have a better effect. --JBL (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the user who repeatedly calls for indefinite block of me makes himself such edit summaries as Please go away -- in this instance, what matters is not having a stupid argument spread here and wasting yet more time over childishness. It is IMHO an unhealthy situation when such demanding users as Joel_B._Lewis—demanding with respect to others’ conduct—are unwilling to hold themselves to the same elevated civility standards. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- You can't tu quoque your way out of dozens of people telling you over and over again that your behavior is problematic. I would happily take a civility block for the comment you mention, if it were accompanied by you ceasing to be unpleasant. (It is completely unimportant to me whether this would be achieved by you changing your behavior or by being blocked indefinitely -- I don't care at all, and I only call for the latter because you are unwilling to contemplate the former.) --JBL (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Who are most (albeit not all) people who whine about my “unpleasantness”? They have a considerable way to improve their own behaviour. They can live without making threats on me, without referring to Wikipedians as to “time sinks”, without silly edit wars over perceived redundancy, without blanking legit talk posts with Twinkle. And without expressing schadenfreude seeing a block against the opponent, last but not least. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- You can't tu quoque your way out of dozens of people telling you over and over again that your behavior is problematic. I would happily take a civility block for the comment you mention, if it were accompanied by you ceasing to be unpleasant. (It is completely unimportant to me whether this would be achieved by you changing your behavior or by being blocked indefinitely -- I don't care at all, and I only call for the latter because you are unwilling to contemplate the former.) --JBL (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the user who repeatedly calls for indefinite block of me makes himself such edit summaries as Please go away -- in this instance, what matters is not having a stupid argument spread here and wasting yet more time over childishness. It is IMHO an unhealthy situation when such demanding users as Joel_B._Lewis—demanding with respect to others’ conduct—are unwilling to hold themselves to the same elevated civility standards. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- At the very least, a total iBan for both of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked Incnis Mrsi, factoring in the previous block and their long-term blocks on Commons and Meta (which are known for being even more relaxed than we are on civility). This is not an indefinite ban, however, in any block appeal I would expect to see a recognition of the reasons why they were blocked and a credible commitment to do better in their interactions with other editors. The behavior of @Leitmotiv: is poor but without the long-term pattern I am not convinced that a block is necessary - however, I wouldn't object to it and that is why I am not "closing" this section. Ditto with the iban. --Rschen7754 21:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754: I aim to improve, which is also why I came here. I'm tired of trying to resolve things with editors that don't want to resolve, not that there's a lot of them out there, but just one can drain you. Can you tell me in which ways I can improve? Perhaps with examples of behavior? Leitmotiv (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Some of the past comments in this thread: while it is tempting to repay someone's rudeness in return, it is better to rise above it. --Rschen7754 00:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754: I inferred that much from other editor's comments. What I'm probably personally blind to, is what specific actions are the other editors and you talking about? I really am being sincere here, and the reason why, is because half of my content in my posts here haven't been addressed by the admins, which makes me feel they aren't reading my content - so I'm also inclined to think, maybe they're not entirely reading my comments. If that's the case, I'd love examples. So I can specifically change those things. I'm not saying my posts couldn't be interpreted as negative, I can often be a convoluted writer and not get to the point and be misinterpreted along the way. I would like to point out though, that from the get go I sincerely attempted to work it out with Incnis Mrsi from our very first interaction on my talk page, but he ignored me. That really highlighted how I felt future interactions with him would be, and I was more or less right. His original edit warring revert offered no reason for reverting. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Some of the sarcasm could have been dialed back in the comments above. --Rschen7754 01:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm trying my hardest here. By comments above, do you mean my previous comment to you? Or in this thread altogether? This vagueness isn't helping me. Sometimes I need to be beaten over the head. I honestly don't think of myself as a sarcastic person, so I'm more confused than we started. @Rschen7754: Leitmotiv (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- In this thread altogether. --Rschen7754 01:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well I will take the hint. I put forth a sincere effort just now to get help and met with more vagueness. I kind of feel like my comments aren't being read. It's almost like, "pictures, or it didn't happen" meme. Sorry to be a bother. I still sit here with original questions and comments left unaddressed from early on in this thread. I suspect the admins aren't reading my comments in their entirety, I don't know what other conclusion they expect me to arrive at. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- In this thread altogether. --Rschen7754 01:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm trying my hardest here. By comments above, do you mean my previous comment to you? Or in this thread altogether? This vagueness isn't helping me. Sometimes I need to be beaten over the head. I honestly don't think of myself as a sarcastic person, so I'm more confused than we started. @Rschen7754: Leitmotiv (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Some of the sarcasm could have been dialed back in the comments above. --Rschen7754 01:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754: I inferred that much from other editor's comments. What I'm probably personally blind to, is what specific actions are the other editors and you talking about? I really am being sincere here, and the reason why, is because half of my content in my posts here haven't been addressed by the admins, which makes me feel they aren't reading my content - so I'm also inclined to think, maybe they're not entirely reading my comments. If that's the case, I'd love examples. So I can specifically change those things. I'm not saying my posts couldn't be interpreted as negative, I can often be a convoluted writer and not get to the point and be misinterpreted along the way. I would like to point out though, that from the get go I sincerely attempted to work it out with Incnis Mrsi from our very first interaction on my talk page, but he ignored me. That really highlighted how I felt future interactions with him would be, and I was more or less right. His original edit warring revert offered no reason for reverting. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Some of the past comments in this thread: while it is tempting to repay someone's rudeness in return, it is better to rise above it. --Rschen7754 00:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754: I aim to improve, which is also why I came here. I'm tired of trying to resolve things with editors that don't want to resolve, not that there's a lot of them out there, but just one can drain you. Can you tell me in which ways I can improve? Perhaps with examples of behavior? Leitmotiv (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
T-Mobile range block concerns
According to Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users#Why are T-Mobile IPv6 users often blocked?, the best way to avoid the T-Mobile range block is to create an account. However, account creation from the entire range is also blocked (for the next year). Considering that there are 266 million smartphone users in the U.S. and 22% of them use T-Mobile, that seems to mean we are blocking 59 million people from editing or creating accounts (unless they connect via another means). Is that correct? Is the vandalism deterrence really worth that level of collateral damage? If there have been previous discussions about this, my apologies. All I could find was Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal, which seems to be related. Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni, DeltaQuad, Oshwah, and Drmies: pinging some admins who have been involved in case they can share more info or opinions. Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- They can just create it at home, which is why I’m not particularly concerned with the ACB aspect. I placed it for a year because it’d been blocked for well over a year straight by Graham87 and various other admins. The range is also regularly globally ACB’d for months on end, so even if we removed ACB, most of the time it wouldn’t have any impact on account creation. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with TonyBallioni. This block does not completely cut off the ability for users who are behind a T-Mobile IPv6 range to edit Wikipedia. If they wish to edit, they just need to create an account while they're not behind a T-Mobile IPv6 address, and they'll have no problem with editing after they log in.
- They can just create it at home, which is why I’m not particularly concerned with the ACB aspect. I placed it for a year because it’d been blocked for well over a year straight by Graham87 and various other admins. The range is also regularly globally ACB’d for months on end, so even if we removed ACB, most of the time it wouldn’t have any impact on account creation. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- T-Mobile has a high number of subscribers, and they cover many areas that require different IP and network configurations in order to have internet or data services offered there. Ever been in a remote location that most definitely does not have internet service around (such as the middle of the woods, on a highway in the middle of nowhere, etc), but you somehow still have the ability to access the internet through your mobile carrier (so long as there's coverage offered) and in the middle of freaking nowhere? What gives? How do they do it? The answer is that they use microwave hops (basically, a high frequency point-to-point wireless connection - they're those round white dishes you often see if you look at a cell tower) to connect one tower directly to another, and transmit data and network services through it. So if T-mobile needs to provide data coverage to a tower in a remote location, they'll use another tower in a location where an internet connection is available and that has a unobstructed line of sight with the remote tower, add a microwave connection between the two, and bam! You now have a remote tower that can provide data services where no data backbones or fiber lines exist. When users access the internet (or to put it more relevantly, edit Wikipedia) from a tower in this configuration, they're connected like this: [INTERNET] <- FIBER LINE -> [TOWER A] <- MICROWAVE CONNECTION -> [TOWER B] <- DATA SERVICE -> [MOBILE DEVICE / COMPUTER].
- Why discuss this example scenario in-depth? Because it's one of the many situations, challenges, service areas, and unique configurations that mobile carriers like T-Mobile have to solve in order to provide consistent data and voice coverage throughout its global network and in a way that the users don't notice any interruptions and is essentially invisible to them as they travel from tower-to-tower and roam from location to location. This is also why the information detailed here is exactly the way that it is. IP addresses change on each device and are handed off frequently, proxy servers and services are installed and often used, networks and ranges are as huge and wide as they are because they have to be. It wouldn't be financially or technically sustainable for a carrier to have DHCP servers, unique public-facing network ranges, direct internet connections, and other perpetuals at each and every cell tower and at every location individually... it just wouldn't. The unfortunate drawback for us is the fact that a high amount of abuse comes from mobile ranges, we only have a certain amount of information and a number of tools at our disposal in order to stop and prevent the abuse, and no silver bullet exists in order to keep only the abusers blocked while having no effect on those who are contributing positively to the project.
- Going back to this discussion: Yes, we're aware of the drawbacks and the collateral damage and the inconvenience to innocent editors that the block creates. Yes, unfortunately, this block is necessary. Yes, users have a way to edit through these ranges - just create an account at home or at another location. No, it's absolutely not what we prefer or like to be doing as opposed to... something else. Yes, we agree that it sucks and that another better solution existed. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what range you are talking about, but I have a good idea. This is definitely not the first time or the last I'll be pinged about it even though I only modified the block. DRV is a big issue and does require the ACB. It's not uncommon at ACC where I will actually tell people to find another range or use an ISP registered email because of how shared IPs can be. ACC isn't much of an option right now over the backlog, but i'm sure many people have access to other networks like Tony said. Maybe @TonyBallioni: we need to make a section on that page with a list of discussions about it and basically say we're aware? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- So is it essentially just one vandal that is necessitating the block? If so, is there any feature that could be added to AbuseFilter that would mitigate this as effectively as range blocking? For example, I don't know if you can specify IP ranges in AbuseFilter, but would that help? Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Also, FYI, none of the people affected by this block are seeing the link to Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users (T233996), so improving that page won't actually help anything at the moment. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, they are not the only master on that range. There have been 88 sets of checks ran on this /32 since the start of the year. I'd start listing off names people in the anti-vandal/anti-sock world would be very familiar with, but that'd be breaking the privacy policy. There are at least 3 major sockmasters on this range I recognize plus a ton of other people who have been socking (at least 56 of those checks are not related to any SPI page). This does not include all the vandalism that comes from range from either named accounts or IPs (because CUs don't even check that). It's been just about consistently blocked since December 2016 without accounts being created. So imagine without that block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what range you are talking about, but I have a good idea. This is definitely not the first time or the last I'll be pinged about it even though I only modified the block. DRV is a big issue and does require the ACB. It's not uncommon at ACC where I will actually tell people to find another range or use an ISP registered email because of how shared IPs can be. ACC isn't much of an option right now over the backlog, but i'm sure many people have access to other networks like Tony said. Maybe @TonyBallioni: we need to make a section on that page with a list of discussions about it and basically say we're aware? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Given the amount of vandalism from this range (note that we have similar problems with other mobile networks, as well, around the world), I'd say that it's reasonable for us to want people to apply for accounts via ACC. It's unfortunate that vandalism causes this trouble, but I'm of the opinion that it's better this way. Waggie (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Although I don't have checkuser and so I can't speak to ACB, simply from dealing with routine vandalism, I'd say the block is reasonable. T-mobile-USA is, as far as major US ISPs go, probably the worst offender in making it impossible to distinguish users. Part of the problem is that they don't break up their customer-base into any reasonable-sized chunks. A lot of other providers, for instance, may divide their customers among dozens of subnets or more, which allows collateral to be minimized. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Also the number of users in a small range. If there are /11 and /17 ranges with a similar number of users and edits, and there is disruption from both but more likely from the /11 range, it's the /17 that is probably going to be blocked most of the time, and the /11 will probably never be blocked. Is an edit from T-Mobile more likely to be disruptive than an edit from 0.0.0.0/0? If not, should 0.0.0.0/0 be blocked? Peter James (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Peter James, what?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)- It could be that there is more disruption because there are more people. A similar range in the UK is Special:Contributions/82.132.192.0/18 - O2 (UK) - with 500 edits in 10 days before the block; if the same edits had been from a /12 range with another ISP, would you have blocked? Peter James (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- I would have to make 16 blocks of /16 size ranges to block a single /12 range. The maximum size IPv4 range that an admin may block in a single action is a /16. You will never see a /11 or /12 blocked although a bunch of individual blocks could accomplish that. To possibly answer your question, if the percentage of problems were equal in a /16 that compares to the /18 that you have labeled above, despite an increase in people within the /16, I'd block.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)- When I'm implementing a rangeblock I always ask myself (not the only question) what is the smallest range to block each disruptive individual. For example, I will not block an ISP even if disruption roams over the entire network as long as individuals can be isolated. I would block five /64s to neutralize five disruptive individuals rather than block the /48 that they all share (aside, I suspect most admins who make large blocks of this precise nature are simply unaware that individuals can be isolated in that particular network). The problem with some ranges is not that there are so many people on a range or even that the percentage or number of disruptive edits is high. Those are important factors in deciding the right course of action, but to me the critical one is what minimum portion of a network must be blocked to stop just one of its users from editing. For some networks, that answer is, "the entire network". Someguy1221 (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I would have to make 16 blocks of /16 size ranges to block a single /12 range. The maximum size IPv4 range that an admin may block in a single action is a /16. You will never see a /11 or /12 blocked although a bunch of individual blocks could accomplish that. To possibly answer your question, if the percentage of problems were equal in a /16 that compares to the /18 that you have labeled above, despite an increase in people within the /16, I'd block.
- It could be that there is more disruption because there are more people. A similar range in the UK is Special:Contributions/82.132.192.0/18 - O2 (UK) - with 500 edits in 10 days before the block; if the same edits had been from a /12 range with another ISP, would you have blocked? Peter James (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Peter James, what?
- Also the number of users in a small range. If there are /11 and /17 ranges with a similar number of users and edits, and there is disruption from both but more likely from the /11 range, it's the /17 that is probably going to be blocked most of the time, and the /11 will probably never be blocked. Is an edit from T-Mobile more likely to be disruptive than an edit from 0.0.0.0/0? If not, should 0.0.0.0/0 be blocked? Peter James (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
If the collateral damage of blocking an entire ISP across the country is considered acceptable, then can someone explain to me why we don't simply require registration for people to edit? Because that's de facto what's being done here. ♟♙ (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- EnPassant - See my response and explanation here, and let me know if you still have any questions or concerns. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oshwah, I am unclear why the scenario you describe above does not have counterparts with other providers. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- DGG - They do. I was just trying to stay focused on the issue at-hand is all... Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- If they do, then some comments above seem relevant--we would have to block all users of mobile networks everywhere, and require the very high number of users in many places who depend only on them to make accounts, which tsome of them may have no practical way of doing. This is very far from "everybody can edit" -- I see it as an example of how technical problems can defeat attempts at open anonymous access, and we can only expect such problems to increase. The only solution that is consistent with our principles is better anti-vandalism methods; if we absolutely need this now, (and I can hardly contradict those who work in that area and are saying so), we must regard it only as a temporary emergency measure. I'm of course skeptical that it will only be temporary. It reminds me a little of the anarchist slogan, the freedom of the press is for the person who owns one. The internet has solved this, but now we're going backwards. DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- DGG - They do. I was just trying to stay focused on the issue at-hand is all... Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oshwah, I am unclear why the scenario you describe above does not have counterparts with other providers. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Title blacklist help
Howdy hello! This regards a request at the AfC Helpdesk. User:Coe-1878 would like to create Draft:Kumares Sinha ("Professor Kumares C. Sinha from Purdue University"). However, "((User)|(Draft)).*[Ss]inha" is on the local title blacklist, and thus the user got denied when trying to create the page. I think that Coe-1878 is legit and not trying to spam, they've had three articles accepted through AfC and don't seem to have caused trouble. Can an admin help get the draft created/workaround the title blacklist? Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek: Note that creating the draft wouldn't be enough, since the user wouldn't be able to edit it (I was about to create it when I realized this) - the page can be added to MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist to allow the creation DannyS712 (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand why the editor could not edit a page with a blacklisted title, once it was created. However, if an admin creates it, the user loses the credit of having created the page. My suggestion would be to have the user create something like Draft:Kumares and worry about the title later. An admin could move the draft to the correct title. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Seconded on that, no reason why it cannot be edited. Created. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:Coe-1878, happy editing! Primefac (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not that there's a real easy way to check, but I made this entry just recently because of a persistent promo sockfarm that kept creating obviously paid articles on members of this family. I don't think this is more of the same, though, but be wary of editors asking to bypass this filter. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- The case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bikram Jit Sinha.. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's a common name, and it looks like the sockpuppets are only creating user pages; would it be possible to allow User: for autoconfirmed and remove restriction from User talk: and Draft: pages? Peter James (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the entry per your suggestion, Peter James, and we'll see how it goes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's a common name, and it looks like the sockpuppets are only creating user pages; would it be possible to allow User: for autoconfirmed and remove restriction from User talk: and Draft: pages? Peter James (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand why the editor could not edit a page with a blacklisted title, once it was created. However, if an admin creates it, the user loses the credit of having created the page. My suggestion would be to have the user create something like Draft:Kumares and worry about the title later. An admin could move the draft to the correct title. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if admins could keep an eye on this article. The name of the driver has been widely published (poor editorial judgement by British media IMO but that's another issue). However I think it is a violation of BLP (more specifically WP:BLPCRIME) to include it in wikipedia - non-notable person, no charges. On the Talk page discussion here, Kingsif appears to make light of my concerns. He has made major contributions to this article and brought it up to ITN standards and I certainly don't want him blocked... I just think the article needs admin oversight. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think this request, and the mention of me specifically, is completely unwarranted; as the talk page shows, I make the comment about not including the driver's name well before MaxBrowne2 got involved at all, and again at ITN, because of BLP. My objections to Max' edit was that some information about the driver warranted inclusion as it was relevant to the context of the incident; you'll also note that I did not edit war over the entire section he removed (Max removed→I restored→Max removed again, and I left it), and we were in friendly discussion, several hours before this notice was posted. Thus, there is no indication that I (or any other editor) needs watching, nor that any BLP violations would be about to occur (especially on the name of the driver, the only think Max mentions here as being worried about, which I ruled out first). I mean no disrespect, Max seems like a cool guy, but has just taken this a bit overboard. Kingsif (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you "mean no disrespect" you could start by not joking about the deaths of 39 people by suggesting the article be named "2019 Grays 'goddamnit Pete I said check all the freezers!'". Fish+Karate 08:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- There's quite a lot of disgusting commentary on that talk page. Certain editors should be a) ashamed of themselves, and b) blocked. ——SerialNumber54129 09:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I removed the most egregious stuff I could find, and revdelled an edit summary, if I've missed anything feel free to let me know. Fish+Karate 09:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not condoning any of that ill-judged commentary. But gallows humour is a common reaction to tragedy. See e.g. this piece. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Good humour punches up. Fish+Karate 09:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'll try and get a few Trump jokes in. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Good humour punches up. Fish+Karate 09:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the edit summary meets RD2, but I won't challenge or argue it... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not condoning any of that ill-judged commentary. But gallows humour is a common reaction to tragedy. See e.g. this piece. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I removed the most egregious stuff I could find, and revdelled an edit summary, if I've missed anything feel free to let me know. Fish+Karate 09:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- There's quite a lot of disgusting commentary on that talk page. Certain editors should be a) ashamed of themselves, and b) blocked. ——SerialNumber54129 09:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you "mean no disrespect" you could start by not joking about the deaths of 39 people by suggesting the article be named "2019 Grays 'goddamnit Pete I said check all the freezers!'". Fish+Karate 08:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of encouraging Wikipedia admins to have strong, unique passwords that are never reused on other sites...
Equifax used 'admin' as username and password for sensitive data: lawsuit.
I'm just saying. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Well it needs to be ten letters, so perhaps, "adminadmin"? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Given all the self-hype in their ads about how smart they are, that's pretty dumb. And I may come to regret this, but I laugh with derision at anyone whose password is only ten keystrokes long. -- Deepfriedokra 09:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- So you're saying "1234" isn't a good password? :-P — Ched (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- "4321" is better. Gotta keep the trolls and hackers on their toes. :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not helping the thread drift, here, but this made me think back on when I administered an IBM System 36, which allowed only four digit (no alpha) long passwords. - Donald Albury 12:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still working with several HR-related online services (think Workers' Comp and such) which have max eight-character passwords, or just a numeric PIN as their entire security scheme. The company is doing a board-mandated security audit in the near future and I'm sure they're just going to sit in my office and point at stuff that's batshit crazy insecure that I'm required by law to submit sensitive info to on a regular basis. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- The auditors made me turn on password aging on that System 36. Unfortunately, it did not keep a history of old passwards, so a user could change their password every 90 days, and then immediately change it back to the old password. - Donald Albury 02:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still working with several HR-related online services (think Workers' Comp and such) which have max eight-character passwords, or just a numeric PIN as their entire security scheme. The company is doing a board-mandated security audit in the near future and I'm sure they're just going to sit in my office and point at stuff that's batshit crazy insecure that I'm required by law to submit sensitive info to on a regular basis. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- dammit Oshwah, now I have to go change my password again! creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I read somewhere that the hardest passwords to crack are 3 or 4 common words (like paisleyelephantslippers) because there is an infinite number of combinations given the thousands of English words and they are easier to remember than "randomly" generated letters, numbers & symbols. Just a thought. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- At XKCD Password Strength, for one. - Donald Albury 02:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I read somewhere that the hardest passwords to crack are 3 or 4 common words (like paisleyelephantslippers) because there is an infinite number of combinations given the thousands of English words and they are easier to remember than "randomly" generated letters, numbers & symbols. Just a thought. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not helping the thread drift, here, but this made me think back on when I administered an IBM System 36, which allowed only four digit (no alpha) long passwords. - Donald Albury 12:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- "4321" is better. Gotta keep the trolls and hackers on their toes. :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- So you're saying "1234" isn't a good password? :-P — Ched (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Given all the self-hype in their ads about how smart they are, that's pretty dumb. And I may come to regret this, but I laugh with derision at anyone whose password is only ten keystrokes long. -- Deepfriedokra 09:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Getting back to my advice for Wikipedia administrators choosing passwords, multiword passphrases are indeed easier for humans to remember and harder for password-guessing software to guess. It's a shame that so many websites recommend passwords that are hard to remember and easy to crack ("TrOub4dor&3"). Writing a proper English sentence has been found to be even easier to remember; "Paisley elephant slippers." instead of "paisleyelephantslippers" -- or better yet, make it grammatically correct and correctly punctuated instead of a sentence fragment: "The elephant wore paisley slippers." If you form a mental picture of an actual elephant wearing enormous patterned slippers, the passphrase will be easy to remember.
The final piece of the secure password puzzle is to keep a list of logon names, passwords, and security questions (so you don't have to remember them) and secure them with encryption and a single multiword passphrase that unlocks the password file. You can use a password manager (I recommend Password Safe[8]) or just save the passwords in a series of text files saved in a Veracrypt container.
So, using the veracrypt method, to access your bank's website, you would type "The elephant wore paisley slippers." to unlock the veracrypt encrypted container, open a text file named gringotts.txt, and see this:
Gringotts Wizarding Bank https:/www.gringottsdoesnotcare.com/logon Username: [any name is OK. The username isn't supposed to be a secret]. Password: V94noeJYQir346cf8ziYXeSO Security question #1: What is you mother's maiden name? Security answer #1: Zasax Kathkap Judihi Security question #1: What high school did you attend? Security answer #1: Badfu Kech Livyawpa Notes: Called them on Feb 32 and asked them to convert my rai stones to bitcoin.
Note that the security questions also have random answers, and every site gets a different password and different security answers. A dedicated attacker could research you, and if your sister mentioned the name of your first pet three years ago on Twitter, your security could be toast.
Also note that there are times when you need to provide the answer to a security question over the phone, so they should be pronounceable.
Unless you are a terrorist and the FBI is after you, print out your passwords and put them (unencrypted) on a SD card or thumb drive, then put them in a safe deposit box. Then save your encrypted password container to a bunch of SD cards or thumb drives and keep a copy at home, at work, in your car, at your brother's house, etc. These are useless without your master passphrase, but if your house burns down you will be glad you saved multiple copies.
Finally, without looking at the answers above, can you type that elephant passphrase? How about that (less secure) troubador password? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Stop trying to make me think about pink elephants. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Housekeeping deletion
Can an admin please delete Mr. Steak so I can move Mr. Steak (restaurant) back to its old title following the deletion of Mr. Steak (grills)? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- TenPoundHammer -
Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Temporarily reinstatement of "Young Sinatra: Undeniable"
Page Young Sinatra: Undeniable should be temporarily reinstated per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 24. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Two companies merged, their inidividual articles remain
Film Journal International and Box Office Pro (incorrectly titled w/in Wikipedia as BoxOffice instead of BoxOfficePro) merged, leaving only BoxOfficePro. I discovered it by accident while trying to track down a review done by FJI that appears to have been purged since the merger.
- Should the FJI article be copyedited to refer to it in the past tense, as it doesn't exist anymore, or
- should FJI's article content be rewritten and moved to the BOP, with a redirect from FJI to BOP?
- Lastly, I can't find the reference within the archives of the now husk'd site, so I shouldn't use it, right?
- Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Questions about editing should go to the help desk, a relevant WikiProject (in this case, WikiProject Film), or one of the village pump forums. But, to answer your question, the defunct company's article should not be merged or deleted; just change it to past tense and add a sourced statement to say that the company was merged into another. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I asked here because I was under the impression that VP was more of a proposal ground for new ideas. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Should this TFD be closed?
I relisted Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_25#Template:Tucker Beathard but am wondering if it should just be closed as "delete". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended
The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended
Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Base, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2019 Arbitration Committee election.
For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 10:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers
- Frank marine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have copied this over a second time for the same reason as the first, which is directly below. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC) I have copied over this discussion that was not complete. I was told that this is what to do if I believe that the discussion was not finished, which I believe it was not. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The user in question has only been editing articles related to the Thai Army, leading me to suspect a WP:COI. I am not reporting the user to the COI noticeboard as I believe there are problems elsewhere in the user's contributions. Firstly, the user does not have a WP:CIR and no communication with others makes it hard to determine what the user is doing, as evidenced by this warning. I am a NPR and have come across two of the user's articles. One of them (now speedy deleted) was a clear copyright violation, even after warning in the past (User talk:Frank marine#Speedy deletion nomination of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand)). Also see the revision history of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) for more evidence. The user has repetitively used writing from another Wikipedia article ([9], [10] among others) without attribution to the article's history even after warning (see User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution and User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request) from Diannaa).
You will also notice an incompetence in image copyrighting (I'm not too familiar with this, so please forgive any mistakes I make). Dozens of notices of image copyright problems can be seen on the user's talk page, to which the user continues to upload more images, without concern to the other ones.
I hope this is sufficient information for you to understand the user's actions. For a user with over 1 thousand edits, I would expect change in the user's behaviour in articles, but problems still continue to appear. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I get that the user in question seems to have a narrow, single-minded focus/interest in editing, and that they're evincing a variety of problems, but I'm not following where the COI connection is. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Grandpallama (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- The COI is only a suspicion. It comes from the fact that the user has only edited Thai Army related articles, as said above. This implies to me that the user, before they started editing Wikipedia, was connected with the subject and they clearly knew what they were going to edit prior to editing. I don’t know about others’ experience with new users, but for me, new users might edit and discuss a variety of things before specialising in a specific area (in this case of not WP:PAID or COI users). Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Unless you suspect the editor was paid to edit Thai army articles, or works in the army's PR office, it's hard to see that as a COI. Many veterans are interested in military subjects, including the history and nature of their own armed forces, and bring a significant amount of personal knowledge to the subject. That can easily lead to POV edits or unsourced (or even sourced) original research, but COI feels like a bridge too far (to use my own military reference!) in the absence of edits that seem unduly promotional. Their editing certainly suggests that English is a second language. Grandpallama (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have found the exact opposite to be true. New Users, in my experience, will start in a very specific topic and then branch out. --Darth Mike(talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- The COI is only a suspicion. It comes from the fact that the user has only edited Thai Army related articles, as said above. This implies to me that the user, before they started editing Wikipedia, was connected with the subject and they clearly knew what they were going to edit prior to editing. I don’t know about others’ experience with new users, but for me, new users might edit and discuss a variety of things before specialising in a specific area (in this case of not WP:PAID or COI users). Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Aright, I think we have concluded that there is no COI. Please can we discuss the other issues? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please strike the remarks you no longer wish us to address. It's not 100% clear what else you're talking about. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Done a little while ago. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:Frank marine has never left a post on a talk page, which is a concern. They also have run into copyright trouble. Some of their edits have been revdelled, for example at 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) (look at the page history and notice the strikeouts). They did create one reasonable article, Royal Thai Army Aviation Center, though I can't rule out that some of the material could have been copied from other Wikipedia articles, for instance List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army. Unless Frank marine is wearing out the patience of the copyright enforcers, I don't see any current reason for admin action. There is a tendency for people who never communicate to get blocked, though I don't think we are quite at that point. As noted above there doesn't appear to be a case for COI enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks EdJohnston for the comment. What would you say the point is at which users may get blocked for not communicating? To me, it seems that there has been countless attempts at communicating so we must be fairly near that point? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Left a warning for Frank marine on his talk page. Let me know if you see any more image uploads where there is no effort at all to get the licensing right, or if you notice more posting of copyrighted material to articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:@Willbb234: His latest image upload is an unambiguous copyright violation of this [11]. I've tagged it as such. He also tags every single one of his edits as "minor". Why, again, are we refusing to block him? OrgoneBox (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Frank marine's last image upload was at 14:26 on 10 October, while my warning was left on his talk page at 15:31 on that date. You should be watching out for new violations after the date of my warning, not old violations. For him to mark his edits as 'minor' is annoying, and it might be taken into account, but it is not forbidden by policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I don't think this is a question that new violations may appear if the user continues to upload images. By the number of warnings, if the user continues to upload images, then there will be copyright violations. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Unclear what you are saying. Feel free to notify me directly if you see either a new unlicensed upload, or a new copyright violation being added to any article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why you need "just one more" problem before blocking him. This person has been warned ad nauseum about his multitudes of issues. He marks every single edit "minor", which is not just annoying, but misleading and therefore disruptive. He has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images and inserted unattributed paragraphs. @Diannaa: and @Paul 012: have made three requests for him to stop with the unattributed paragagraphs going back to the springtime. He never writes edit summaries, which he's also been warned about. He hasn't responded to anything on his talk page ever, even after you posted your warning, to give any indication he is capable of understanding or cares. This is cut and dry WP:COMPETENCE and he's wasting the time of volunteers by us having to monitor him for these repeated copyright violations. OrgoneBox (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: pinging, as OrgoneBox has explained it much better. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why you need "just one more" problem before blocking him. This person has been warned ad nauseum about his multitudes of issues. He marks every single edit "minor", which is not just annoying, but misleading and therefore disruptive. He has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images and inserted unattributed paragraphs. @Diannaa: and @Paul 012: have made three requests for him to stop with the unattributed paragagraphs going back to the springtime. He never writes edit summaries, which he's also been warned about. He hasn't responded to anything on his talk page ever, even after you posted your warning, to give any indication he is capable of understanding or cares. This is cut and dry WP:COMPETENCE and he's wasting the time of volunteers by us having to monitor him for these repeated copyright violations. OrgoneBox (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Unclear what you are saying. Feel free to notify me directly if you see either a new unlicensed upload, or a new copyright violation being added to any article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I don't think this is a question that new violations may appear if the user continues to upload images. By the number of warnings, if the user continues to upload images, then there will be copyright violations. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Frank marine's last image upload was at 14:26 on 10 October, while my warning was left on his talk page at 15:31 on that date. You should be watching out for new violations after the date of my warning, not old violations. For him to mark his edits as 'minor' is annoying, and it might be taken into account, but it is not forbidden by policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:@Willbb234: His latest image upload is an unambiguous copyright violation of this [11]. I've tagged it as such. He also tags every single one of his edits as "minor". Why, again, are we refusing to block him? OrgoneBox (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Left a warning for Frank marine on his talk page. Let me know if you see any more image uploads where there is no effort at all to get the licensing right, or if you notice more posting of copyrighted material to articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks EdJohnston for the comment. What would you say the point is at which users may get blocked for not communicating? To me, it seems that there has been countless attempts at communicating so we must be fairly near that point? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to bother, but please can we make progress in this discussion. It is the second time I have listed it and for the second time it appears to have stalled. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- This was addressed by an admin. Today it was archived, and you re-added the entire previous conversation as a new posting. What exactly is the point of bludgeoning this? The reported editor was warned that future issues would result in a block. If they ignore the warning, report them and they'll be blocked. There's no reason to keep this open. Grandpallama (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Why relist it when it has been open 18 days already, as per Grandpallama, just archive it again . Govindaharihari (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Willbb234: I get your frustration and do agree given the number of copyright problems this editor has had, and their lack of any communication or indication they understand it's not unreasonable to indef them at least requiring some acknowledgement before they are unblocked and allowed to edit here. At the same time, I can also understand the PoV who feel it's best just to wait. The recent copyright problems this editor has caused seem to be minor even if frequent. From what I see, while they did so in June, it looks like they haven't recently added copyvio text from other places to articles which tends to be harder to detect and cleanup, and significant wasted editor time if it's only noticed after significant work. I see some mention of copyvio arising from copying within wikipedia. While I agree this is a significant concern and just recently mentioned the problems in another discussion, it's also sort of different from external copyvios since it can be fixed via proper attribution without needing to delete the text. It looks like their biggest problem is uploading images which they shouldn't be. They're not lying about the source or who own's the copyright of this image or otherwise being deceptive. So these copyvios seem easy to detect and cleanup. Further, while they got a lot of notices and some templates, it seems there has been limited direct discussion and some editors seem to be very poor at reading templated comments. The fact that they seem to be active in an area it's likely we don't cover so well probably also means people are have a greater wish that we turn the editor into a constructive one. So while I won't be objecting if this editor is blocked on what's already happened, I also don't think it's worth persisting in asking they are blocked without further misbehaviour. If they make another copyvio, whether images or copying within wikipedia, then ask again. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- On October 24th, he again copied and pasted unattributed text from another article [12]. And despite being warned about it on the 21st, he continues marking all of his edits as "minor", including the one containing unattributed text [13]. When he created the article on the 24th, it contained a maintenance template that dated to last May, which tells me it was probably deleted at some point and he recreated it without any of the issues being fixed. OrgoneBox (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, the 10/24 copying and pasting looks like a pretty clear repetition of the behavior, post-warning. I don't know if I yet support a full-on block, but it looks like more than just a warning on the user's talkpage is now merited. Grandpallama (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- On October 24th, he again copied and pasted unattributed text from another article [12]. And despite being warned about it on the 21st, he continues marking all of his edits as "minor", including the one containing unattributed text [13]. When he created the article on the 24th, it contained a maintenance template that dated to last May, which tells me it was probably deleted at some point and he recreated it without any of the issues being fixed. OrgoneBox (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Unable to create wikipedia page for Umaria Sinhawansa
I want create a wikipedia page for Umaria Sinhawansa, But However it prevents me from creating the page by displaying
"The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism"
Please enable to create this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturaroche (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like the blacklisting of "((User)|(Draft)).*[Ss]inha" mentioned above in #Title blacklist help is the culprit. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Chaturaroche, A title is typically blacklisted when there are multiple problems with prior versions. The blacklist can be lifted if an editor with substantial experience plans to create the article which doesn't appear to apply in this case. In this specific case, it would be best to create the article in Draft space. When you think it is ready, return here and an administrator will be happy to look at it and move it into main space if it is acceptable. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sphilbrick, see my note above - pretty sure it's blacklisted in Draft and User space. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Creffett, I had a nagging thought that this might be the case. Maybe I should have suggested user sandbox? I hope that's an option. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Creffett, I see that I should have read your link before responding. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have no idea how bad the disruption was that warranted this blacklist, but I'm tempted to suggest it was overbroad. That's a very common pattern being matched, which would, inter alia prevent drafts of any of the various redlinked articles in the Sinhala language navigation template. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the above thread, I altered the entry so it should only restrict these entries in user space. As for the scale of disruption, we had (at the time of making the entry) 32 confirmed accounts (listed in the SPI; checkusers found more) over one week, all named "Sinha" plus a sequential number, drafting articles on people with this surname on their own user page, and occasionally in draft space. Since creating the entry, none. Yes, given the two requests here in the interim it was probably overbroad to include the draft and user talk namespaces but that has been fixed. Please ping me if it comes up again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sphilbrick, see my note above - pretty sure it's blacklisted in Draft and User space. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Redirection request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could Second International Congress of Orientalists be redirected to International Congress of Orientalists? The article is just 2 sentences and has 1 source. Melofors (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- You don't need to be an admin to make an article into a redirect. See WP:Redirect. I've fixed your link. Sandstein 21:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New editor, kinda lost
ResolvedHowdy, @Ojvh: a new editor, has been making unconstructive edits, mainly around the topic of heads of state. It's not vandalism, but more of a possible confidency issue, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Possible Error In Block Tables
Why are the block expiry dates saying "49 years ago" on the block table? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 19:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Because there's a problem with the bot that maintains them. It's already been reported to the bot owner. It will probably be fixed when he has time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- I thought I woke up in the future lol. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Can an admin please G6 Walk Off the Earth? That is the correct capitalization, since "Walk off" is a phrasal verb, thus meaning that "off" is an adverb and not a preposition. Compare Turn On the Radio, All I Ask For Anymore, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Depending on which website you look at, they style it both ways. Hell, their own YouTube channel has it both ways on different videos. I suggest an RM to figure out how it should appear here. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac: This is basic English grammar, which should be deferred to when sources contradict. "Off" is an adverb in this context and should be capitalized. Regardless I have filed an RM instead and you are free to vote there. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
ISIS leader killed - Get ready to post ITN
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed. Prez making announcement in just a few mins. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- No rush. We'll wait for independent confirmation. The President has been wrong before - in fact, he tends to be wrong as a rule. WaltCip (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- I trust we will be relying on reliable sources, not POTUS. I doubt he did in fact whimper or cry, that sounds much more like the fantasies of a thug. Guy (help!) 15:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- While likely true, that's not really relevant here. I don't see any references to crying in the blurb, his article or the article on the raid (that hasn't been piped in yet). Everything seems to stick to the sources thus far. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Repetitive personal attacks on me.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Elizium23 has been doing repetitive personal attacks on me and accusing me of bad faith. We have been involved in conflict and I has pinged several editors for third opinion and to came on conclusion but the user went for personal attacks.
- It started on the talk page of Weeping crucifix in Mumbai. In this section, he accused me twice for WP:OWNing when I objected his synthesis in the article and asked for synthesis in RS. I didn't show any of the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR in the article and didn't stop anybody to making changes. He never showed differences for accusation.
- When I said about what is written in RS then he said that only this can be good explanation, this can't be and used word absurd twice. After it, he capitalised word 'YOU' and again started personal attacks.
- The same editor accused me of accusing him for bad faith on even noticeboard when discussion about the topic was going on and later told that you get yourself blocked.
- I generally issue caution or warning after removing content and it is my habit to notify concerned editors. One can trace my all changes which I reverted or removed then I give explanation on user's talk page. When I did it on the talk page of ELizium23 then he called Your DYK sucks and get over it in both diff and edit summary.
- Suddenly after it, he came on my talk page and attacked me for bad faith by WP:AOBF and without any differences. He even called me that I am kneejerk reverting his edits but in fact, I edited only few in which there was high Christian POV (I can assume it from disclosure of his COI) and I did it too with summary and replying on talk page.
These type of repetitive personal attacks and vituperative mudslinging are harming my presence on the Wikipedia and draining my energy. I can too fall on same lines and attack him personally by calling him as kneejerk and accusing him for assuming bad faith directly but I want to follow the policies of Wikipedia. I am looking for stringent action on the concerned editor for ad-hominems on me.-- Harshil want to talk? 02:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Moved to WP:ANIThe discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copyvios from: User:Ljwljw.001
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just reverted a copyvio from this user on Ping An Insurance. Looking at the history, this is not the first time he has inserted copyvios into the article, and looking at his talk page, this is not the first time he has been blocked for copyvios. Unfortunately, this user appears to not understand Wikipedia's policy on copyright, and I believe that they should receive a block. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 11:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.