User talk:Laser brain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Peer review[edit]

Hello Laser brain, I saw you listed at the Peer review volunteer list. I requested a peer review for Post (Björk album) at here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Post (Björk album)/archive1. If you are interested, I would be very grateful. Regards!--Bleff (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bleff: Sure, I'd be happy to. I may not get to it for a few days. If I don't leave any comments within a week, feel free to nag me. --Laser brain (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Bleff (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @Laser brain: It's been a week. I hope I'm not being bothersome! --Bleff (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick Question about FAC[edit]

Hello, I have a quick question about the FAC process. I have placed the episode "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" as a featured article candidate near the beginning of the month. Unfortunately, it has not attracted any attention after being open for a couple of weeks, and I have a feeling it will be archived soon. I was wondering if you have any advice or suggestions on how to attract more attention to a featured article candidate. I have voted on a few featured article candidates as I thought that would help. I understand that there is not much that can be done, as it is really up to a user's preference and interest on whether or not a FAC gets attention, but I would appreciate any advice (especially since I am still relatively new to Wikipedia). Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Hai, I recently worked on the article Maheshinte Prathikaaram and have requested a PR for taking it to GAN. If you are interested, please spare some time for it. --Charles Turing (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In case you find interest[edit]

Hello Laser brain. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


I don't agree with your pessimistic analysis of the infoboxes wars. Tell me one recent instance of what you describe as proxy battleground behaviour, please. To my observation, all it would take to end the battles was sticking to normal editing in good faith and without edit war. I have an example: a long-standing infobox was removed. If that had been considered a bold edit, reverted and discussed, things could have been easy. It wasn't because some would not accept that it was a rather bold edit. I said so on ARCA, but you could probably not read it all. - What is your opinion on the RfC on Holst which brought the need for clarification? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

ps: It pleased me to see (yesterday) a composer as TFA with an infobox, - improved to FA by the same editor as in my example. Obviously, compromise is possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It pains me every time I see content editors arguing about infoboxes. That's what I mean by "wars". You are included in this pain. I'd like to see you building content and not starting conversations on pages like Holst where the principal editors (Brian and Tim) obviously made an editorial decision to omit an infobox. Personally, I don't care about infoboxes that much. Look at my FA's. Two of them have infoboxes. I added one deliberately to Elderly Instruments. When I started working on Steve Lukather, it had an infobox, so I left it there. I resisted putting one on Joseph Bishara because there is nothing to put there. Someone added one consisting of just his name and birthday which is silly. I'm fine leaving it to WP:BRD and editorial judgment. But when editors choose to make a larger issue of it, we all have a problem. --Laser brain (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Very nicely put LB. Sadly, the removal of the box at Butler (which preceeded a complete re-write of the article, led to the usual flash mob suspects turning up en masse. And this to a subject I'd lay good money that they had never even heard of before (none of them had ever edited before, not have they done since, despite the open PR). And no, gerda, the IB at Ketelby wasn't a "compromise": it was naked bullying and ownership. And the least said about your claim at ArbCom that "if I know the preferences of an author I respect them": I see no evidence of that at all. For the record, a very decent proportion of the articles I have worked on (including up to FAC) have included an IB where one is advantagreous.
And the less said about your use of BRD, particularly when you add an IB on 9 May 2016 to an article that has never had an IB‎, see it removed on 3 June 2016‎ and yet claim "editorial choice of a main contributor to the article" when you revert. If you want to criticise other people's actions around their approach to IBs and BRD, perhaps you should get your own house in order first? – SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to add more to talk on infoboxes ;) - A few corrections have to be made.
  • I started no discussion on Holst. (I started one on Jean Sibelius - in 2015 btw, because one of the Main editors supports IBs.) I watched the Holst page for years without any talk, IB or else. My watchlist told me that the hidden text was removed, and moved back. I didn't do a thing. My watchlist told me that an RfC was started, so I commented. In the RfC, someone said that a consensus was established not to have an IB. THEN and only THEREFORE I described how a concise infobox might look, to find out about the consensus. Please don't call that "starting conversations".
  • Reger: as long as some Main editors claim that they have the right to remove an IB because they improve the article, I claim the right to insert when I improve the article. I modestly claim that I did a lot CONTENT about Reger's compositions in this his year, including a TFA.
  • I am sad to hear Ketèlbey was no compromise, - it looks like one. I added some CONTENT on his pieces as well, such as Bells Across the Meadows, - needs a DYK review, hint hint. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Seriously? You thought that when I said "It's a ghastly step backwards, but if you really wish to own the top right hand corners of every article, you'll only bully, bluster and lie your way into doing so, as you have done time and time again", that is indicative of a compromise that I supported? Come on Gerda - that's a dodgy claim to make, even for an IB discussion! - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't follow that discussion, only saw the result which looks like a workable compromise to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for helping my memory, - I didn't sign and forgot, also I didn't reply to you, - sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: You started a new section on Talk:Gustav Holst titled "Infobox?" with the apparent aim of stating your opinion and suggesting an infobox. How is that not "starting a discussion"? --Laser brain (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am sorry that I did (at all. I was angry about the comment about an alleged established consensus, which is what the new arbcom clarification is about, or should be about. I should at least have given it a level-3-header to make visible that it was not a new discussion but one that was caused by the RfC. I thought that I explained how, in the introduction and just above, mentioning here the years in which I didn't touch Holst and many others where I know a preference of a group of authors authors, which is not the same as an established consensus). It was not what I would call a new discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
There is going to have to come a point when this infobox issue which seems to crop up daily becomes a non issue. Whether it is a change in technology on wikipedia or something, I don't know, but it's really silly to keep having arguments over things so trivial. We're not google, we're an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are traditionally written almost entirely with text/prose summaries. Reflecting what Yngvadottir said recently, which was the most intelligent and correct statement about the situation I've seen in a long time, in cases where there is genuinely a lot of information to relay which is difficult to put in prose without creating a mess, sportspeople, aeroplanes etc or some buildinging/place where a map locator is needed then they're of use. When they're there almost entirely for decor purposes, then they become of much lesser value. An emptyish infobox in my opinion tends to make the encyclopedia look more amateurish. The bottom line is that editors who bother to develop an article to GA/FA level should really call the shots on something like an infobox. It's gravely concerning when editors put in an enormous amount of time in expanding articles to FA quality, and then rather than congratulating them, it becomes a negative situation in "why was the infobox removed?". Get some perspective Gerda, it's just not a healthy approach to encyclopedia building.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) You may remember that the question why was the infobox removed came up before improvements in the Butler case, and not by me. - I am perfectly willing not to mention the word infobox, at all: just I don't add, you don't revert, and let's see what happens. (By "not add" I don't mean operas and "my own articles", of course.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


Regarding your "That way if someone behaves badly in this domain, other editors can file a report at AE and it can be dealt with." - I would file no report, ANI or AE. AE is a place to avoid, look for "AE " in my archive. Life is too short ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I agree that these are venues to be avoided, especially ANI. I appreciate AE because it is more efficient in dealing with problems when there are already established Arbcom remedies like Discretionary Sanctions. To be clear, I don't want any of this. I want people to edit peacefully and mind their own business. --Laser brain (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with peaceful editing. If you see me doing something else please let me know. However, just read the summary of the close to understand that I have reservations about the efficiency of AE. I liked the close, but the long procedure leading there was a complete waste of time, imho. I appealed then, had been too proud before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


I agree with your close on ANI but what will the arbs say that you call the restriction they gave me "silly"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I doubt the Arbs are much bothered by what I have to say, but I believe your restriction was silly as well. Obviously the Infobox arbitration case was ineffective because the troubles persist. --Laser brain (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, what I wanted to hear ;) - The arbs failed then, because they didn't look at the problem: reverts. The problem is still the same. The alleged attacks of FAs and GAs by an infobox militia are a myth (or need substantiation). DYK that one of the hot topics in the arb case was that an infobox had been inserted in Cosima Wagner while her name was still on the Main page, two days after TFA day on 24 December 2012. Look. I had a DYK about ice breaking, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Food for thought.[edit]

Laser brain: Not too long ago you left a comment on a page that I monitor, stating "If your first instinct is to revert the other editor instead of addressing the problem, then you are being disruptive.". How very true! I love this aphorism and wish it could become a precept of WP's editorial policies. You and I have occasionally crossed editorial paths in the past and I think if you know my work then you will know I try to be a very neutral editor interested in helping new users and just generally improving the encyclopedia. I do not always succeed, Wikipedians are only human after all. That being said I would like to ask you to "walk a mile in another's moccasins" and consider the following:

Proposition: While the above quote -- in this case offered as rule-of-thumb -- was offered in extremely good faith to the user it was addressed to, and with equally good cause, that same quotation might be just as appropriate to be offered to other editors who interact with the first.

IF this proposition is true then consider the frustration it would engender to be told as an editor "This is the rule you should follow." and yet meanwhile watch other editors behave in exactly the same "disruptive" way as you are being told not to act. Certainly whatever rules and advice which apply to one editor should be equally applied to all. I ask you to consider this when you see the first editor's responses. Yes, he has much to learn, but I would hope we who have more experience can be sensitive enough to try and see his point of view and recognize any issues that might be valid points of exasperation which then contribute to his ongoing bad behaviors.

I absolutely would not change the rules for the first editor or in any way excuse his behavors, but if all I have said makes sense then you might want to determine if any other interacting editors may need to hear the same rule-of-thumb and offer them the same advice ... thus preventing needless escalations which help nobody in the end. Thanks for listening. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Koala Tea Of Mercy: I agree with your premise and I'm considering how it applies in this case. I wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring you—just pondering the points you made. --Laser brain (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate that and if you want no further reply is asked. It was after all food for thought rather than a specific request. If you have questions or wish to discuss of course I will be here though I may be offline a lot more soon with the next semester starting and my academia responsibilities taking up my time. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Urgent FACs[edit]

Andy (and pinging Ian since I can't remember where the coord page is), I've just done a review of one of the two urgents listed and am going to try to get to the other tonight. If I have any leftover energy over the weekend, are there others you'd like reviewers to look at? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thank you so much! I'm planning to scan the list today and I'll update the urgents box with anything I see. Your participation is very much appreciated. --Laser brain (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Heh, great minds, I just started going through the list myself to close a few and perhaps add a few to urgents along the way -- don't worry, Andy, I'll leave some for you...! My tks as well, Mike -- your reviews are a great help, just don't burn yourself out...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike, Ellie (The Last of Us) could use further review if you're able -- there's plenty of support but not much in the way of actual commentary, and I recall some opposition at its previous FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I can get to it, possibly today, but if not then within a few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of fictional beverages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steven King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


I noticed your edit summary. I did not edit through protection which should be obvious if you look at the time stamps. I am not sure what your edit and the summary added to a difficult situation and you might want to think more careully before making such an allegation another time. You did in fact end up doing what you falsely accused me of. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@John: The edit in question was after full protection was applied to the page. So I'm not sure what the time stamps are supposed to be showing. I realize that you may have begun the edit before protection was applied and you may not have received the protection message when you clicked Save in that case. Hence my assumption that it was a mistake, which is clear in my edit summary. I'm quite within my right to reverse an edit that was improperly made through full protection by an admin who's involved in a conflict on the page. Have a nice day. --Laser brain (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Your summary said "You should not be editing this through protection--I'll assume a mistake." I am not sure how I was supposed to know it was under full protection. I think my edit was simultaneous with full protection being applied; I certainly receieved no warning or notice thereof. I imagine you examined the content of the edit you reversed; did you think it was in any way controversial? --John (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I assumed your edit was started before the protection applied. I'm sorry that my edit summary seemed confrontational. Tagging an article is certainly potentially controversial, especially when you are involved in disputes on the page. The only edits that should be performed through full protection are things like typo fixes or things that have clear consensus on the article talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for your great work at FAC ... I've noticed. (I goofed yesterday on Mike Christie's nom ... I thought the page was showing no edits for a long time ... somehow I missed Ian's timestamp.) I was sick this year off and on with an undiagnosed gall bladder problem, but the gall bladder's out now and I'm tackling a wider range of articles at FAC, like I used to. Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And I always appreciate a ping on a page I might have overlooked or might be stagnating a bit. I really appreciate all the work you do in the Featured article process and am glad you're feeling better. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

taking it off that noticeboard...[edit]

to somewhere a little more discrete.

1. Firstly, I was done. I had considered it closed, but of course when someone addresses me, I will have the urge to comment. 2. The implication that there is some bias towards giving admins/established users a break, was not directed at you, it was directed at Wikipedia. It doesn't matter which admin closed it and decided not to block John, the outcome was already predetermined the moment the complaint was filed. If you don't like the implication, then I'm sorry it offends you, but my eyes it was the wrong choice to make, would you prefer I said " good job, thanks!" ? 3. I have never to my knowledge encountered John, before the 2CV article, when he came whining to my user talk, and wouldn't accept that I didn't agree with him. I have no axe to grind with him. 4. Ignoring all the personal drama, you have a bad admin, who gets away with things, because he's an established admin, if you don't see the problem with that, or you are unwilling to address that problem, then you're part of the problem. Sorry but I want to have some faith in the admins here, but it's getting increasingly hard, when you see one admin breaking rules (or the spirit of rules) and other admins unwilling to take action over it.

Now, I'm done. Unless you have something to say that requires a response, I see no point in dwelling on this issue, and consider it in the past. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

But Softlavender, another of that same clique, can come back after the close with yet more ad hominem of "motivated by retaliation, ill-will, and other personal motives" on top of their earlier "The people trying to get John in trouble have never edited the article" and there's no comment? Cassianto (now who'd have expected him to chime in too?) then pops up (8 posts on just my talk:!).
There is a problem with John. It is the same problem that has been there for years. But WP is always incapable of addressing it. There are a handful of very rotten admins, he's one. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: I'd argue that a bigger problem on Wikipedia is that we've lost sight of the fact that this is just a web site, we are all human beings, and treating each other with care and compassion reaps many more benefits than treating each other with contempt. Please keep your insults to yourself. --Laser brain (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We are not all just human beings, some people here are superior human beings, because they're admins, and they never tire of making this clear to the untermensch. You've seen John's behaviour. You've seen his threats. Why is solidarity amongst admins so much more important than maintaining the standards for all editors, including the elite? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't share your cynical view of this community so I doubt we will be able to have a productive conversation. --Laser brain (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Let me leave the following links on your page, (in regards to John's conduct, not yours) and then you might understand why he could/should have been dealt with differently and why this whole situation has left a bitter taste for some editors. (me for one)

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" WP:ADMINCOND

" Administrators and other experienced editors should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another." [1]

" In general, Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users" [2]

" Administrators are expected to lead by example and set a standard of engagement for others to follow." [3]

"Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute. See Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Protection policy. All editors deserve to be treated with the utmost of respect by administrators." [4]

I don't see the attitude of John, or the treatment of the complaint against him to be in line with any of the above. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: You're not wrong to point out that administrators should be held to higher standards of conduct, and I don't disagree with you. However, Wikipedia suffers from a bit of a challenge in selecting venues to pursue resolution for such issues. The edit warring noticeboard is a binary page. Are one or more people edit warring? If so, what should be done to stop it? The page was already protected, so I closed the report. That board isn't for more advanced dispute resolution or dealing with long-term patterns of editor conduct. I don't think editors should have to experience pain dealing with other editors and feel like they have nowhere to turn—that's an opportunity for reform here. If I used AN/EW as a shortcut to sanctioning an editor outside the scope of the specific report, I would be as irresponsible as any other admin who acts incorrectly or considers themselves above the rules. If you're looking to have John sanctioned for his long-term editing behavior (which I have not examined), you should open a thread on WP:AN with clear accusations supported by evidence, and a clear goal you are seeking. Pinging John as a courtesy since he should be aware you are discussing his behavior here. --Laser brain (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I would have been very satisfied with another admin saying something along the lines of "John, you're an admin, don't edit war, you should know better" and then closing the report. A minor scolding would have done the job. You saw the attitude when you commented on his post-protection edit. As an admin, you can deal with that, because in the Wikipedia scheme of things, you're his equal. It's far worse when a lowly editor has to put up with that kind of thing. But, thanks for addressing this here, it makes things much easier to understand. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Trouts, but...[edit]

I like trout... Re [5], my intent was to keep it a non-issue rather than to have any of the other persons involved in the RFC there decide that something should (not) be archived, after I was reverted... and knowing the personalities and general contention regarding the subject, that seemed like a really good idea. I would really rather not use ANI as a bat (seeing as I basically never have cause to review it much less watch it much less have the desire to do any of the above per WP:DRAMA), but that's what it's there for in cases like that, IMO. Maybe I'm wrong.... --Izno (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring proposal[edit]

I think we should now go live with the voluntary mentor scheme for FAC. This means I will transfer the instructions for the scheme from my sandbox to WP mainspace. There should then be a prominent link in the FAC instructions, directing mew nominators to the mentor page. I also hope to have a permanent note on the FAC talkpage performing two functions: advising novice nominees about the scheme, and encouraging experienced editors to sign up as mentors.

Ten have signed up so far, which isn't many, but I haven't begun my general recruitment drive yet; the early signers are mainly those who participated in the original talkpage discussion. I hope to double the numbers after my trawl, and perhaps take in more when the scheme is established and there are results to show. Of course, it's not necessary to sign up on this list to be a mentor, and I suspect some who support the scheme may prefer not to sign up formally.

If you have no further queries or reservations, I'll create the WP page approximately 24 hours from now, and will then begin my recruitment drive. (Copied to Ian). Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to advise you that I have now created Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC. A link to this page within the FAC instructions will be important if this scheme is to reach its target clientele. I am currently sending out a note trawling for mentors to add to the list. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Thank you for taking on this initiative. Are you comfortable editing the FAC instructions or would you prefer Ian or I do that? --Laser brain (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather you or Ian did. I will fashion a note for the talkpage, which could be kept at the top permanently, advertising the scheme and encouraging mentors to sign up. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Let me know what you think about the placement. Some of the other instructions are in need of updating and I had to resist the urge to make "while I'm in here" edits. I suppose that's a discussion for another time. --Laser brain (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you give me a link? I couldn't find anything on the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: A caching issue might be to blame for the FAC instructions template not showing the updated version on the main FAC page. The edit I made is here. --Laser brain (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, got it now. Looks good, and we'll see in time what effect it has. Could you archive the long mentoring discussion on the FAC talk, which I will replace with a short statement that the scheme is under way. 21 mentors signed up so far, not bad for the first day's recruitment effort. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification of ArbCom Amendment Request[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment_request:_Infoboxes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 06:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

reinstatement of deleted page[edit]

Hi I saw you had deleted a page gigrev after I put a link in a page Direct to Fan I'm trying to understand how the Gigrev page is not notible enough and think I can help add enough information to make you happy its not advertising.

Would you be able to undelete it for me, so I can do this?


Kzoo 14:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapfs (talkcontribs)

On leaving the project[edit]

Centralized message for Cassianto, SchroCat, and Tim riley: First off, I'm guilty of not doing enough to thank editors like you for your contributions. I suppose my way of saying thanks is to volunteer to be an FAC coordinator where I can facilitate content through the process with hopes of becoming Featured. But, I'll say that not a week goes by when I am not impressed and inspired by the quality of content you produce. To me, that's the entire reason to contribute to Wikipedia—inspiring a thousand moments of joy and discovery for readers when they encounter a product of your effort. The second part of my message is where I urge you to continue contributing and, in the words of Gold Five, "stay on target". Some of us are operating within the system to bring an end to these disruptions. I'm asking you to trust me when I say that it will work. Like other areas of sustained contention on Wikipedia, the underlying disagreement never really goes away but the disruptions can certainly go away. Once DS are authorized, editors learn quickly that if they can't operate in that domain without being disruptive, they are removed from that domain. Please stick around. --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain, and thanks very much for your very kind comments. I obviously can't speak for the other two but, for my part, my leaving is not solely down to the IB matter (although the relentless ongoing grief has played a part), but a more general lack of enjoyment I now get from editing. There are too many tendentious individuals or small groups who want to force their way onto such minor matters without any grasp of a subject, that they slowly take their toll. I don't want anyone to think I am doing some sort of diva quit because of IBs (although if the IB 'wars' weren't there, the rest of the grind would just have taken a little longer to work its way through), but just because the enjoyment isn't there any more. I urge you to carry on pushing for some calmness around the IB matter—you've been making some very pertinent comments in the right places from what I've seen—because this sort of festering sore will only ever drive people away. Until there is some central agreement in IBs, we'll continue to have the problem. ArbCom say 'consensus on each article', and a proper consensus can only be reached by reference to guideline or policy: the guideline on IBs is that they are not compulsory, except by consensus, so there is a loop whereby consensus can never truly be reached in the status quo. Unless some form of guidelines are actually drawn up to say when we should or should not have an IB, or in what circumstances some group or sub groups of articles are exempt from the requirements of having them, this will continue. (Except if there is an RfC, in which case people don't bother to read the arguments, probably don't bother to actually look at the article in question and give a pre-conceived ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT answer: the closing admin will then lazily vote count and add a 10% margin dependent on his or her own preference). Yes, all very cynical, but we've all seen it time and time again, and a little bit more enjoyment is removed from our connection to the project whenever it happens. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I"m actually in total agreement with SchroCat for once about this "consensus loop" problem. That's a very good way to put the "article-by-article" ARBINFOBOX ruling.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I apologise for brushing over your close at AN3. I didn't take in that you were recommending someone to create a BLP discussion on the noticeboard so just made the same edit at Jared Taylor as I still saw it as a BLPvio and hoped editors would wait until the talk page discussion was concluded before trying to re-add again. I didn't mean to create more work for you--judging by the fact that you were pinged into the subsequent discussion just to be insulted makes me think that being an admin is already a thankless job as is. Zaostao (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

TAGTEAM evidence at AE[edit]

Laser brain: You collapsed my section on WP:TAGTEAM at AE. I don't object, however I'd like to understand if you collapsed it because (a) it was irrelevant to the particular request or (b) it was irrelevant to the particular request and would be unconvincing in any future request.

I'm admittedly unfamiliar with TAGTEAM beyond what's specified in policy but this appeared to be arguably convincing evidence. It's also disconcerting that MVBW retired shortly after I posted my evidence then un-retired once it was collapsed. VM mentioned similar requests in the past which I'm unfamiliar with. If the same evidence has been presented and dismissed elsewhere I won't pursue it; if not, I'd ask you to direct me to the appropriate venue as I may. D.Creish (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@D.Creish: I collapsed it only because it's not germane to that particular request. I'm not sure how much traction you'll get elsewhere trying to convince people of tag-team editing. It seems like this very concern was brought up some time in the recent past (Volunteer Marek and MVBW tag-teaming) and not much came out of the discussion. I can't remember if it was at a noticeboard or AE. I've lost track of how many times I've seen both users at AE, ANI, and other places. --Laser brain (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


That was me, sorry. I was probably trying to copy it. Bishonen | talk 16:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC).

No problem! --Laser brain (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Laser brain. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes ARCA[edit]

The amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Amendment request (October 2016). The motion to open a case did not pass. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Belgium national football team FAC2[edit]

Hi, the article Belgium national football team is under review as FAC again. At the first FA review you raised several issues regarding citations and sources that needed to be solved. It took some time to cope with these and other comments, yet I thank you for your critical input as it helped to get the article forward. You are warmly invited to have a second look now. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


What would you consider to be the proper way to invite reviewers to take part in a FAC without appearing to be canvassing? TIA. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just ensure the message is neutral and that you are asking for review against the FA criteria, not explicitly asking for support. Something like: "Since you are interested in this topic area, I invite you to review my nomination and leave comments about how it compares with the Featured article criteria." --Laser brain (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Much obliged. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi there! Is there any way to engage in quid pro quo in FAC without being accused of practicing canvassing? Liebe99 (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with asking someone for a review as long as the wording is neutral—see directly above. --Laser brain (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi, LB, I hope all's well at your end. I currently have an FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taylor Swift/archive2, which is awaiting final judgement but the other coord has rescued from his duty on it. I'm looking forward to the final judgement you have to make that I think is due. Tks – FrB.TG (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I've been a bit slammed with RL since I got back from traveling, but I will look at your nomination within the next 1–2 days. Sorry for the wait! --Laser brain (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)