Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ANB)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than six days are
archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page include general announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

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

Centralized discussion

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Administrative discussions[edit]

RfCs[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_by_Francis_Schonken[edit]

(Initiated 1 day ago on 22 January 2017) - Would an uninvolved user please close and archive it? The discussion is over and the conflict has been solved. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners[edit]

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus and formally close this proposal? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

(Initiated 85 days ago on 30 October 2016) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol declined.svg Closed  --Cerebellum (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Female genital mutilation#Wording in the lead[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Wording in the lead (Initiated 92 days ago on 23 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: Legobot removed the RFC tags as stale on 21 November and then lowercase sigmabot III archived the discussion on 4 December without formal closure. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States involvement in regime change#RfC: Is the following paragraph appropriate for this article, "United States Involvement in Regime Change Actions?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States involvement in regime change#RfC: Is the following paragraph appropriate for this article, "United States Involvement in Regime Change Actions? (Initiated 86 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cinchona#Merge from Jesuit's bark[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cinchona#Merge from Jesuit's bark (Initiated 81 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Access locks: Visual Design RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC (Initiated 86 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC (Initiated 86 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#What is "single"?[edit]

The discussion may need evaluation. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#‎RfC: Proposing the third moratorium[edit]

I'm requesting closure, though closure is a little too soon. Nevertheless, I'm doing this just in case. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Probably should wait a couple more weeks. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hobit, shall I relist the discussion, or can you volunteer or wait for a closer instead? George Ho (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Counter-proposal: Treating these like PRODs[edit]

Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this RfC? (Initiated 57 days ago on 27 November 2016) Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars expanded universe#RfC: Is it relevant to group all non-canon EU material in a Legends subcategory?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Star Wars expanded universe#RfC: Is it relevant to group all non-canon EU material in a Legends subcategory? (Initiated 63 days ago on 21 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:The Stooges (album)#RfC: Should "rock and roll" be linked in the infobox?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Stooges (album)#RfC: Should "rock and roll" be linked in the infobox? (Initiated 54 days ago on 30 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked into closing this, but didn't feel comfortable based upon the information presented so I did a little research and added my own vote. I think I added enough material that this should be easier to close now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016#Request for Comment: Should Kurt Evans be listed as "Failed to Qualify"?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016#Request for Comment: Should Kurt Evans be listed as "Failed to Qualify"? (Initiated 51 days ago on 3 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Sidebar#Add CentralAuth link to toolbox section in userspace[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar#Add CentralAuth link to toolbox section in userspace (Initiated 61 days ago on 23 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Beheading in Islam#Merge/split/renaming discussion, part 2[edit]

Can an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion? --Mhhossein talk 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC about addition of Ambassador Dermer's criticism of SPLC's list[edit]

Would an experienced editor asses the consensus opinion on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC about addition of Ambassador Dermer's criticism of SPLC's list (Initiated 32 days ago on 22 December 2016). It initially started out with voting and then escalated to a lot of people going back and forth and it is a little difficult to gage what the full consensus opinion. TAG (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American Idol (season 11)#RfC on DeAndre Brackensick standalone article[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 December 2016). Appears snow to me. Thanks, John from Idegon (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC on including "false" in the lede[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC on including "false" in the lede (Initiated 42 days ago on 12 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC: Should predecessors and successors be included in officeholders' infoboxes?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC: Should predecessors and successors be included in officeholders' infoboxes? (Initiated 45 days ago on 9 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger#RfC about the relevance of several aspects mentioned in the article about this crime[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger#RfC about the relevance of several aspects mentioned in the article about this crime (Initiated 41 days ago on 13 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Murray#Request for Comment British tennis player or Scottish tennis player[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Andy Murray#Request for Comment British tennis player or Scottish tennis player (Initiated 40 days ago on 14 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Vladimir Putin#Citations about Putin[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Vladimir Putin#Citations about Putin (Initiated 38 days ago on 16 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables (Initiated 38 days ago on 16 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:New York#RFC: Should the lead feature information about New York City over information about New York State[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New York#RFC: Should the lead feature information about New York City over information about New York State (Initiated 40 days ago on 14 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Request for Comment - Article Rewrite[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Request for Comment - Article Rewrite (Initiated 39 days ago on 15 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bipartisan Report#December 2016 Request for Comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bipartisan Report#December 2016 Request for Comment (Initiated 43 days ago on 11 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Explanation of Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Explanation of Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates (Initiated 42 days ago on 12 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy#"Official" accounts representing individuals as opposed to groups[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#"Official" accounts representing individuals as opposed to groups (Initiated 50 days ago on 4 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy? (Initiated 36 days ago on 18 December 2016)? Listing after a request on my talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Blonde (Frank Ocean album)#RfC: Should "minimalism" remain listed in the infobox?[edit]

It began over a month ago, with the most recent vote on January 6th. May an experienced editor assess the consensus? AndrewOne (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Portal talk:Latter Day Saints[edit]

Please close this discussion.--Broter (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen#Name in infobox[edit]

The discussion needs closure. I see established consensus, but I'd rather request the closure by someone else. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure[edit]

No substantial backlog right now, but it's quite likely that the backlog will grow again at some point in time. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The backlog has grown to about one month (plus one extremely old one listed below). Pppery 03:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 515 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
LFO (American band) 2017-01-23 07:37 2017-04-09 00:30 edit Widr
Mehrabad International Airport 2017-01-23 07:35 2017-02-23 07:35 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry BU Rob13
Duma arson attack 2017-01-23 07:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
User help: FCBInternational 2017-01-23 04:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Fabrictramp
From Under the Cork Tree 2017-01-22 20:05 2017-07-22 20:05 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry BU Rob13
Fall Out Boy discography 2017-01-22 20:05 2017-07-22 20:05 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry BU Rob13
Iran Air 2017-01-22 13:19 2017-02-22 13:19 edit Persistent sock puppetry Yamla
Melania Trump 2017-01-22 11:09 2018-01-22 11:09 edit Persistent disruptive editing: rfpp request Ymblanter
Barack Obama 2017-01-22 10:54 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: rfpp request Ymblanter
Capel lligwy 2017-01-22 02:55 indefinite create Subject of page hijacking BU Rob13
The Fitch Law Firm 2017-01-22 02:52 indefinite create Subject of page hijacking BU Rob13
Midbrain activation 2017-01-21 14:08 indefinite create Salting lightly, apparently popular spam target Timotheus Canens
C.C.F.C. 2017-01-21 11:33 2018-01-21 11:33 create Repeatedly recreated Tom Morris
Jallikattu 2017-01-21 08:27 2017-01-28 08:27 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts, mainly advocacy one way or the other, lots of POV SpacemanSpiff
Alex Belfield 2017-01-21 00:34 2017-04-21 00:34 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Whitewashing and BLP issues Black Kite
Donald Trump 2017-01-20 17:32 indefinite edit reduced protection level Zzuuzz
AgentReview.net 2017-01-20 15:38 indefinite create An existing page hijacked and moved to here to circumvent NPP. Likely paid editing. This abuse is difficult to detect, so creation protection ensures future articles must go through a review process. BU Rob13
Kanasubigi 2017-01-20 03:25 2017-07-20 03:25 edit,move Long-term edit war between two sockpuppeteers King of Hearts
Max Blumenthal 2017-01-20 02:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cyberpower678
Habib Sabet 2017-01-20 01:28 indefinite create repeatedly recreated copyvio Cryptic
Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben 2017-01-19 22:11 2017-01-26 22:11 edit,move Persistent vandalism 5 albert square
Israel and the apartheid analogy 2017-01-19 11:17 indefinite edit New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Samsara
Nablus 2017-01-19 06:55 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Vanamonde93
Palestinian freedom of movement 2017-01-19 05:34 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page: via RfPP Samsara
Ahmed Jibril 2017-01-19 01:29 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Nimr al-Khatib 2017-01-19 01:29 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Abu Nidal 2017-01-19 01:27 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13
Ion Media Networks 2017-01-19 00:30 2017-02-02 00:30 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Disruption by COI SPAs - use the talk page to propose changes Anachronist
Iran Air destinations 2017-01-18 22:35 2017-01-25 22:35 edit,move Persistent block evasion Yamla
West Jerusalem 2017-01-18 21:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:ARBPIA3 Hut 8.5
Views on the Arab–Israeli conflict 2017-01-18 21:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:ARBPIA Hut 8.5
East Jerusalem 2017-01-18 19:30 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Samsara
The Teen Tutors 2017-01-18 18:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Samtar
Siege of Melos 2017-01-18 14:53 2017-02-18 14:53 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Laser brain
Milos 2017-01-18 14:52 2017-02-18 14:52 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Laser brain
Umm al-Hiran 2017-01-18 12:08 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page: via RfPP Samsara

Block review: Enthusiast01 (Ewawer)/Bullaful[edit]

More sockpuppetry detected in addition to the original problems. Nobody is interested in unblocking.  Sandstein  17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Going by Bullaful (talk · contribs)'s most recent post on his talk page, it may be that he would like a review of his block. I recognized Bullaful as Enthusiast01 (talk · contribs), who was formerly known as Ewawer, a longtime Wikipedian who was often productive. (If someone thinks it's a good idea for a CheckUser to make sure that I was correct in my identification, please do. I recognize that even though I am usually correct in identifying socks, I can be wrong. I very much doubt that I am wrong in this case, but technical data supporting the identification wouldn't hurt.) Diannaa blocked Enthusiast01 for copyright issues. When I recognized Bullaful, I suggested that he consider appealing his block instead of using a new account; I also asked Diannaa on her talk page if she would consider unblocking the Enthusiast01 account; it seems she said no. Full discussion seen here. After Bullaful admitted to being Enthusiast01, Diannaa blocked the new account as well. On his talk page, Bullaful argued the following after the block:
Bullaful's argument
What the hell is happening to Wikipedia? When I first starting editing way back when I as well as other editors were encouraged to WP:be bold, on the proviso that if the editor went too far, the edit would be reverted or fixed. I have spent many, many, many hours of my time making good faith edits to enhance the standing and quality of Wikipedia articles. But, now a new breed of administrators seem to have taken over, whose guiding principle is to show who is the boss. Instead of encouraging good faith editing and reverting or fixing edits which may have crossed the line, the main approach is increasingly to block accounts and make repeated threats of dire consequences. It feels like the encouragement of good faith editing and courtesy is becoming old fashioned. Now. Diannaa is going one step further, threatening to blanket delete and revert all edits made by me, whether made in good faith or without regard to any merit. I have spent many of my hours on Wikipedia edits, and it would be such a waste if all of that was now to be dumped because of the bloody-mindedness of one administrator.
Let me also take this opportunity to say to Diannaa that I am conscious of the meaning and significance of copyright and the consequences of its violation (BTW - I was a lawyer in another life) and have respect for it. I also appreciate her (I assume Diannaa is a her) efforts in keeping edits on the right side of copyright. I do have regrets for having crossed over the copyright line, and attribute it to starting to do a major edit but having to rush off to do other things in the real world, and having to "Save" WIP as a temporary step, intending to come back to finish the tidy up very soon, but being caught short. Bullaful (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The appeal could perhaps spend less time accusing other people of bad practices and more explaining what their understanding of copyright is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
If he wishes to get unblocked what he needs to do is explain to us how copyright law applies to Wikipedia editing and how he proposes to do better in the future. I'm not seeing that in this post. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If this is an appeal, I'm an apple tart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I left a rather long comment that may remind them of the ramifications of clicking save. If it mollifies them somewhat so we don't lose their future contributions then all the better. Blackmane (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Enthusiast101 is stale, but since this is an unblock appeal and there's already been evidence of socking, I ran CheckUser. Bullaful is also editing as Rogr101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log); actually, Rogr101 is the older account, so it's the master. If there's any doubt about the technical evidence (and there isn't any) this is awfully damning. Rogr101 has been indef blocked, and I don't see any sleeper accounts. Katietalk 04:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie (Katie), as seen with this link, I identified Rogr101 as an Ewawer sock as well. I remember commenting about it on Dennis Brown's talk page, but it was dropped after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
My point, Flyer, is that he's already evading an indefinite block. The link you gave is four years old. If you had already identified Rogr101 as a sock, you should have listed it here. I'm not going to seriously consider an unblock request from someone who simply wants one of his sockpuppets unblocked so he can resume doing what he wants to do in violation of just about every policy we have against block evasion. He has three accounts that we know of and now wants to edit from two of them? Nope. Katietalk 13:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Katie, going by what I stated on Ewawer's talk page and to Dennis Brown four years ago, I clearly was not sure if Ewawer knew about the WP:Socking policy and whether or not the Rogr101 account was a WP:Clean start account. After all, he was not as familiar with Wikipedia's rules as I was (he still isn't), and it did appear that he had dropped the Ewawer account to edit as Rogr101. He stopped using the Rogr101 account after I identified him. He did not start to use it again until December 4, 2016 at 03:45. His Ewawer account had been blocked by Diannaa months before December. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the user should probably read WP:NOTTHEM and be sure to understand and respond to the reason of the block (copyright issues are one of the most serious types of problems here). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

See here. I think that Ewawer would like to be unblocked so that he comment in this thread. Ewawer is the oldest account, so maybe unblock that one to make his case in this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This post shows a good understanding of what our expectations are from a copyright point of view. I will ask him at User talk:Bullaful if he is also prepared to stop socking and if he will make that commitment I will unblock his original account (User:Enthusiast01) if nobody has any objections. As always, I will scrutinize the user's edits daily to watch for further copyright violations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: So far Bullaful/Enthusiast01 has not responded to my unblock conditions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I've done all I can to help him on this block issue. I'm done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Any chance a CheckUser can look for sleepers? @Bbb23 and DoRD:? Blackmane (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As noted above, KrakatoaKatie ran a check a bit over a week ago, so I'm not sure that there is any value in running another one just yet. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose mostly because of the sockpuppetry. The unblock request does seem to indicate that the user understands what copyright is, but doesn't yet understand that you can't save a copyright-violating edit at all, ever, even if you're planning to come back to fix it later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The diff Dianaaa linked above, a response to a post I made on Bullafull's TP, is, from a good faith persepctive, probably sufficient to indicate that they understand that copyright vio's cannot be temporarily saved. However, given that there has been no activity for some time, in response or as socks, makes it hard to see where the unblock discussion can go. I would suggest that this discussion be parked pending some response from them. Blackmane (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Spider-Man[edit]

Redirect request declined.  Sandstein  17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Please make a page that redirects 🕷👨 to Spider-Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie Faxx (talkcontribs) 05:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at this user's edit's? I've made the relevant AIV report, but it turns out he's been creating crap redirects all over the place, which need deleting. GoldenRing (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I think "crap redirects all over the place" is something of an exaggeration. I've deleted several implausible ones, and one other is at WP:RFD, but I'm not seeing a big problem here from an editor who has made only a little over 20 edits in six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Googling https://www.google.com/search?q=%F0%9F%95%B7%F0%9F%91%A8&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 returns results for Spiderman. But is anyone actually going to try entering 🕷👨 in the Wikipedia search box? --B (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
🕷👨 remains a redlink. GoldenRing (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Richie Faxx: That isn't a plausible search term, so X mark.svg Not done. ​—DoRD (talk)​ —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@DoRD: I'm re-pinging Richie Faxx for you. Your previous attempt to do so didn't work because you didn't sign your comment properly. Graham87 06:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Individual characters of this sort are useful redirects, if nothing else because people often can't see what the character is, so they can use a link from the character to see what it depicts. For example, when viewing this thread yesterday on a public computer, I saw 🕷 as a little box — I knew what it was because of the request, but had I seen it in isolation, I wouldn't have had a clue what it was. That being said, combinations of one character with other text, or combinations of more than one character together, are almost never useful: you won't use the combination unless you already know the constituent parts, so you'll be able to find the target. See the deletion discussion for 🎈 release at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 25, for example. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Really disappointed that this thread wasn't about the possibility that Spider Man was editing his own article.... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Me too :( --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
No editing your own article dressed as Spider-Man.--WaltCip (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

CSD Backlog[edit]

Backlog was dealt with currenly is <50. — xaosflux Talk 22:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

We are starting to get a bit backed up at CSD. There are currently more than 200 articles waiting for admin review/action. I am going to start at the bottom of the alphabet, if someone else wants to start at the other end or somewhere in the middle...? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It was mostly G13s, which have been taken care of by Fastily, many less to look through now! Sam Walton (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That helps! -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Daily Mail RfC[edit]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC

When the time comes, this one really needs an experienced closer (and perhaps more than one, given the controversial nature of the RfC). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. The current hotly contested topic of fakeness of news makes this a political hot potato. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
And you know who's taking those tasty hot potatoes out of our children's mouths? Immigrants! I'm outraged too, etc, etc. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Careful there. Outrage causes cancer. I know that this is true because I reads it in The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
But what is this going to do to my house price? ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The EU, gays and travellers have already done the damage to that. Come on, don't you believe the Mail at all? I'm outraged too. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
As I've pointed out at the RFC, the Daily Mail have helpfully made the case for me by putting "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens" on their website's front page today. (Presumably the aliens are planning to land in YOUR TOWN to steal the jobs of HARD WORKING WHITE PEOPLE.) ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I bet they killed Princess Diana as well. Bastards. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
wow, that's...that's special. I can't say I understand the British print media all that well, but in the U.S. this is the sort of headline we expect from trash tabloids only sold at supermarkets that ere not taken all that seriously by the general public. I sincerely hope that is also the case in the UK. (We save the real garbage for our broadcast and internet media (is that better or worse, I really don't know)) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is a trash tabloid sold at supermarkets... Its also got a successful history of printing duff stories that get picked up by mainstream media (including those in the US). In its own way its very successful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The trash tabloids sold at US supermarkets called. They demand an apology for being compared to The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would close it but this box on my userpage probably prevents me from doing so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I might be willing to close it (or act as one of several closers), depending on how things look once it's done. Sunrise (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
All joking aside, the 30 days runs out on Monday, 06 February 2017, and at by time we really need an uninvolved closer or closers to evaluate the sometimes subtle arguments and who can deal with the inevitable challenge that will be filed no matter which way the decision goes. Sunrise, who volunteered above, may run into extra opposition because he isn't an administrator. Any other volunteers? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Go on, put my name down against it. I believe I will be unavailable on the 6th but can tackle it on the 7th if no-one else gets there first. I need to get back into the swing of things here, what better way than by tackling a controversial and high-profile RFC? Yunshui  13:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm also willing to close either alone, or (preferably) with a couple of others. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that many of the examples cited are either of "celebrity gossip" for which I find no sources actually reliable, and "headline claims" again for which no source should be asserted. Note that the article with the headline "Is Nasa hiding aliens? Astronaut covers up evidence of mystery flashing lights moving past the space station, UFO hunters claim" is specifically about "wild claims" by "a group of UFO hunters" and is not a claim that NASA is hiding anything at all, and specifically is not the claim made above by a colleague here. The actual article clearly states: At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters who believe they have spotted strange flashing lights near the ISS. In short, the DM is accurate on the topic. When giving "examples" it behooves us all to use accurate examples, lest Wikipedia be viewed, itself, as the laughingstock. Collect (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Did someone mention hooves?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
No source that I know of is actually good for celebrity gossip as I have iterated. The article you link to, in the actual article, states simply: "In a recent post on her app, the reality star revealed her secret for keeping her ever-changing nails strong and healthy: Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream, a product that was originally formulated to repair the hooves of million-dollar thoroughbred racehorses." Which, as far as "celebrity gossip" goes, is extraordinarily non-contentious. The general claim about that cream has even been in The New York Times [1] and thus I fail to see why the DM is different in the case at hand from that esteemed journal. "Well‐Touled Cream They say that the late Elizabeth Arden used to work ‐her eyelash cream into her racehorses’ manes and tails to make them more luxuriant. Now we have a horse and cream story in reverse. It seems that stable grooms used to massage a cream into thoroughbreds’ hooves to keep them from splitting. After a while, women grooms began noticing an ,improvement in their own fingernails, which they attributed to the frequent use of the ungent. So, naturally, someone came along and decided to refine the preparation and package it for humans. Now we have Barielle Nail Strengthener Cream, a pleasant‐feeling concoction which seems to be improving our ragged cuticles. Saks carries it, at $6 and $10." Note that the typos are courtesy of that esteemed journal as well. Collect (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the hot tip, Collect. Now tempted to create Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream. You're right, it's actually quite uncontentious. But I susepect that's the sort of headline that sets some ediotrs' nerves a-jangling, especially those with longer nails. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Iterated and reiterated. I think it's the fact that they buy into the idea that everybody noteworthy is a "celebrity" and is fair game for them to make up "gossip" about that offends many of us, Collect. There are better sources out there and we should always be using them. --John (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested reading[edit]

There's nothing to be gained here. The user was blocked for three days some months ago, mainly because they refused to engage with the community in any meaningful way. Rather than engage with the community in any meaningful way, they chose to abandon the account. Point proven, one might argue. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Well, not naming names, but I just saw where an administrator gave a short block to a productive editor (and in this case for a trivial offense, or really not even an offense at all) and the productive editor responded by leaving the project for good.

Just a gentle reminder to please go easy with this stuff, people. If I may recommend WP:HURTS as something all admins might want to glance at? Herostratus (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to call out that admin or any admin. We all make mistakes (God knows I've made many), and I spoke to him about it privately. My intent is to use the event to take the opportunity to give us all pause to reflect, not to call out any individual. Herostratus (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the essay is rather good, and should be required reading, not just suggested reading. MPS1992 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't find its definition of a "real world' where most people (or many people at least) have never been in any sort of conflict in their "real" lives, ever, to be particularly compelling. My life has, on the whole, been pretty great and yet almost all the stuff on the list of things that apparently don't happen to most people have happened to me at some point. It's called living. It isn't always easy but it's worth doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • While I do disagree witht he logged reason for the block, I would also note that this user edited for eight years without ever speaking to any user about anything. Zero edits to talk, user talk, or Wikipedia namespaces. This is a collaborative project, refusing to communicate hinders collaboration. The idea that they were unaware they had a talk page is ludicrous, we've always had the orange bar, and in fact it was substatially larger and more obnoxious when this user started out. Edit summaries may not be required, but being accountable for your edits and responding to concerns is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Did the user fail to acknowledge or respond to important warnings on his own talk page? Because (otherwise) there is actually no Wikipedia rule or policy that an editor has to discuss with other editors -- although I have seen a block given to a disruptive and heedless (but not strictly policy-violating) editor who had ignored dozens of talk-page notices/warnings over several years. That particular block was given to force them to reply, and was enacted from a consensus at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, I do not agree with the stated and logged reason for the block, and I would add that if I were considering blocking them for a problematic failure to communicate, I would say so and give them a chance to respond first. That being said, I do believe refusing to communicate is a real problem and at a certain point is grounds for a block. Eight years of unresponsiveness is a real issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is one of the perennial dilemmas of restricting anything - will the bad edits that were prevented outweigh the good edits that weren't done? I don't think one can boil this down to one essay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That is a pickle, and I don't believe the cited essay does anything to resolve it. This is the basic conflict of all admin work, will the harm of preventing something (through blocking, deletion, page protection, etc) be greater than the benefit? Who can say? I would argue that a discussion of this specifc block, with the admin who made it, would be more worthwhile than plugging an essay that was just moved into project space and has yet to be subject to serious review by the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Some edit summaries I see from veteran users and administrators alike are not helpful or explain virtually nothing to most people. Would it have made a difference if Cliff1911 suddenly put "fixed" as the edit summary of an edit? Not specific enough still? If they repeatedly make a controversial edit, without explanation, there's some ground to stand on about non-communication. That's not what happened here though. Cliff only made one edit to a single article that EncMstr disagreed with and was blocked, by EncMstr, for it. He proceeded to log off for good after that. With that kind of explanation for making a non-controversial cleanup, I don't blame Cliff for not talking to anybody here. I certainly wouldn't. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, if that is the editor in question, blatantly ignoring years and hundreds of talk-page notices and then getting blocked for something related to at least half a dozen of those notices (not leaving an edit summary, especially when deleting text), does point up the fact that like any community, Wikipedia has certain community norms, and if you violate those norms for years on end consequences will happen. Not a great block rationale, but not the worst block in the world. And yeah, Herostratus, that's a nice essay, but the fact that you just put it live and then posted it here seems a tiny bit like advertising. Also, the editor did not put up any kind of "retired" notice, he just hasn't edited since the block (which, although it was for 72 hours, listed no timeframe visible on the talkpage). Seems like a bit of a CIR issue. Also, for all we know he merely created a new account. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem there is that the user in question, Cliff, was actually following the typical manual of style of film articles by removing content that shouldn't have been (and still is) there. EncMstr is an administrator. Not only should they be well aware of policies and guidelines of the articles they are editing, but they certainly shouldn't be restoring questionable content and then blocking him. Should Cliff been more responsive to users asking questions? Yes, assuming Cliff was aware there was project/talk spaces to edit and not blissfully ignoring them. Should they have been blocked for making a good edit? No. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There had already been four ANI threads about him (which he was notified of): [2], [3], [4], [5]. He was going to get a CIR block one way or another. As it happened, the block was pretty short. He could have easily made an unblock request or come back in three or more days and resumed editing. He chose not to. Speaking for myself, I don't have much patience for WP:CIR issues that have lasted more than five years. Softlavender (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Communication is required at multiple levels. Not leaving edit summaries is one thing, annoying but not actually prohibited. Not responding to people who try and talk to you directly (because you have not left an appropriate edit summary) is entirely different. There is zero evidence over a number of years they have any wish to actually talk to anyone. So frankly expecting an admin to jump through hoops that have previously been ignored is a waste of everyone's time. See point 4 of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think this conversation is turning out the way the OP intended. I'm relieved to see that I am not the only one who thinks this block was just badly explained but probably justified and necessary. This is hardly new, I've seen dozens of cases of users that manage to avoid consequences for their problematic editng by just ignoring others' concerns and trying to "fly under the radar." It's actually a very effective strategy and something we should be more aware of and proactive toward. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not necessarily turning out the way I'd hoped, and yes, you Beeblebrox disappoint me. The fact is that this user was discussed several times, always with the consensus of the admin corps (or, at any rate, the people who comment at ANI which is mostly admins I assume) being "Whatever his pecadillos, he is clearly a net positive asset to the project, so leave him alone". Taking the attitude "to hell with what the admin corps thinks, I am smarter than the admin corps and know what's best, so buh-bye" is a disappointing attitude, yes. I'm not saying the person who blocked him takes this attitude -- maybe he was unaware of the editor's history, maybe he just lost his head for a moment -- but you Beeblebrox are taking that attitude, as a considered position. That's disappointing, yes.
The main point I'm trying to make is some number of blocks are going to turn out to be de facto permanent bans, regardless of how short and trivial you consider them to be, because the person is going to be offended enough to leave, so be careful", with this particular incident as an example. Whether an individual wants to consider and ponder that fact or not is up to them, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed a single block can drive away some users over the perceived injustice. I have myself caused the departure of a possibly useful contributor (see [6]), and another block of an editor with 20000 edits but lack of competence (and insufficient English skills to discuss this), Sheynhertz-Unbayg, turned into a ban and an insane number of sockpuppets. It is often very hard to predict how blocks will turn out. Editors whose work may be of benefit for Wikipedia if cleaned up properly or if somebody goes and checks them all are not as much of an asset as they may appear to be. Still, thinking about the person on the other end before pushing the block button is usually a Good Idea. —Kusma (t·c) 20:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This seems quite topical given I've been requested to try and manage yet another block of Cassianto (talk · contribs). I don't really want to get in to an in-depth discussion about who said what to who and where, suffice I am certain this block will cause more disruption than it prevents. I have previously written something similar into the new admin's guide to try and ram the point home.

The closest I have come to being blocked is when I went through a brief spell of using an IP to edit in my local library (I now bring my laptop in and have 2FA enabled, so I'm less worried about the security aspects). I had a bunch of books on a desk, and was about to start putting the {{cite book}} templates in the relevant articles, when I noticed the block message, which I'd never seen before. My reaction was "WTF?" and I fired off an unblock request, which was declined. That was an eye-opener and a half. Even though I knew exactly why the block took place (vandalism from somebody else in an earlier session), I was thoroughly brassed off that I couldn't improve the encyclopedia. I put the books back, stormed off in a huff, and basically wrote off an afternoon's editing. If that didn't drill into me how blocking has to be a serious last resort when absolutely nothing else will work, nothing would.

As far as Cliff1911 goes, I am sure I have defended him on ANI before as being harmless; the only problem is it would have been nice for him to just say "hello". AFAIK there was the odd minor violation of BLPSOURCES, which under normal circumstances would justify at most a revert, and possibly a friendly pointer towards policy if there were too many instances of it. I think if we could have found any non-wiki way of communicating with him, somebody would have done it. I'd quite like to know what he said. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: @Kusma: @Beeblebrox: @Only in death: @Softlavender: @MPS1992: @Salvidrim: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: @Moe Epsilon: @Herostratus:
Wow! Sorry for the unresponsiveness. I was in the wilderness and then had trouble returning because of a winter storm.
I see I may have Ham-fisted a block over three months ago. While I make mistakes from time to time—and initially thought I was having a bad day—upon review of the history, I stand behind that block.
The user was asked at least six times to provide edit summaries. The third time (September 2011), a possible block was warned over the issue. I can kind of see why Herostratus says there were no escalating levels of warning because there doesn't seem to be a suggested course of formal warning escalation for the minor offense (not a wiki-law, but a social collaborative offense) of not providing an edit summary. But never ever ever ever providing an edit summary 53,510 times seems deserving of some reaction. Especially if talk page warnings don't show any change in behavior. The 72 hour block was intended as an impossible-to-ignore attention getting effort. I had anticipated the editor would immediately request an unblock, provide some insight about his behavior, be unblocked, and get right back to work.
Alas, that user has not edited since then, which is unfortunate. I sure wish he would continue. Perhaps my doing nothing (not blocking) would have enabled the editor to provide a net positive. But what about the many (how many?) editors who review edits who have to work harder because there is no edit summary? It is hard to weight the pros and cons when not able to find out how much work is caused.
Perhaps the first section title of WP:EDITSUMMARY (Always provide an edit summary) should be reworded to suggest summaries are optional since the rest of that section doesn't seem to match. Or does it? Maybe it should say that leaving an occasional edit summary blank is probably okay but never providing one is "bad", especially when never using any other means to collaborate. —EncMstr (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If you are blocking solely on the basis that edit summaries were not provided, you seem to be misunderstanding current policy which does not dictate that edit-summary-less edits are in violation of policy.  · Salvidrim! ·  20:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Problem faced due to sharing of the same IP address[edit]

Hello, I was blocked for a day on wikipedia. The reason was stated that I share the same IP address with another account.I would want to find a long-lasting solution to this issue. I happen to be in a building with a shared network and a lot of people use the common internet that is provided. Evidently many of them would be using Wiki from the same IP and I would be facing the same problem in regular intervals. I would request someone to help me and give me a permanent solution to this blockage. I have uploaded this previously too but have not heard a response from anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella.black678 (talkcontribs) 04:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

We do have the technical ability to do this, see Wikipedia:IP block exemption. However, I'm not sure you qualify. If you ever find an issue at any time, you can request to have the autoblock removed while within your account. If such requests get acepted often, that would tend to be a clear sign of needing an IPBE. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You could also request that the IP block be changed to non-logged-in users only, but we would need the address. — xaosflux Talk 13:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Retire account[edit]

(non-admin closure) DOne by Xaosflux. Amortias (T)(C) 12:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Could an admin remove the rights from AvicAWB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), remove it from the the checkpage, and block it for me? I'd appreciate it. Avicennasis @ 05:23, 19 Tevet 5777 / 05:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donexaosflux Talk 05:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Please restore full version of this image[edit]

It is likely public domain and eligible for a move to commons: File:Pilsudski wilno polish-lithuanian interwar relations.jpg. The rationale for this is based on commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright, namely that "works by presumably Polish anonymous artists published in Poland before 1946" (this image is from 1935) are PD. Granted, there is an illegible signature that nobody was able to properly decipher, but illegible signature are logically no better than anonymous and should be treated as such, and for that rationale see for example this Oxford catalogue of works, were works with illegible signatures that can be only partially deciphered and couldn't be traced back to a proper person are categorized under anonymous: Roger White; Robin Darwall-Smith (2001). The Architectural Drawings of Magdalen College, Oxford: A Catalogue. Oxford University Press. pp. 147–. ISBN 978-0-19-924866-7. . If anyone can find a better legal precedent/explanation about such signatures, do let me know, but if not, I repeat: this is an anonymous work, and should be treated as public domain until a moment someone can decipher the signature. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a signed work becomes legally an "anonymous" publication just because you or I can't read the signature any more. Ignorance of authorship is not the same as lack of authorship. To me this signature looks pretty distinctive and to a contemporary reader who knew what cartoonists were active in the field, it would clearly have signalled: "this work is by me, cartoonist so-and-so". Have you researched the archives of the publication in question to see who their cartoonists were? In any case, you should have provided the actual source; it's from here: [7]. Fut.Perf. 14:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW, you can find other cartoons by the same author in other volumes of the same paper, where the signature looks more readable, like here [8]. It looks like "St Rydygier" to me (which would seem to be a plausible name in Polish, right?). This [9] Google books search points to something (in Polish) that might suggest there was one "Stanislaw Rydygier" working for Mucha in the 1930s. Can you verify this? Fut.Perf. 17:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
(Here [10] is a small copy of another cartoon with what looks like the same signature explicitly credited to "S. Rydygier". Fut.Perf. 17:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC))
More: Would "Stanislaw Rydygier" be a frequent name? This [11] website gives birth and death dates for a person of this name as 1872–1943, in which case we'd be clear of the 70 y.p.m.a. It doesn't identify him as the artist though. Fut.Perf. 20:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
A 1943 death-date would make the author‘s works public-domain in Poland now (since 2014), but not as of the 1996 URAA cutoff, such that a work published in 1935 will remain under copyright in the US until 2031.—Odysseus1479 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Wonderful job finding the author! How did you find the source for the image? I must have uploaded it long ago when I wasn't that well-versed in citing sources properly, so thank you for fixing my mess!
User:Odysseus1479: Are you sure about that URAA interpretation? Have you checked commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright? I am pretty sure works by Polish artists who died 70 years ago are PD. PS. In case of pma 1943, this would have entered PD in Poland in 1994, and would be still PD by 1996, so it should not be copyrighted in the USA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Finding the source was surprisingly easy: just type the words of the caption into Google and it finds you that digitalized archive at uw.edu.pl [12] From there I just had to randomly browse into some of the neighboring volumes to find more from the same author. Maybe you should write an article on that magazine, Mucha, by the way. :-) Fut.Perf. 22:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I guess I was thrown off by the mention of 70 ypma above; if the applicable term is actually 50 years (according to the law in effect at the time) then yes, the Polish copyright expired before 1996 so was not extended by the US under URAA.—Odysseus1479 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: The least I can do considering you identified it so nicely: Mucha (magazine), based on the Polish stub article.
@Odysseus1479: Ok, so you'd support restoring the full version of the image and moving it to Commons? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I would not object, assuming the description & licence are updated. Although the dating for the artist would ideally be more solid, it’s plausible enough for me, given that I believe the PCP should be combined with a ‘balance of probability’ approach to provenance (as opposed to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’). However, on technical grounds I would rather see a fresh upload in PNG format. The image at the cited source appears to be some 30% larger in pixel dimensions than the “full version”, and despite not being able to see the latter I’ll bet that it suffered somewhat from being JPEG’d. I’d be happy to prep the image (crop, straighten, & convert to monochrome) and either send it to you or upload it myself.—Odysseus1479 20:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: In that case, since you seem to have already located a better souce, could you upload it to Commons? Than we can tag this one with {{NowCommons}} and/or delete it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Piotrus: nope—same source as linked above, but possibly a more effective method of capturing the available data. Anyway, there’s now a version of the picture at File:Pilsudski wilno polish-lithuanian interwar relations.png. Please check the licensing: because I don’t know what template to use for the Polish side (PD-50 having been deleted for some reason), I just added a note to the “Permission” section as rationale for the US template. I also took the liberty of editing the description a bit and adding a few categories.—Odysseus1479 23:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: Thank you. I think the template is sufficient for both Poland and US, I just added few more categories. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Couple admins needed[edit]

Original issue dealt with, disagreements on side issue can go on user talk pages. Or Twitter. Or somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Could we get a couple admins to help block some vandals? On Huggle it currently has a massive 17.5 RPM right now. Thanks! Yoshi24517Chat Online 19:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:AIV seems pretty empty right now, so these reports would need to be made if indeed there is a number of edits committing repeated vandalism. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Very sorry, but this is a grammatical bête noire for me: "A couple of admins" and not "a couple admins." Confer The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, p.87, "couple": "Used colloquiallly, to mean a handful or a few, couple should always be followed by of (a couple of pomegranates never a couple pomegranates)" In fact, to this New Yorker's ear "a couple pomegranates" sounds as if it's coming from a person who came to English from another language, especially from Yiddish. I wouldn't complain, but I see this misusage from students frequently, and it seems to be sidling its way into the language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Was...was that 'really necessary? This was a request for admin assistance, not an English class. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact is the speaker communicated his point effectively and parsimoniously, therefore it is not incorrect, just not preferred by some folks. As the French say, "whatever." Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Interesting activity from a new user[edit]

Just saw User:Jxu_certona/sandbox this during page patrols. The actual text says they're testing the api without logging in This user was just created today so it's rather interesting that they already know about the API and are testing it. Second , they have more than one sub page with the same text on it. Although I'd like to AGF on this user, I would have difficulty thinking of a reason why a new user would know and want to test the API's write ability (per their description ) without logging in except to create mischief. Perhaps some admin eyes would be good on this user . KoshVorlon} 19:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Maybe they are an external developper/programmer/contractor who has not edited Wikipedia before but had a good reason for testing APIs (Wikipedia's or otherwise); "new Wikipedia user" doesn't "new Internet user".  · Salvidrim! ·  21:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Nothing actionable yet. ~ Rob13Talk 13:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Telugu_movies- A Aa USA collection Modification[edit]

(non-admin closure) Wrong venue for this request. Amortias (T)(C) 12:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Hi,

A Aa movie USA collection was set as wrong, please make the correction as per the same source which is mentioned presently.

Just for your information to provide correct information for public.

Thanks Rafi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafishaik1379 (talkcontribs) 04:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rafishaik1379: This is the Administrators Noticeboard for the English Wikipedia, but that article is on the Simple English Wikipedia. If you want to suggest a change to that article you can do so at its talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Think this deserves a block[edit]

Rev-deletion and blocks of 2 IP editors performed by Boing! said Zebedee. Nothing else to see here. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 09:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

I saw | this and reverted it I realize this is an IP editor, but it's not their first edit, the edit summary shows intent and the entry itself is a BDP/BLP ( he still has relatives and parents still alive). I'd suggest a block for this editor. KoshVorlon} 16:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Can just be blocked under Vandalism surely? (Its not technically a BDP due to dying in 1990. The part of BDP "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends" is dependant on the time past their death - and 17 years is way past the reasonable limit for that) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually he has a sister, who's very much alive, so BDP would still apply. I realize we can't block just based on feelings alone, however, to me, that act of vandalism was no different than if they'd vandalized a black man's entry with the "N" word. KoshVorlon} 17:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There were two IPs doing it. I've blocked both for 31 hours and I've rev-deleted the offensive content. I'll protect if I see it continue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Page mover user right conduct issue[edit]

There is an active RM on the article's talk page, and OP has acknowledged that if he had known it was a formal RM then he would not have moved the page. Closing at OP's request. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 09:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

I am requesting a review of Bradv's conduct using the page mover right. I believe that he has abused the privilege, by making a round-robin move in which the creation a redirect was suppressed, to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. This is explicitly prohibited by policy as explained at WP:Page mover#Page move disputes and WP:Page mover#Criteria for revocation.

Further context in this discussion: User talk:Bradv#Page move and possible abuse of user right

The sequence of event are as follows:

  1. The original article title was Donald Trump Russia dossier
  2. Four days later, an editor moved the title to Donald Trump-Russia dossier without discussion or consensus
  3. A discussion occurred in which the use of an en-dash had virtually no support, including from the person who moved it.
  4. A new move request was started, unrelated to the change from Donald Trump Russia dossier to Donald Trump-Russia dossier.
  5. Today, I reverted the page title back to the original Donald Trump Russia dossier
  6. Bradv reverted the page title back to Donald Trump-Russia dossier using his page mover right to suppress a redirect for a round-robin move.

I'm not that concerned about the title, and perhaps I should have blindly obeyed the article template that says don't move the page. What I am concerned about is Bradv's use of the page mover right in a content dispute, and his unwillingness to understand why that was wrong.- MrX 19:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There is an active requested move discussion on this page. MrX moved the page after the discussion started, which invalidated all of the oppose votes, including my own, and rendered the entire discussion moot. Several editors had already voted in favour of the current title—MrX had already voted to move the page.
This was obvious case of an inappropriate move, and it needed to be fixed. I will concede that I could have waited for an uninvolved editor or administrator to move it back, but at the time I didn't think it would be contentious and I didn't see the need to bother anyone. I also left a very civil edit summary, asking MrX to wait for the discussion to conclude.
It should also be noted that I did not need to use the 'suppress redirects' flag here—as there was only one revision in the history it would have been trivial to move it normally. Furthermore, MrX also has the page mover right, so he should know better than to move pages while they are under discussion. (Also, he neglected to move subpages, so that needed to be fixed anyway.)
I have been asked to revert my move, but if I did that it would cause further disruption to the requested move discussion. My suggestion to MrX was to wait until the discussion concludes. Bradv 19:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The log says: "16:40, January 18, 2017 Bradv (talk | contribs) moved page Donald Trump–Russia dossier to Draft:Move/Donald Trump Russia dossier without leaving a redirect (Round-robin history swap step 1 using pageswap)"
That can only be done with the advance user right. Note also that I did not use the added functions of the page mover right to when I moved the page.- MrX 19:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, but as I said, I did not need to use that right. The fact that I chose to use the PageSwap.js feature rather than moving it manually was merely a matter of convenience. Bradv 19:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The documentation for PageSwap says "Users who are unable to suppressredirect or move-subpages have the swap functionality disabled." If you use automated tools, you have to understand what they do.- MrX 19:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand, you moved a page in middle of a discussion and when reverted you complain? Something is not computing. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
A page move war over a dash. Sigh. And again with the pounding of the revert buttons. My recommendation is that people not move pages during the ongoing move discussion, period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
And if they do, what's the recommended course of action? The alternative was to close the discussion, or notify everyone that opposed the move so they could change their vote. What should I have done? Bradv 19:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It probably would have been best to leave it; at most, make a note of it in the discussion and then carry on discussing. There was no desperate need for it to be fixed, it would have been fixed eventually. Consensus resulting from the discussion would override a bold and undiscussed move that occurred while the discussion was ongoing, and a discussion about what the proper title for this article is should be able to reach a logical conclusion no matter what the current title is. Moving a page that's in the middle of a move discussion is a pretty disruptive thing to do, whether MrX meant for it to be or not, but move-warring is far more disruptive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Think the consensus is that everyone thinks it should be named something different. Probably best for all sides to avoid renaming it back or forth until at least two people agree on what to call it. I'd prefer (Donald Trump)-Russia dossier, but it shouldn't be moved there until everyone agrees. Κσυπ Cyp   22:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
When I moved the page, I was aware of what I thought was an informal discussion of a title change (which turns out to have been proposed by a sock). Had I realized that it had become a formal RM, I would not have moved the page. I think the various points that have been made here have been received, so this can be closed as far as I'm concerned. - MrX 00:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I observe (and including the willfully disobedient gallery) that if we follow your plan (No action taken while an active discussion is hapening) this gives anybody who opposes a change the battleground playbook to tendentiously prevent a change. Don't like a change, get a friend to oppose and force a consensus discussion, shortly before the discussion closes, you force a new consensus discussion on a slightly varried theme that is predicated on the first consensus discussion being resolved that the change be accepted. It would have been better to forcibly fold the second proposal (hyphen vs endash wars again?) into the first and establish a unified consensus. Also it would have been good to have a moratorium on "calling the question" for a few weeks so new arguments/proposals have time to mature under the established principle of "Consensus can change". Hasteur (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Or you forcibly revert ad nauseam, as is today's playbook for obstructionism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing block notices[edit]

I always thought that there was a proscription against removing block notices while blocked, but I can't find anything in guidelines. Is that true, and if so, where is it? SpinningSpark 15:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING: "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block." So the block notice itself can be removed (as it'll still appear in the block log), but if there is a denied unblock notice, that cannot be removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
...until or unless the block expires or is lifted. :) --64.85.216.175 (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson and RfA - Topic ban proposal[edit]

Re-closing per WP:SNOW. This is going nowhere and the OP has called the proposal a mistake on his talk page. With all respect to Kudpung there is no obligation to keep a discussion open for any length of time once it becomes clear beyond reasonable doubt that the proposal is dead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Over the years that Andrew Davidson has been voting at RfA I think he has shown himself to be one of the most disruptive and disagreed with RfA voters. He has been described as having an “ongoing crusade”, casting votes that are “observationally equivalent to trolling”, and “making lazy assumptions that are not supported by hard evidence”. He is regarded as the “persistent ‘oppose everyone’ participant”, who makes “token opposes with whatever rationale he could find”, with one such vote described by a user as “the most useless and off-base oppose” they had ever seen. According to Snottywong’s tool Andrew has voted on 74 RfAs, matching the final outcome 50% of the time. Of those 74 votes: 53 (72%) were oppose, 15 were support, and 1 was neutral. More recently, Andrew has matched the request outcome closer to 30% of the time.

I looked at Andrew’s most recent votes and found the following, which I have attempted to summarise without injecting my own opinion:

Extended content
  • Primefac 2 - Opposed regarding one recent AfD nomination.
  • Cyberpower678 2 - Opposed based on not wanting to give bot creators administrator rights, resulting in an extended argument unrelated to the candidate.
  • K6ka - Opposed based on lack of content creation. Also opposed due to not having a userright that the candidate actually did have (at the time).
  • NinjaRobotPirate - Opposed because the candidate voted to delete an article in which a particular song was listed, because that song is now no longer in a Christmas list article on Wikipedia. Debated to the extent that the discussion had to be moved to the talk page.
  • Ad Orientem - Opposed based on quality of content creation.
  • Boson - Neutral based on some concerns over content creation quality, but also because they edit articles on rude words.
  • Yash! - Opposed because the candidate’s self-declared ability in English was less than their self-declared ability in other languages. Discussion had to be moved to the talk page.
  • Godsy - Opposed because the candidate created the article grease fire which was not up to Andrew’s standards.
  • Samtar - Opposed because the candidate nominated an article for DYK that wasn’t up to Andrew’s standards.
  • RickinBaltimore - Opposed due to “lack of experience”.
  • Rehman 4 - Supported
  • Vanamonde93 - Opposed primarily because the user had cited research in an article that was published too recently.

My personal thoughts on Andrew’s voting history are that even when he places an oppose vote that isn’t completely ridiculous, it’s rarely indicative that the candidate shouldn't be trusted with administrator rights, and such votes are far outweighed by the ones that cause other editors to spend time and effort arguing with him. Other highlights include implying that not using your real name or disclosing your gender is a reason not to be an admin, by the way. If many of Andrew's votes were made by new users they would be reverted on sight as outright trolling.

This isn’t to say that every vote Andrew makes at RfA is a bad one - he has made plenty of sensible votes over the years - but I believe that his participation in this process, especially recently, is absolutely a net negative, draining the time, effort, and goodwill of the users who argue with him, and contributing heavily to the atmosphere that drives users away from RfA. I therefore propose that Andrew be topic banned from voting at RfA. Sam Walton (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support- yes, I've long been of the opinion that this guy's votes are subtle, pompous trolling. Opposing people for such crimes as being a fan of Hunter S. Thompson, or editing articles on topics that don't interest Andrew Davidson, or not being a native English speaker, are utterly ridiculous. Reyk YO! 19:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this opening statement is completely unsupported by any comparative evidence. "Over the years that Andrew Davidson has been voting at RfA he has shown himself to be the single most disruptive and disagreed with RfA voter." It is POV at best and is a non-neutral, lead to a very important subject - banning someone from an area. It required Arbcom sanctions the last time such a Tban was proposed - and it was a partial one at that. I can think of several more notable contributors - names that will be far more familiar to those with half decent memories. Sanctions have to be based on more than POV and guesswork. Leaky Caldron 19:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • If you disagree with that sentence, then please ignore it and read the rest of the post instead. I've reworded to be less objective at any rate. Sam Walton (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
      • It couldn't be any less objective. Leaky Caldron 20:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose My !votes are all in good faith. I look at the candidate's user page and edits and then !vote based upon what I see. Sometimes I oppose and sometimes I support. Here's a good example. Andrew D. (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm torn. One one hand, it's depressing to see people saying, essentially, "Help! We are completely incapable of ignoring someone who clearly spouts nonsense, and are forced against our will to argue incessantly with the one vote out of 179 that we disagree with! Protect us from ourselves!" My gut warns me that this is kind of the thin end of the wedge, and it won't be long before other people use this precedent to start targeting people who use more defensible, but not mainstream, rationales. I still remember how out-of-proportion angry people got with Kurt's silly but relatively harmless "self noms = de facto power hungry" opposes (I'm not linking user name solely to make the young pups do research if they're curious, so please don't link it anywhere. Make them work for it!). Seems like it would be easier to create Template:Don't bother arguing with AD, no Crat is going to pay attention to this vote, and the first person to see another silly oppose can slap it on the page.
On the other hand, AD's RFA opposes are really, really obnoxious about 75-90% of the time, and as someone (Brad?) said, often functionally indistinguishable from trolling. There comes a time when you just have to say "Come on, man." Or at the very least, when you just have to say "I don't really want to spend political capital defending this silliness".
So, borderline oppose, but I will lose precisely 1.34 minutes of sleep over this if consensus doesn't go my way. But I reserve the right to oppose much more vigorously if RFA bans start to become a thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Andrew opposed my RFA, and I respect his reasoning for it. I don't see his opposes as "trolling", but of a mind as to what he believes to be needed for an admin. That being said, I have to agree with Floquenbeam, his opposes can be very irritating, and generate enough unneeded drama during an RFA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Andrew/Colonel can be incredibly annoying, but if I were compiling a list of the most obnoxious "regulars" at RFA he wouldn't even make my top ten (and most of that list would probably actually come from the serial supporters who regularly descend on anyone daring to raise an objection to a candidate). I really don't like this recent trend of declaring people personae non grata from various Wikipedia processes—either someone is problematic enough that they warrant some kind of sanction, or they're not. Either find enough evidence of misconduct to ban him from Wikipedia, or leave him alone—the RFA participants aren't such delicate flowers that they need to be protected from anyone faintly critical, no matter how silly the criticism. ‑ Iridescent 20:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this vindictive attempt to silence opposition. Mr Davison always does his research on candidates. Sometimes his opposes are for reasons that I consider strong; sometimes they are for reasons that I consider quixotic if not idiotic. But they are always well-researched, and that sets Mr Davidson out from the crowd. So what if he is often in a minority of one or two. Live with it. Welcome the diversity and obvious love for wikipedia that he brings. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I respect the nominator, but, his examples don't show anything near the functional equivalent of trolling.About the only one I saw that I would have chided him on (if I held the mop) was NinjaRobotPirate's AFD. That was a patently ridiculous rationale and he did get promptly shot down for it on the discussion page. Further, there are others who have agreed with his reasons on the AFD's. I don't see a reason to TBan him for this. KoshVorlon} 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stupid votes can be ignored, and frankly the scheduled events of tomorrow raise my tolerance for all forms of dissent to an all time high. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Guy and Martin Niemöller. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose while it's tempting to support this, it's better to allow the Colonel to continue to make his unique contributions to the RFA process. They make no difference whatsoever to the actual outcome, especially more recently. They do, however, tend to create a considerable amount of heat without creating light, and lend to a more hostile atmosphere. So, it'd be better for people to ignore these edits if they find them irritating and meaningless, rather than get worked up and seek a topic ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Completely per several of the above and many of the following. I have read comments from some Admins “hinting” at some sort of “RFA deform ” to “deal with the likes of” AD. If this is it, it is a horse that will not run. Maybe a trial gallop? If so, an unimpressive one. If it was an RfA - WP:SNOW. Leaky Caldron 20:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose I don't care for a lot of these opposes because I think they are poorly reasoned, and they remind me of some past editors who would always find some reason to oppose no matter how terrible. That being said, if you actually look at the RFAs linked above, in almost all cases the candidate was promoted, and when they weren't it ws not because of this users' stated reasons, so we can probably just ignore their comments at RFA instead of barring them from participating. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Andrew will know that I have/had a lot of issues with some of his editing in the past, but his RfA opposes have in the main been reasonably well researched (there's some that have been a bit flaky. OK, very flaky.). If you're going to ban someone for that, I can think of a lot more RfA regulars that ought to get the boot first. And the other thing is - it's one vote. I would hope our crats are perfectly able to distinguish good opposes from nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose although I don't always vote at RFA, I tend to follow them, and I cannot think of a case where an unjustified oppose vote from Andrew has caused a significant trend towards opposing. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though. While I understand the viewpoint that there is a culture of hostility at RFA, I don't see how topic-banning Andrew is going to have any positive impact outside of eliminating a bunch of back and forth policy discussion that has little, if any, impact on the RFA. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Personal (non-bureaucrat) opinion: It's probably best if people who are annoyed with Andrew's participation at RfA to view him as a form of 'official opposition'. Take it as likely that Andrew will oppose the candidate using the strongest reason they can find, and if that reason doesn't compel you to oppose or withhold support, you can rest assured in your support or non-opposition of the candidate. Except in a potential case where his oppose rationale is actually misleading (and thus should be challenged for the benefit of other participants), it can probably be left without reply. –xenotalk 20:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. His !votes are observationally equivalent to trolling. Opposing someone for operating a bot properly and within community standards? Ludicrous. ~ Rob13Talk 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I will not be helping to set the precendent to evict dissent. This is a slippery slope and one which has already been trod upon a couple of times. The rule of law has always been thus at RfA; vote. That is the law. There are few rules that enforce any sort of "quality" upon the RfA process. Aside from the occasional sockpuppet vote few are struck and those that are, often end up being unstruck. I'm not so concerned with who the topic ban is being aimed at, as much as I am concerned that a topic ban on this subject is being suggested. For that matter, Andrew Davidson is not going to be topic banned from RfA. Yes, some of their votes are "shaking my head" worthy, but, then when I see "why not?" as a support rationale I shake my head just as vigorously as I do at even the worst of AD's votes. To quote another editor; "Well, why? would be a good start." Mr rnddude (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've disagreed with all of Andrew's RFA comments that I've seen recently. In fact, I think some of them are pretty daft and give the impression that his motivation is to find any possible reason to oppose, however lame. However, I don't see any incivility or personal attacks, and I really hate the idea of excluding people who don't fit in with an 'approved' mindset - wedges, thin edges, and all that, as someone said. If Andrew makes a silly-looking !vote, just ignore it! People replying and kicking off arguments about his !votes are as much a part of the problem - crats aren't stupid, and can be trusted to evaluate it properly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I oppose censoring RfA participants in this way. I disagree with almost all of Andrew D.'s opposes des jours but I don't think they are just trolling. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I recently discussed this with some other admins via email and I wrote : "The problem I've got is I can gather together a large number of RfAs where he opposed; but of those I don't think there are too many where nobody agreed with his opinion and it led to a screaming match. Yash's RfA was a good example, and had he passed I would have probably used that. But generally, I think the community pays little attention to his vote, and where more than 2-3 people do agree with it, it's probably something somebody else might have mentioned anyway." I was not against starting a discussion on ANI, but going straight for the topic ban was premature, I'm afraid. Full disclosure btw; Andrew supported my RfA Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Reyk and Rob. I find it very hard not to see a pattern of subtle trolling. NinjaRobotPirate and Cyberpower 2 are clear examples of "oppose for the most ridiculous reason just because I can". Before anybody says: "he opposed your RfA"—well, I pre-empted you. BethNaught (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. His opinions are not outside the boundaries of reasonableness, and he limits his participation, unlike some others whose signatures appeared a dozen or two times in my RfA, Andrew's only appeared once. Though I thought his grounds for opposing my RfA were weak, occasionally I see him opposing an RfA with a newly-mentioned rationale which has some good basis behind it. Anyone who would be intimidated from running because of Andrew's presence at RfA probably is too thin-skinned to be a good administrator anyway. wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In a way, I find Andrew's ridiculous opposes to actually be useful. I know that he will bend over backwards to find a reason to oppose an RfA, so if the best he can come up with is, "not enough content creation", then I know the candidate will be a good administrator. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Well I wrote a pretty long reply last time and ended up conflicting with the closer here so I'll keep it short this time - I disagree with Andrews !votes and IMHO it seems like they're simply trying to find a fault with anyone and everyone ... however they're entitled to their opinion and if they wanna oppose everyone then fine - He does research candidates and he does provide detailed answers (they're not one liners like "I think this candidate would be shit" etc etc), I mean no disrespect to Andrew but most of the RFA !voters tend to more or less ignore his !votes and I don't see why we shouldn't continue ignoring and I don't see why we should topicban someone for simply opposing no matter how irritating it may be. –Davey2010Talk 03:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This user's opposes in RfA has been on my radar for some time. Some of them are so off topic or way off the mark (e.g. Cyberpower's RfA) that it's borderline disruptive to the RfA process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We are not in the habit of scrapping votes against someone's RfA because we don't like them or because they're wrong, except for in clear-cut cases of vandalism, disruption, etc. Doing this preemptively is even worse. I have disagreed often enough with Andrew Davidson (if we agreed in one out of a hundred interactions I'd be surprised, and we must have had hundreds), and this includes many of their RfA contributions--and whaddayaknow, earlier today I saw one of his comments, on a recent RfA, and thought he was right on the mark. Either way, no; any disruption caused by his votes is easily manageable (just let admins or crats remove stuff!), and you can always choose not to pay attention to his comments. Closing crats should be trusted to have enough sense to value things properly. No, leave him be. I welcome his critiques. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. I might consider a lesser restriction (such as no replies to comments). --Rschen7754 03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I generally think Andrew is a net negative at RfA, and pretty much ignore most of his comments, but I baulk at censoring RfA in this way, and am concerned, like others, that this is the thin edge of the wedge. 'Crats can ignore him as they should in most cases, but he does occasionally raise something useful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I always read Andrew's opposes and often disagree (but not always). They always appear to be made in good faith with some research behind them. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose Having recently woken up at 06:00 Japanese time to find an ANI discussion of whether I should be blocked for something I had done several days earlier having already proceeded quite a bit while I was asleep, I fully sympathize with the concern expressed by Kudpung in the message linked below. But the whole point of SNOW closes is that, regardless of whether people who live different time zones than the majority of contributors to English Wikipedia have had the chance to contribute, they are extemely unlikely to sway the closer's decision even if they can. This isn't like one of those AFDs that received universal opposition before someone realized the article was a COPYVIO (I would link it, but can't for the life of me remember which it was). Lots of similar discussions get closed in very short lengths of time, and I don't recall ever seeing an exact hour figure put on it in WP:CLOSE or any PAG. Even if it were, one rotation of the earth seems pretty arbitrary, as on any given day there are probably a lot more North America-based editors who go out after work and and don't get a chance to login for more than 24 hours than there are editors in Asia who work eight hours, sleep eight hours and have eight hours in which they usually contribute to Wikipedia -- 48 hours would be safer, if the point was to play it safe. Yes, maybe a newly anointed admin shouldn't be making that decision, but it's not like CP678's RFA was one AD supported and CP678 was "returning the favour" by prematurely closing the TBAN discussion. I honestly can't see this discussion going anywhere. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Closure[edit]

Just to briefly note here that this thread was closed by Cyberpower678 as a WP:SNOW close. It was reopened after Kudpung left CP678 a message. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Time to remove Tristan noir's (interaction) ban?[edit]

Hey, I think it's time my IBAN against Tristan noir (talk · contribs) was removed. It's been over three years since he last violated it, and he hasn't edited at all in 11 months, so it's really just a formality at this point.

The ban was originally put in place in February 2013 (as a modification of an earlier two-way restriction from December 2012) and the wording was modified in April 2015. It is now logged at WP:RESTRICT.

As for why I'm bringing this up now, a recent remark on an unrelated ANI thread has convinced me that the fewer times my username appears on WP:RESTRICT, the better, as even one-way restrictions that were put in place to protect me from abuse can apparently be used against me years after they served any practical purpose.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Clarify Damn. Forgot to mention this. I am not proposing that the Tristan noir entry on RESTRICT be removed outright. It also includes a separate and largely unrelated TBAN. I'm neutral on whether that one remains, but only because he's inactive, and I wasn't the only one being hassled by the edits that led to the TBAN. The other users who supported the TBAN would need to be consulted. Pointing this out because several of the "support"s below are !voting based on my statement alone. This makes sense for a one-way IBAN, but BMK's original "oppose" rationale would make a lot more sense for a community sanction that doesn't affect only one user. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: The clarification directly above is what I was referring to. The users who posted their "Support"s below did so largely because the IBAN was put in place to protect me and I was the one requesting it be removed; the TBAN was put in place to protect the project from disruptive editing, and it shouldn't be lifted just because of a mix-up with a separate sanction. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support due to a philosophical disagreement with interaction bans in general. ~ Rob13Talk 00:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Rob, you, of course, can support or oppose the proposal for any reason that makes sense to you, but I do have to point out the irony that you can make a comment like this here, a support for a specific proposition based on general principles, and no one bats an eyelash, but if I do the same thing on an RfA, oppose a candidate on the basis of general principles, I get messages telling me that my !vote is harmful to Wikipedia, or that I shouldn't base my !vote on general principles, only on the specifics connected with the nom. I wouldn't think of suggesting that the closer of this thread should put less weight on your comment because it's based on your personal philosophy, but people regularly suggest that Bureaucrats put less weight on my oppose (or even discount it altogether) because it's based on my personal criteria. I suppose that one could make the argument that RfAs are different from every other kind of discussion on Wikipedia, but, frankly, I ain't buying such a contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: RfAs genuinely are different from other discussions because they have hard number cutoffs to them. The numbers matter far more than in actual discussions, which is why many editors attempt to persuade editors opposing for silly reasons. Having said that, I actually would expect my support to be discounted somewhat here. I recognize that my opinion is far disconnected from the community's here, and so I would expect it to be given less weight. That's proper for a closer to consider. I personally believe that interaction bans tend not to solve the root behavioral problems, are more of a pain to enforce than they're worth, and seriously damage the collaborative environment of the encyclopedia, but that's not (yet) the consensus view. ~ Rob13Talk 07:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand your thinking, but the "hard cut-off" isn't really a hard cut-off per se, since all it does it say that within a certain range the 'crats are expected to treat the RfA in the same way any closer is expected to treat any other discussion. However, the 'crats aren't forbidden from denying the bit above that range if no legitimate policy-based reasons have been provided, just as any closer is expected to evaluate the comments per policy in any other discussion. That being said, I take your point that the hard-coded "disretionary range" does make RfAs a little different from other discussions, just as I hope you took my point that the hassling of oppose !votes in RfAs which are based on reasonable personal philosophy is antithetical to the general POV in other discussions that sees no problem with such comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I just don't see it as hassling. I see it as objecting to/challenging, just as you've done here, which is an important part of any discussion. As a closer, I find any bits of interactions between the two "sides" in a dispute to be most helpful in evaluating the discussion. When people stay in their respective "sections" and don't consider the viewpoints of others, it's very hard to gauge how discussion participants perceive strength of arguments. ~ Rob13Talk 21:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • But you and I have had a polite discussion. Believe me, that's not been the case on some RfAs. One really does get the impression from some people that the simple act of opposing an RfA is seen as disruptive. It's also clearly the case that support !votes do not get objected to or challenged the way opposing !votes do.
    Anyway, this is a sidebar to this IBan-removal discussion, one which we should probably end. I just wanted to point out what I saw as a bit of irony. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Ten edits in almost three years, and no edits in most of a year, means that we're not likely to see any interaction of any sort between the two of you, whether or not it's disruptive. Interaction bans can be useful, but nobody familiar with your (plural) history would call for one of them to be imposed on you (plural) right now, and if we shouldn't impose it, we shouldn't continue it. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Bans and other sanctions are not generally removed simply because the editor is not currently editing, for the obvious reason that if the editor returns to editing, we would want them to do so under the same conditions until they could show the community that the sanctions are no longer necessary. Removing sanctions during a fallow period would also encourage people to edit under another ID or with IPs, waiting for the sanction under their previous ID to be removed. This request would create a bad precedent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • But we can always reimpose it — get blocked or banned for X, get the sanction removed, and go back to doing X, and the sanction is routinely restored with a "bonus". Removing sanctions during a fallow period might encourage that for a more short-term absence, but we're talking a nearly total absence from the project for just almost three years; most people who are gone for that long will never return to significant activity, and the likelihood that anyone else would say "I'll disappear for a similar long time in hopes of getting my ban revoked, and then come back" is miniscule. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - If the individual protected by the one-way IBAN requests it to be lifted, then there should be no reason not to grant that request unless there is evidence of baiting, trolling, or other malfeasance. As Tristan noir has not made any edits in almost a year, I don't see how there is any malfeasance on the part of Hijiri88, nor do I foresee any interaction between the two. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 03:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - If the person protected by the IBAN wants it removed and the user isn't active, why not? -- King of ♠ 03:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - it's a one way interaction ban intended to give Hijiri88 relief from being pestered. If Hijiri88 now feels it's doing them more harm than good, then it ought to be lifted. Reyk YO! 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support If the user who was causing the disruption asked for this in these circumstances I might feel differently, but since it's the user who was being protected by this restriction I can see no reason to oppose granting their request. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support — I don't really like the idea of permanent bans, and in this case the ban seems to be solely to protect someone who wants it revoked, so there's no reason remaining to keep it. And it doesn't look like anyone will be opposing, anyway. Κσυπ Cyp   09:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - given the low editing of the other party this no longer seems necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Could someonean admin close this? Unanimous consensus for a minor procedural change. The (false) claim that I am subject to multiple IBANs as a result of my own disruptive behaviour is still being made on ANI, so the sooner the words Originally, a mutual IBAN between Tristan Noir and Hijiri88 (who was named Elvenscout742 back then) was in place. Following an incident initiated by Tristan, an AN discussion has resulted in a one-way IBAN for Tristan towards Hijir88. [...] also [...] are removed from WP:RESTRICT the better. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: I have reverted your good-faith close and change to RESTRICT. The change you made was not in accordance with this discussion, and I think it would be a bad idea to give this a non-admin close. I hope you don't take offense at this; I really appreciate your effort to close this, and your contributions elsewhere on the project. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri88, ah yes, I forgot about the TBAN. Was not meant to remove that. No matter, I'll leave it to an admin - per my "shaky grounds for NAC comment" - to re-close and enforce. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Request to redirect Support number scam to Technical support scam[edit]

The former is a common name for the latter, but I cannot create it because it matches a blacklist entry, since (ironically enough), lots of spammers have been trying to insert technical support scams into various wikis with titles containing "support number".--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Do you have evidence of that kind of disruption here, disruption that would warrant preëmptive protection of the redirect? Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: m:Title blacklist is where it's at; the entry .*(help desk|support)(.?phone)?.?number.* seems to be the one blocking it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not what I meant; sorry. Based on the vandalism that's caused this entry to appear in the title blacklist, do you believe that we're likely to see this kind of disruption at this specific redirect, now that it exists and can be edited, and if you believe that we're likely to, do you believe that it's likely enough that protection is needed off the bat? Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably not. Inserting spam on the page on the type of scam you're trying to pull off is a really good way to make folks fall for the scam.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC close review at Talk:Silicon Alley#RfC: Should this article discuss the biotech industry[edit]

RFC closure reviewed by three admins as requested, none of whom expressed any support for changing in any way it was closed. Closing this now before someone finds themselves blocked. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Formal challenge placed now. I request three senior closing editors to review the RfC closure specifically to look at the sources quoted toward the end of the discussion to adjudicate whether it is reasonable to include a small passage in the discussion (one or two properly sourced sentences) on biotech, specifically pointing out that several sources lump biotech into Silicon Alley albeit as a minority viewpoint. I believe that as many times as I quoted these sources in the discussion, they were not seen clearly until too late, after !votes had been cast, since I was specifically not allowed to post these refs in the text of the article pending the discussion, where in plain sight would have provided fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication by actual and potential !voters. Castncoot (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANRFC to here verbatim so that a review can begin. I am the closer of the RFC Tazerdadog (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


I think my closure was fine, but I welcome comments on it from anyone. The closure was discussed at my talk page before coming here. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • From what I can see the issue was given a fair and thorough hearing and need not be discussed further at this time. It's important to be able to realize that sometimes the community doesn't do what you think it should and you need to able to accept that. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Seems like most of the sources were presented before about half of the !votes came in, so the later !votes (which followed the same trend as the earlier ones) did have access to them. And what Beeblebrox said. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Closing in line with the voting consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What do User:Only in death, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, and User:Beeblebrox think of the actual refs themselves, tough? Don't you think they merit at least passing mention of biotech in the article? Castncoot (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Not the topic of this discussion. AN is not for re-litigating content issues. Please consider the possibility that you might be wrong and that the people who thought that they don't justify a mention were right. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What Jo-jo said. The point of a closure challenge is to see if the closer correctly assessed the consensus. In my opinion they did. (My opinion on the refs is irrelevant to this). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that someone is "right" or "wrong" here, I am saying that there is a "reasonable" option which the closer declined based heavily upon, per his closing statement, the actual content of the sources themselves. But this exchange indicates that even he wasn't aware after going through the RfC that I had indeed brought these sources up repeatedly earlier in the discussion, simply because he (naturally) didn't notice them through the muck. So if he didn't notice these within much of the discussion even after close examination, I can reasonably infer that many others wouldn't have seen them at all until too late, if ever. Once people !vote, it takes heaven and earth to get them to revert their vote, and that's really not a fair expectation. Castncoot (talk)
Not true. If there were reasonable sources presented that discuss the role of Biotech in silicon alley then I would support its inclusion. But the fact is the sources are weak. There were several discussions had on the talk page about sources. Polyamorph (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. It didn't go your way. That doesn't mean the close was improperly done, and it's not the end of the world either way, it's just some words on a page. If you're going to get along well here you need to learn to let go of these things even when you just know you're right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This user is unfortunately continuing their disruption at Silicon Alley by edit warring (they want a link kept to Biotech in the See Also section) and have attempted to start a new RfC about said link. This is getting disruptive.Polyamorph (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
No, the See also section was specifically exempted from the scope of the RfC by the closer, whether you want to admit it or not. Castncoot (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Put the stick down.Polyamorph (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I have made a slight amendment to my closing statement, reverting to my initial version. This hopefully renders the see also section moot. I apologize for my error and the extra confusion it has caused. The change should be minor in the context of the entire close. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not a minor change, and I really have to question your judgement and competence here in this particular decision-making process. First of all, you rushed the process. Secondly, perhaps in that rush, you didn't even notice that I had indeed mentioned strong sources earlier on and instead told me it was my problem that I didn't express them earlier when I did,[13] in the middle of a muck of discussion by many which obscured these refs from !voters, rather than being allowed to post these in the article in the first place. Thirdly, you implicitly allowed biotech to potentially remain in the See also section with your initial closure amendement and then decided you had a change of heart once I took this point to task. I request that three senior administrator closers examine the whole case again, including the content of the refs expressed at the end of the discussion themselves. This is too critical a discussion to ignore. Castncoot (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It didn't go your way. Get over it. Move on. Take a break (I think it's needed). Insulting the closer and demanding more and more input from sysops who are just going to tell you the same thing is not going to change the result of the RfC. Polyamorph (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It went your way, but through manipulation of the reader by steadfastly refusing to allow refs to be placed in plain sight in the text and thereby depriving them of the right to fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication. That's where I see a major problem here. I challenge you to re-open the original RfC with the refs in the text, and I can bet you'd see a different result, one which allows some mention of biotech. Castncoot (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The refs were very weak. They were discussed in the RfC. What will it take for you to accept the result? Polyamorph (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You say that after the fact that you !voted in the way that you did but then had a change of heart once I finally pointed these refs out to you to prompt you to say this, if not enthusiastically, and User:Boghog to say this. Clearly it is a legitimate viewpoint, if not the majority viewpoint, and a sourced statement attesting this should be included. Forget that, however; if this RfC had been conducted entirely transparently, I wouldn't be here now, even in the event of a similar result. My primary objection is not that it didn't go my way (obviously I wish it had), but that the process, had it been performed fairly with the refs clearly displayed to source already-existing text being adjudicated, would very realistically have led to biotech being retained in the article, at least as a "passing reference", which even you were OK with. Once !votes are cast, very rarely does anyone even amend them with caveats. Castncoot (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You're just repeating what was already covered in the RfC discussion. Drop it. Polyamorph (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Really? Was yours just a rhetorical question [14] or did you actually expect me to answer it? What will it take for me to accept the result, you ask? Transparency. Meaning re-opening the Rfc with biotechnology referenced in the text by the strongest refs available for everyone to see in plain sight and adjudicate on that basis, rather than the way it was actually carried out, by intentionally handicapping biotech with weak sources in plain sight, keeping the strongest sources buried in discussion until it was too late, and then asking for adjudication under these rigged conditions. Castncoot (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The burden of proof was on the supporters of the proposal to provide adequate sources and they did not (see for example this analysis). Your refusal to accept consensus is become very disruptive. Move on. Boghog (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried throughout, including here, but you and Jytdog kept reverting my attempts to source the text. Reverting text is one thing, but reverting the refs being used to support the text being adjudicated? That's unconscionable. And since when is refusal to accept a process disruptive if I truly believe the underlying process itself was faulty? I will repeat myself for the nth time, it's not the result that I refuse to accept per se, it's how that result came about, through reader manipulation and lack of transparency which really bothers me, leading me to refuse to accept the closure specifically on those grounds. Castncoot (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Total BS. The only reason you appealed is because it didn't go your way. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the process.Polyamorph (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Castncoot, as an uninvolved observer, I hope that you will accept I have no dog in this fight and my advice is freely and honestly meant. That said, you really should let this one go. In almost every debate of this nature, the holder of the minority opinion gets to the point that they have two choices: "Do I want to be right, or do I want to be effective?" At this point, your point of view has gathered no support. Short-term effectiveness is therefore a moot point. If you keep insisting on making other editors concede you are right, however, you will be sacrificing the potential for effective consensus-building for your possible positions in the intermediate and long term. No person can make another person see a situation as they do. Another way of phrasing it would be: Is this the hill you want your wiki-reputation to die upon? Because, at least for some editors, it will. I echo the advice you've been given above. Take the "loss," recognize that a distributed effort doesn't always see things your way, and move on to some other issue. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about my reputation, if that's what you're talking about; there are enough people who respect my work on Wikipedia, not that I need anyone else's affirmation. I do care tremendously about editorial integrity on Wikipedia, and if irregularities have occurred in the discussion and adjudication processes, then some difficult questions need to be posed; that's the only way to keep Wikipedia journalistically honest and to avoid cronyism and corruption. It's also not true that nobody has supported my viewpoint. User:CuriousMind01 and User:Chrisvls supported inclusion of biotech in the article, and there were others who were OK with the inclusion of biotech in the article at some point, including the people most vehemently protesting it now, such as User:Boghog ([15]), User:Jytdog ([16]), and User:Polyamorph ([17]). The other thing I realize only now is that the closer User:Tazerdadog didn't even comment in his rushed closing that User:Jytdog actually closed the RfC with the compromise ([18]) and that User:Jytdog then reverted himself and reopened the RfC using a ridiculous argument about another edit made on another article; I wouldn't be surprised if User:Tazerdadaog wasn't even aware of this. The process was improperly carried out from wire to wire, and definitely creates a blemish on the editorial integrity of Wikipedia that can only be cleared by an unbiased examination of the case, including the refs clearly visible only at the end of the discussion, and even there only after the section is uncollapsed, by an impartial panel of three administrators. Castncoot (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
With regards to your reputation, if you continue to edit war at Silicon Alley or elsewhere then I will request sanctions be taken.Polyamorph (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Castncoot, you asked at the start here for ...three senior closing editors to review the RfC closure... and got exactly that. They didn't agree with you, hence my stating that your position (specifically, your position that the RfC must be reversed) received no support. Now you are basically saying that that review didn't count because you now want three more editors, specifically admins, to perform the same review. There is a lot of problems with this. First of all, the first two editors to chime in are admins, secondly, the one who isn't is very experienced in closing discussions, thirdly, by saying that there still needs the same review but with different people reviewing, you are moving the goalposts.
Most importantly, however, you are saying that there is intellectual dishonesty in this discussion, and your only evidence for such dishonesty is that your references weren't accepted as persuasive. Just because you think that something should be included doesn't mean that editorial integrity is threatened. Leaving a subset of information out of an article is a normal part of the process and editorial integrity is a resilient thing.
Every time I have seen an editor say that grand things like the very integrity of the project is threatened by the inclusion (or lack thereof) of some subset of information in an article, I have seen it end badly. The project is huge. One article isn't going to make or break the integrity of it.
Care as much or as little about your reputation as you want, what I am talking about here is: what course of action is going to get you what you want? No matter how much this information's inclusion on that page matter to you, you can't get it to happen without other editors agreeing with you. Rational cost-benefit analysis would suggest it is only worth arguing a position when it is important and you have a chance of persuading others.
You have been arguing for this point for over a month now. You have made the same arguments, albeit with some new references, for that time. You have again argued about those references and their inclusion on Tazerdadog's talk page and here. Do you really see that you are changing anyone's position? If you think that beating that same drum is going to save Wikipedia from itself, then, by all means, keep beating it.
It's your choice, and, just as you cannot force anyone else to agree with you, neither I nor anyone else can force you to choose one way or the other. My advice is only meant to raise awareness that you are sailing towards rocky shores, and your course is in your hands. There is deeper water available to you, say, at Biotech Industry in New York or List of biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. As an involved editor, summoned by bot into a roiling thread, and who put forward a compromise, my read is that there was a brief moment where the compromise could have taken hold. But the insistence that the compromise sentence be in the lead section kept the compromise from gaining support. That, and the long history of very harsh language all around, kept the sides from finding a more nuanced consensus. Learning opportunity for all involved. Chris vLS (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Revised comment. Actually, re-reading the RfC, I'm not that sure what happened without spending a lot of time climbing through it. Chris vLS (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually ChrisVLS, what ensued after your involvement is that soon thereafter, I became amenable to your compromise and requested a proposal from User:Boghog, who then took it a step further and proposed his own compromise, which I also agreed with, which included biotech in the body of the article. User:Jytdog then agreed to that compromise and closed the RfC ([19]). Jytdog then reverted his own closure using the reason that I, shortly after he had closed this RfC, transported the same content to which he had agreed over to the Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area article. He got incensed by this and then immediately reverted my material on that page, which I reluctantly let go, but also reverted his closure of the RfC at the Talk:Silicon Alley page. You can't make this stuff up. This is a debacle which was never addressed by User:Tazerdadog, the three senior editors near the top of this section on this page, nor User:Eggishorn, and this is downright unsatisfactory and unacceptable – I'm not sure that any of these editors were even aware of these shenanigans having taken place. You're also right that the discussion was highly voluminous, and I believe that the proposed refs didn't have a fair chance of even being seen by enough !voters. Castncoot (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually Eggishorn, with all due respect to your eloquently stated passages, you're chronologically mistaken about the sequence of events. The three senior editors you're referring to above never commented after User:Tazerdadog re-amended his closure. When a closure is amended twice, probing questions need to be raised about this definite irregularity, and the entire discussion and closure need to be re-reviewed with a fine-toothed comb, regardless of intention, in order to maintain Wikipedia's integrity. Castncoot (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually Polyamorph, that was an inappropriate and highly offensive prophylactic threat. Edit-warring is edit-warring, regardless of the perpetrator. Did I threaten sanctions on you or User:Jytdog for this action, which was expressed at a critical point in the discussion and demonstrated, at minimum, poor optics and poor judgement? Jytdog's explanation of this off-wiki e-mail, if anything, the more I think about it, reinforces in my mind the possibility of collusion per meatpuppetry and personal familiarity between these two editors, as such a comment should rightfully and objectively have been placed on-wiki, not off-wiki. I request that the RfC be re-conducted, or at minimum, reviewed from top to bottom, including its discussion and closure. Otherwise, a significant number of editors are going to be disappointed and lose faith in the promise of Wikipedia to maintain due diligence and journalistic integrity. Castncoot (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
😲 Shock! It's all a conspiracy! Polyamorph (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The usual way these discussions tread after a few days....Conspiracy....Loss of integrity of the project....So many editors will be disappointed....Face-smile.svg.Winged Blades Godric 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Castncoot:---I think it's the precise time to invoke WP:DROPTHESTICK.Save your time as well as the community's.And may be come back later when there is a probability that the consensus of the community/majority has changed substantially w.r.t to the topic of the RFC.Winged Blades Godric 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, but I have sequential facts to back me up. Do you? This RfC should be re-conducted from the beginning: 1) with biotech restored and fairly referenced for fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication by the reader in advance of !voting, 2) with a commitment by all editors not to engage in off-wiki communication regarding any aspect of the RfC process during the RfC process, and 3) with a panel of three senior closing editors, preferably administrators, adjudicating the closure. Castncoot (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
STOP! Stop making these false insinuations of off-wiki collusion. Any admins reading this please make them STOP! You lost the RfC. This is one of the worst cases of bad sportsmanship on wiki I've had the displeasure to witness! Chill out and take a break. Polyamorph (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
To all reading, I've no choice but to take this to ANI. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
For those interested here is the link to the ANI.Polyamorph (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Lol! Who's the one who needs to chill here? Hey, I'm not the one who engaged in off-wiki correspondence about the RfC process during the RfC process, and Jytdog has admitted as much. This fact offhandedly caught my eye, and otherwise would not have even been brought to life. Did anyone force the two of you to correspond as such? To what extent did it affect the RfC? After all, the two of you constituted the most vocal opposition in the discussion by far, and seemed to go hand-in-hand with your comments and edits all along. This RfC has been conducted as far from conventionality as I have ever seen. That should bother the majority who care about the project. Call me obsessive-compulsive about the truth, but I call it as I see it. Castncoot (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You're making baseless accusations. You've been asked to stop many times. Unfortunately I've had to take this to ANI as you don't seem to get the message that everyone is telling you. Polyamorph (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Mmmm... look again at how many are protesting bringing up the off-wiki e-mail correspondence issue. Seems like just you. I stand by my statements unequivocally. It's now up to the administrators to decide how to deal with this awful mess. I have nothing else to say. Castncoot (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't sent any off-wiki communication with anyone. The accusations are baseless and unacceptable. That is why it is at ANI.Polyamorph (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Duolingo has dropped its Immersion translation system; perhaps Wikipedia can get it; it's far better than machine translation[edit]

(non-admin closure) Not an admin issue. Advice given to take the idea to the Village Pump. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

I know that there's been problems with Wikipedia's current translation system and the overuse of machine translation. Duolingo had the model of crowd-sourcing translations. I have often contributed to Duolingo translations from non-English Wikipedias and found that crowd-sourcing can lead to high quality translations. Perhaps Wikipedia can look into getting Duolingo's system. Lots of Duolingo users are upset about the loss of Duolingo's Immersion translation system. I think Wikipedia has an opportunity to step in and offer a crowd-sourcing translation system (either get Doulingo's or develop our own). This is also a win-win situation both for Wikipedia and the fans of Duolingo's Immersion tool who spend a lot of time translating articles for free. Duolingo's system was very general and went between any two languages they supported. This system had some features that encouraged people to think through their translation. --RJGray (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal. I don't know anything about Duolingo and its system but since this idea should get more feedback I dropped a link at the Village Pump to get a broader audience. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Need some additional information and understanding, possibly extend a block[edit]

The indispensable Materialscientist has blocked the dispensable 152.131.14.7. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

I've had an off and on battle with the IP address 152.131.14.7 for about 2 years now. This IP address has been frequently going into college basketball season article, specifically whatever the current season of Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball is, and changing around things that are untrue, for example, what started my initial discussion with them was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Kansas_Jayhawks_men%27s_basketball_team&diff=595207525&oldid=594934184 this] which was replacing verifiable material with something that could not be verified. The most common thing is messing with the heights and weights on the roster. I've reached out to this IP address on multiple occasions and every time my attempts to communicate go unanswered, as most IP address do. Every time this IP address does this, I go to Administrator intervention against vandalism. Each and every time, this IP address has gotten blocked, currently its been blocked 6 times (current block is #6) as you can see in it's [block log. Considering the fact this is obviously the same person doing it since its the same thing each time, shouldn't this warrant a permanent block? Or maybe I just don't understand when permanent blocks are used on IP addresses. I'm not complaining about the admins that have block this IP address at all, I'm just trying to understand this a little bit better. If this isn't the right place to take this issue, please let me know and I will take this discussion there.--Rockchalk717 05:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The indispensable Materialscientist has blocked 152.131.14.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for two years which is as close to permanent as possible with an IP. Please report any similar abuse, for example if the user returns on a different IP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Sandbox (band) editnotice[edit]

I have added template:not a sandbox to the page Sandbox (band). Please could someone also add it to the same page's editnotice, as with other pages whose names include the word 'sandbox'? Olidog 13:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems a bit overkill to place that massive, ugly and intrusive tag onto a fairly obscure article. If there had been dozens of test edits on the article, I might agree with the need for it (or better still, semi-protection), but this has had fewer than 50 edits in the last seven years. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 18:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I just checked the history of that page back to December, and I don't see where anyone's tried to use this as Wikipedia's sandbox. I do see a diff where someone's attempted to add a disambig to this article stating that it's not the sandbox, but other than that, ordinary editing. I'd say that template's not needed KoshVorlon 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it, essentially for the reasons given above. If, and only if, test edits intended for the sandbox start popping up on a consistent rate, theb maybe the notice could be added back. Until then, it's not really necessary. JudgeMR (talk to me) 01:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

ACC backlog[edit]

Currently +/- 730 requests, some waiting 14 days. Any and all will be appreciated. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

Please unblock wrongly identified socks[edit]

While reviewing the activity of my former students, I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youtaejoon/Archive. Sigh. Yes, they have a similar IP and often edited the same article at the same time, because they were students in the same class (Education Program:Hanyang University/Sociology of Everyday Life (Spring 2016)), collaborating on a single article, often from the same computer lab. So the block is clearly unjustified. Now, they were warned near the end of the course, probably never saw nor understood the warning (they are ESL students anyway), they were blocked after the grades were submitted, at which point like most students they never even bothered logging back to the Wikipedia account, so no harm presumably done, but to set the record straight, it would be nice to unblock them, restore their userpages, and leave a note on the sockpuppet investigation. A final note: it seems that no admin/checkuser bothered to look at the logs of the actity for those editors, which would clearly show something like " March 7, 2016 Yeong Jae Kim (talk | contribs) enrolled in course Sociology of Everyday Life (Spring 2016)" and "June 11, 2016 Yeong Jae Kim (talk | contribs) added article Ryu Gwansun to their list of articles at course Education Program:Hanyang University/Sociology of Everyday Life (Spring 2016)". Minor WP:TROUTing for some people may be advisable, along the lines 'check the logs next time' :P --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm3.svg Facepalm Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Unblocked. — xaosflux Talk 21:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Just a note here that I don't think a CU was actually run since the block reasoning was not {{checkuserblock}} but the more vague, "abusing multiple accounts". Whether or not this is true would be in the CU log. It looks more like a DUCK block which obviously wasn't do duckish after all. --Majora (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI to @KrakatoaKatie:xaosflux Talk 22:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for an uninvolved admin to close[edit]

(non-admin closure) Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

The AN/I thread "Page ban move" concerning the actions of User:Dicklyon was originally posted on January 7. It's now January 22 where I am, and the thread has generated about a gazillion words, but started to become repetitive some time ago. Could some brave-hearted admin take it upon themselves to donate to the project the time necessary to read all that verbiage, consider the various POVs, and render a decision? Thanks, and good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done Cheers! bd2412 T 20:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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