Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262

Proposal to ban JOttawa16 from political articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:JOttawa16 has proven not to be able to be neutral when editing political articles. He has created "Decade of Darkness" twice and "Harper Derangement Syndrome" both of which were basically attack articles against liberals. Since the deletion of decade of darkness he attempted to add it to several articles, despite being told not to. It seems to be clear that he cannot edit political articles without being bias. JDDJS (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. "Harper Derangement Syndrome" was an eye-opener for me because it was such a blatant, even laughably biased attack article, from an editor who has been around long enough to know better. He knows full well about WP:NPOV. But I'd say he's demonstrated most recently that he doesn't really care much about it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• My only other comment is that we'd also need to watch out for more WP:COATRACK articles like "Decade of Darkness," which was ostensibly a military article, even as it was clearly another anti-Liberal Party of Canada attack page, at least when I saw it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I really can't understand how any user could possibly create such a biased attack article. You don't have to be a long-time user, overly familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, or even particularly knowledgeable about Wikipedia decorum. Common sense would seem to indicate that this kind of disruptive trolling would be unwelcome anywhere. It shows an inability to edit political articles and a complete disdain for NPOV. To me, his behavior with respect to the "Decade of Darkness" is secondary, but it shows how determined he is to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. He seems to see nothing disruptive about his behavior and quotes "the truth" as his justification (see the discussion at the recent AfD). I don't think he's going to change. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Interacting with this user and the many pro-Conservative Party of Canada and anti-Liberal Party of Canada articles he has created and then which had to be deleted, it has become very clear that WP:NOTHERE applies. From his edit history this editor is clearly using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to promote his own political agenda and in a very blatant and unsophisticated manner as well. His user talk page has a list of these articles. The Canadian news media has carried stories discussing how the Conservative Party of Canada pays its members to flood forums, news and discussion groups, news site comments and other user-created content websites with pro-party propaganda and the behaviour of this user is consistent with such practices. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to see your evidence that I'm a paid person of any political party. Otherwise, I suggest you retract your ridiculous statement immediately. JOttawa16 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - If you actually read what I actually wrote I didn't say you were a paid political contributor. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable to me. That is quite a blatant attack. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment While I think it is good to be concise, I also think some evidence should be submitted in the form of diffs/links to support the proposal being sought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Both Decade of Darkness and Harper Deragment Syndrome have been deleted, so I could not provide links to them. JDDJS (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I looked at Harper Deragment Syndrome here, courtesy of google and it doesn't appear to be an attack page. He's writing about what has already been written, in fact, his sources show that it's a neologism covered by more than one source source 1 [ http://princearthurherald.com/en/uncategorized/james-the-harper-derangement-syndrome source 2 ] [ http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/05/24/peter-foster-get-stephen-harper-duffy-affair-has-exposed-a-pandemic-of-harper-derangement-syndrome/ source 3 - and yes this is an opinion , written by a staff writer ] passing mention occurs here where another politician is described as having harper derangment syndrome and finally this one - this one might not be reliable

His first link is broken to be sure , but it's easily fixed or replaced with this one . The article itself says what the sources themselves said, no coatrack, no syn nor any or. Now, I wasn't able to find the second article, but the first article appears to be ok and not an attack. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 16:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• • I disagree with you. Just because it is sourced, does not mean it's not an attack article. He wrote the article as if it was an actual mental illness. If saying that people who disagree with you are mentally ill is not an attack, then what is? JDDJS (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Are you shitting me? "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." isn't an attack page? It goes on and on like this, in just that tone. As I said at the Afd, yes, "foo derangement syndrome" is a widely used term. Plug in Bush, or Obama or yes, even Trudeau, and you get Ghits. But this article was written as a pure attack page. It wasn't about the term, it was using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAP for the term, in it's most extreme POV way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Shawn I assure you I'm not. However, just so you know, I'm not a Harper hater, nor a supporter, I hadn't heard of him until this report. Howervr, a description of Harper's Derangment appears here and he didn't quote it word for word. He paraphrased it. Could that description be worded better ? Sure! However, it's not an attack page. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 19:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't badger on this point. IMO it could not be more clearly a textbook Wikipedia:Attack page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't know what KV is talking about, clearly an attack page. BMK (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

When are we going to delete Campaign for "santorum" neologism and War on Women as an attack pages, then?--v/r - TP 00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Never? The lead to the second one begins quite neutrally "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe..." This is not at all what we have here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"...certain Republican Party policies..." All article start out neutral, at least until they get to the "..is.." or "...used to..." And the Santorum page? Wikipedia should not be writing articles about all the crap that gets created and spread on election years to smear others.--v/r - TP 00:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the lead on War on Women to include "perceived" to clarify that it is opinion. As for Campaign for "santorum" neologism, it's well sourced and simply documents the facts that happen. It is very significant. The article is the first result when you google Santorum. JDDJS (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't neccessarily have done that. I'd just look at focusing "War on Women" to the feminist movement and remove the political coatracking. Then I'd delete Santorum altogether. Although I very much doubt it'll get deleted, my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page. Our policies fully support this.--v/r - TP 02:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. It might be useful if an admin could copy these deleted pages to a temporary space so that people can see them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - this is an editor who, alas, seems unable or unwilling to drop the stick regarding the particular point of view that he's been pushing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - per Bushranger et al. BMK (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban HDS was a clear attack on the opposition parties and their supporters. TFD (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support block or topic ban Wikipedia is not a political toy for bashing others. It's bad enough when new editors think it is, but when established editors demonstrate clear abuse of this project while knowing better, they need to be removed from areas where they can not display proper judgement.--v/r - TP 01:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Laurentian consensus seems to be the latest example. The user seems intent to make articles where they can put forward their bias. If you make an article on a term used only by people with your bias, you know that all the "sources" will agree with your bias, and you can pretend that you're just following the sources. This problem can't be dealt with by just AFD'ing each case. Because, the user still gets to put out their bias for as long as the article lasts, and then a new one is created after that. Editing an established article means an instant revert, but that's not possible with new articles, where all the content is bias, and there's no neutral version to revert to. At a minimum, there should be a limit imposed on creating new political articles. --Rob (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Seems obvious this editor is not cut out to edit in this area. --John (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is ridiculous. I have a Masters degree in political science and I love helping my community however possible. I have only ever written non-partisan articles that are well-researched and supported by ample evidence. At the same time as this individual nominated me for a topic ban, he also nominated several of my articles for deletion, clearly as a form of harassment and attempting to silence the truth. This is obviously a violation of WP:PA and WP:HA. JOttawa16 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, qualified. If the material is reliably sourced, then the wording may need to be changed to make clear that it is a section or article about ideas that are held by particular individuals. The narrower the segment holding them, the narrower the media and public interest, the less space should be given, but no one should be banned from a topic because they wish to report on unsavory perspectives. Specific sets of American attitudes in the South regarding slavery were abhorrent; no one would ever suggest we should not allow coverage of them. If, however, other interested editors provide necessary balance, and Mr Ottawa reverts or wars, then that would change matters. Bottom line, if reputable sources are talking about these subject, however ludicrous or offensive we might find them, it deserves mention here, with space allocated on the basis of the importance and magnitude of the discussion. (We need people to relay—not champion, but relay—reputable reports about Lars von Trier words at Cannes in 2011.) To not allow such perspectives to be voiced, or to slay the messengers (which, at times, will agree with the message, other time not) is a frightening course for Wikipedia. Rather than ever put this forward in the affirmative, I would elevate this. To topic ban for an editor's for choice of material alone is very troubling. There are things that each of us might wish silenced, for unsavoriness, at WP. Don't do it. Silencing dissent is a pernicious temptation. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The main issue was neutrality in the articles, rather than whether they should have been written. One article for example began, "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." In fact, the "disease" is not listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. We do not begin the article on Von Trier by saying he is the best director in the world, just because he said so. TFD (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What you're proposing is that it's okay for politicians to use Wikipedia to gain coverage for whatever kind of foul sewage they spew as long as they can get the media to report on it. No need to worry about facts or truth, we're just going to be a gossip blog from henceforth - a reliably sourced gossip blog. The solution isn't to write "the crap stinks" in neutral words, the solution is to not allow the project to be used to bring attention to mudslinging in the first place. The BS that comes out of election years ins't at all notable. New BS will come out 2 - 4 years later that will get just as much "ooo" and "awe". WP:NOTPOLITICALTOOL.--v/r - TP 19:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem here, Prof, is that the articles are not written as netural analyses of the subjects. They're written as attack-and-slander POV-pushing pieces, and the editor in question continues doing this, repeatedly, despite having been told in no uncertan terms that it's unacceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support - this is obvious and the editor will get off lightly if this is all that we do. Anyone who can create articles saying the Harper thing is a mental illness is probably shouldn't be here at all, but perhaps this will turn him into an acceptable editor. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or site ban. I wasn't familiar with any of this, so I read some of the deleted articles, and was appalled. Harper Derangement Syndrome was a no-holds-barred piece of political much-spreading. The sheer dishonesty of it was staggering, claiming that HDS "is a mental illness" without any attempt to offer any evidence of any medical support for the term, let alone evidence of a clinical consensus in support of it. Decade of Darkness did it at least start by acknowledging that it "was a term coined", rather than presenting it as a fact, but it used the term as a coatrack for a highly partisan analysis of Canada's defence budget. In some ways this was worse, because it had better chance of sneaking under the radar. Some of the material might have been have usable in a broad article on military spending in Canada, but this was a blatant POV fork.
  The reason that I support a site ban is that an editor who does sort of thing in one topic area is quite capable of doing it elsewhere, and I see no benefit to the community in simply displacing this activity to other topics. JOttawa16 claims above to have a Masters degree in political science, and if it's true that they are educated to that level, then they will know perfectly well that what they have been doing is unacceptable. This is an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and the project should take an unequivocal stand against editors who abuse Wikipedia's purpose in this way.
  However, if there isn't consensus for a full site ban, I will support the proposed topic ban as a lesser but important step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• User's edit here[1] shows that he cannot understand consensus. Six votes for deletion (two of them suggesting speedy), two weak keeps (one from an IP) and a keep from the creator. And yet, he can't see the clear consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TParis I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 10:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such.

Wrong. Completely wrong. Look at the list of references. The Washington Post, ABC News, Time magazine, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge, Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, ricksantorum.com, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, PC Magazine, MSBNC, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The New York Times, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, .... — goethean 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page. Yes, we know there are sources. Any politician who opens their mouth will get repeated in reliable sources. That's a weakness and loophole in our policy.--v/r - TP 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? That may be an issue with the media, but Wikipedia can't fix the media. — goethean 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was replying to you, and yes I know. Which is why I don't normally bother arguing the point. But a fix in policy specifically aimed at election years would go a long way toward these 'fully sanctioned attack articles' and the editors who battle in political topics to create and bias them.--v/r - TP 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What's interesting is that even the media which wants and intends to be neutral (i.e. they aren't running with the story because it supports their intrinsic POV) will repeat the story because it's "out there", and failing to report it would leave them open to charges of bias from the ideological media. The end result is that there's no longer any real barrier that prevents those kinds of stories from running pretty much everywhere. That is a systemic flaw created by the contemporary re-introduction of ideological mass media outlets (something which had almost disappeared), the 24 hour news cycle (which creates the need to fill time) and instanteneous reporting from practically anywhere on earth (which puts a premium on delivering stories and doesn't allow time for them to be checked before airing) - and we suffer from the fallout. BMK (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, there are huge problems with the contemporary mass media, and BMK rightly notes some of the big ones.
But Wikipedia is not just another mass media outlet struggling for market share, nor is it like journalism the first draft of history; it is an encyclopedia, striving to document topics of long-term significance from an NPOV perspective. That means, for example, that we approach a topic from an NPOV perspective, rather than doing what JOttawa16 did, which is to take a soundbite and use it as a coatrack for a POV-fork of an encyclopedic topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It reminds me of a programming principle: Garbage in, garbage out. If the media is producing the crap and that is what we use the develop articles, then are we really producing a high quality encyclopedia or a one-stop-shop archival service of crappy news? We have to have some kind of editorial filter, as we do for every other topic (notability guidelines), for election/politics related neologisms and political attack platforms. WP:Political Platforms (notability) would be a start.--v/r - TP 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK covers a lot of this already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

12 editors in favor of ban, only three editors against it, and that includes the editor in question, and the discussion has died out, so can we close this and institute the topic ban? JDDJS (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this has reached a conclusion. Please do. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Your censorship of topics you don't agree with is not cause to ban someone from writing about anything in that field ever again. JOttawa16 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not censoring topics I don't agree with. I don't know or care about Canadian politics at all. What I do care about is articles that are written clearly to insult the opposition, by saying things such as people who don't like a politician are mentally ill, and people who clearly don't understand when to stop beating a dead horse. JDDJS (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested edits

Category:Requested edits is badly backlogged (a request from 19 March is unanswered, for instance). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

We're backlogged everywhere. We need to start nominating people for RfA. We complain that RfA is broken and people hardly pass, but if we don't nominate folks then no one passed. We've only had 12 candidates pass this year, only 37 nominated. Find someone who patrols the autoconfirmed version of requested edits and nom them for adminship.--v/r - TP 23:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, few specialists seem to pass RfAs. There are general expectations voters have that require substantial experience in content creation, fighting vandalism, AfD discussions, plus be an active editor for 2-4 years. I don't see more editors passing RfAs until there is a realization that Wikipedia needs more admins and the goal is acceptable not outstanding. It seems like there was a big push in 2006 for more admins and I've come across editors with 3-6 months experience being elevated to admin status. I'm not suggesting returning to that standard but maybe more active editors need to realize that the current situation, with more admins retiring, is not sustainable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is that a bolt-on of autoconfirmed? I would be very happy to help out if given addn tools but no way am I ready for the mop yet! My block record is clean and I do serious gnoming and generally help out and comment. Irondome (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fancy you show up Liz. When is your RfA? I do do noms. (edit conflict) Irondome, I'd give you a review/possible nom too if you guys want. Even if you fail, everyone fails once (I did).--v/r - TP 23:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't fishing for a nomination! Although I created my first account in 2007, I think I'd need a year with this account and the creation of several articles. Right now, I'm focused on categories and gnomish work. But thanks, that's flattering. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz would make it. Irondome (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, I'm not in the business of catching fish, or flattering people. I'm in the business of getting more active admins in the places that need admins to be active. It's a practical question, we all need to find good candidates. Hell, we need to find marginal to acceptable candidates to even try even if they fail once or twice; not that you are marginal. I don't care if I like the candidate personally, I don't care if they have a political POV that differs than mine, or religious differences. I only care about people who are active, level headed, and are committed to areas needing admins. Do you want a nom? Irondome?--v/r - TP 00:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. It's not the right time for me but I'll let you know in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, if you have created articles with a previous account, couldn't you point that out? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's all on my user page. But I did most of my previous editing as an IP, two of which I've noted. But it was intermittent editing, not like the daily editing I do today. But, yes, I assume the previous accounts would be brought up for any editor in an RfA. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

TParis, encouraged by your comments I may have found another candidate (User talk:Dodger67#A fix for that title blacklist problem... —Anne Delong (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Part of the backlog has likely been caused by the serious weeding at AfC over the past year - Tens of thousands of deletion requests, hundred of history merges, etc. I'm sure that sucked up a huge amount of admin time, but should be easing off now. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin has absconded halfway through an SPI investigation

I filed an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5 last week. User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry started an IP check which has been running for almost a week. He has hardly edited since so I made a request at his talk page a couple of days ago for him to finish the check so the case can progress but there hasn't been a response. Since I filed the case, the editor I filed against is already on to his second block and a lot more behavioral evidence has come to light in the meantime. The problem is I need the IP check either completed or canceled so the case can continue. I understand if no-one wants to get bogged down in an SPI, but if someone could just get the IP check wrapped up I would be much obliged. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• SPI is backed up, CU in particular. Since the editor in question is already blocked, it tends to get the lowest priority. Once a CU starts a check, I'm pretty sure that none of the admin or clerks can do much of anything, only another CU can conclude that portion of the investigation by checking or declining to check. There also exists the possibility that another CU has already noticed it, but thinks that since the editor is blocked for edit warring and was a sock, he will come back, so is just monitoring. Perhaps a CU will see this and revisit it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Quite honestly, the problem is that an answer was given, and then a lot of pressure was put on the checkuser because people didn't believe the answer. Standard practice is to block accounts based on their behaviour; if they are doing something blockable, they should be blocked for that behaviour. I've completed the check, the accounts are unrelated, and the SPI can close now. Risker (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heavy lifting, I will look at it for close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for completing the IP check guys. @Risker FWIW I didn't actually request or expect a second IP check since I wouldn't have expected the result to be different (IPs can change for any number of reasons i.e. posting from a place of work/college, coming home from college, changing your ISP etc) and I actually agree with you that there should be behavioral evidence against a suspect before they are blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Nature

I feel this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Muon is making disturbing, unfounded and covert allegations. I request the administratory board to have a look on this issue. This is a serious problem. Some two are three men trying to take control of Public contents are totally unfair. I feel a strong need to give people a fair chance of reading a good and clean content. Also he tried to change the edits which were totally in accordance with wikipedia editing norms. I fully abide by wikipedia norms and regulations. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandasol (talk • contribs) 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Skandasol: To go from you giving this kind of praise to you reporting the user to this noticeboard in the space of eight minutes, Muon must have done something pretty catastrophic. Considering they didn't edit during that time, please can you tell us exactly what allegations Muon made and which edits were disruptive? WaggersTALK 10:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reversed this edit by Skandasol because it added a comment with what appears to be a signature of Muon. @Skandasol: Please see WP:TP for information about talk pages. On the last line of your comment, add a space then four tilde characters (" ~~~~") for your signature. Please add your comment again, with a signature. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My edit history is available. Please have a look and do notify me what those disturbing, unfounded and covert allegations were. I have not attacked anyone personally and will never do so. I have reverted the edit that I believed was objectionable. This was my revert. μTalk 13:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

He said the following 'You are adding sex related statements to an article about Hindu deity'. His statement indicates an action which i did not purport to do and at the same time it did hurt me lot. I kindly request the Administrators to take back his words. My point is the word with reference to the context, the word 'enticed' clearly expresses a state where a person gets sexually induced. Again the concept of Procreation is objectionable. We are talking about Mythology(it may or may not be true) the point of adding reality goes astray. Keeping this in mind i edited the content to an acceptable level. Also I ask the administrators to revert his edit. I feel the act and statement of him shows high-handedness. I feel hurt and treated unfairly. I sincerely hope I am done with an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandasol (talk • contribs) 15:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If this is so sensitive a subject to you, you should seriously not be editing Wikipedia. Your edits can only be justified by citing an independent reliable source that verifies the information you want to add, and supports your reasons for doing so. They can't be justified because you find "the concept of procreation to be objectionable". I'm sorry if that sounds insensitive, but we need to edit from a neutral point of view in our articles. -- Atama頭 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Backlogged move request dealing with WP:Commonname

The discussion at Talk:The Beatles (album)#Requested move is 12 days old, and the arguments are going rather circular. The main point under discussion is whether WP:COMMONNAME is controlling for an album, or if WP:OFFICIAL can overrule it. Could an admin take a look at the discussion? Thanks, Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:GoodDay ban appeal

By motion, the Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

The site ban of GoodDay (talk · contribs) has been suspended subject to the following terms:

For the period of one year after unblock, if GoodDay violates any user conduct policies at any time, any uninvolved administrator may restore the ban. Furthermore, if GoodDay is given any legitimate block by an administrator during the period, the ban will be restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:DeltaQuadBot (looks for inappropriate new usernames) is dead again

• User:DeltaQuadBot (looks for inappropriate new usernames) is dead again, since 15:10, 17 March 2014. See Special:Contributions/DeltaQuadBot. It should list its findings in Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Latakia Offensive

User:EkoGraf is persistently edit warring over the last few weeks on the article 2014 Latakia offensive to include a controversial statement regarding the supposed "continuation of the Armenian Genocide" in this article. This user is misusing references to support this statement, with one reference being a deadlink,[2] and one reference even specifically describing such a statement as a 'hoax'.[3]. This user has recently taken to deleting sources that have been added. This is an a notable example I believe of WP:SOAP, WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE. Please can someone intervene to make sure wikipedia policy is being applied correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.196 (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

First, I am not the only one reverting user 94.197.120..., several other editors (at least three) have also reverted his removal of the sourced information at the article page along with its sources (this can be checked by the edit history of the article) in the same time period. I reverted him maybe once or twice over a period of several days, other times he was reverted by the other editors (who he also promptly reverted). Second, I am highly offended by his accusation that I am misusing references to support a statement regarding the supposed "continuation of the Armenian Genocide" in this article, which I myself did not edit into the article. The previous editor used even more inflamatory language, which I watered down for sake of compromise with another editor who did not like it and was in an edit war with that other editor. After I watered it down their edit war stopped. Further, the anonymous user used in-proper language during the removal of information ALONG with its SOURCES, calling in the edit summary ether us for inserting it or those that stated the information childish warmongering (violation of Wikipedia: Civility). Lastly, the sentence does not state in any way a genocide or massacre occurred during the offensive as user 94.197. is making it out. The full paragraph, properly per the sources, states that the flight of civilians and Turkish involvement during the rebel assault on the Armenian town has lead some to compare the offensive with and view it as the massacre of Armenians that occurred during the Armenian Genocide. Those some in the sources being the Armenian president ([4]), multiple US Congressmen ([5]) residents of the town themselves ([6]) and other notable personalities. I would think calling the statements of the Armenian president and US congressmen childish warmongering shows a high level of non-neutral POV. As for the broken link (which was most likely broken during the reverts) he could have just asked for it to be fixed like this [7]. And again, they were not comparing any killings to the Armenian genocide, instead they were comparing the flight of the Armenians to the forced evacuations of the Armenians during the genocide. I have now watered down the statement even more for sake of compromise that they were comparing the displacement to the exodus that occurred during the genocide, not to any killings. In any case, the comparisons to the Armenian genocide were notable enough and frequent enough in the news that in some form they need to be presented in the article on the offensive. Pushing one singular POV for the removal of the properly sourced information would not be acceptable in any way per Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. So if anybody was engaged in an improper edit war it would be user 94.197.120.... I would be gladly open to a dialogue with him on proper compromise wording of the text, but he has shown no sign of such desire. I was even thinking of reporting the issue myself to an administrator for possible protection of the page from un-registered users. But since he has raised the issue for me, I would like to formally ask what proper course over the situation could be done, or what compromise solution could be found? As for his allegation that I have taken to deleting sources that have been added I was also offended. Accidental removal of a source or two during the reverts is possible, but intentional no! Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please take a look at this article? User:EkoGraf is still showing intransigence with this exact same controversial sentence, and insisting the sources state things they in fact do not (i.e. only one reference mentions offical non anecdotal Armenian concerns regarding Turkish involvement in the offensive). This is really starting to get ridiculous, making WP:UNDUE edits that have little to do with the article and arguing the minute details of Sharia law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.240 (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

To claify the problem regarding the WP:SYN sentence in the lede. The issue of present day alleged Turkish involvement—that actually relates to the article in question—and connections to past "genocides" is highly problematic. None of the sources provided state that Turkish involvement is the reason the Armenian genocide is being evoked. Not the Armenian presidential statement. Not the Armenian residents statements. Not Kim Kardashin's tweet. Not even the Armenian National Committee of America letter to Obama mentioned in the Washington Post article, which is the only source provided (other than a few anecdotal remarks by Kessab residents) that is actually concerned with present day Turkish involvement in the offensive. You need to understand that Turkish contemporary involvement in Latakia vis-à-vis the Armenian genocide is an extremely specific and controversial accusation which isn't stated in the sources. Yes, Turkish involvement in the offensive is alleged. Yes, the historical context of the Armenian genocide is evoked. But the two are never specifically linked to present day events in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.240 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it, I was not the one who added the part about alleged Turkish involvement, that was some other editor weeks ago. What I have been reverting this whole time is your unsourced OR about an Armenian lobby being the one who is making the comparison. Up until tonight you never voiced direct concerns specifically about the part on alleged Turkish involvement. You should have said that a week ago and I would have removed it if it wasn't in the sources, which I did tonight after you pointed that out for the first time. And if you are so bothered about the sourced part where rebels want to impose Shari law on the minorities why did you yourself add the source in the first place and now suddenly when the extreme jihadist views are mentioned you think of it as undue weight? In any case, the part about the Turks has been removed (per your wish), your part about an Armenian lobby is unsourced so it can not by any means go into the article, and the part about the sharia law I removed (per your wish, although it IS in the source) but the part about jihadi views in addition to other more tolerant rebels stays since its properly sourced. Hope the wording is finally satisfactory to you. EkoGraf (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence still exists in that it isn't fleshed out and isn't properly explained. The edit regarding the Armenian lobby in the United States is not WP:OR at all. Every representative mentioned in the LA Times article penning the official letter to Obama is a member of the Armenian caucus except for David Valadao, who is very much a prominent advocate of Armenian issues and has been desciribed as an "ally" of the Armenian Assembly of America. If the term Armenian Lobby bothers you so much the Armenian National Committee of America can be used as they are spearheading the Armenian attention surrounding Kassab. Also the jihad quotes you picked out (and used in the most scandalous way possible) are problematic due to opposition PR disagreements not being a major factor of the fighting, and the quoted Non Profit worker not at all being specific (is he referring to ISIS or al Nusru or some other faction? He doesn't say), or even explicitly talking about Latakia (rather than the Syrian Opposition in general).
Also, the small issue of personal attacks. There is no need to accuse me of wanting to add clarifying material to a wikipedia article because it the issue "hurts" me, as you did here. Then you changed this phrasing as if no one would notice here.

Who is being selective now, not all of the congressmen are members of the Armenian caucus, and most surely the Armenian president, the military analyst, Kasab residents themselves or Kim Kardashian are also not part of the caucus. So neutral wording would have been, as it is, some. and used in the most scandalous way possible You mean it was scandalous because I quoted almost word-for-word what the source says? It's your personal issue if you don't like what the source says because Wikipedia is edited based on sources not our own POV. In any case, for sake of compromise, I will attribute the scandalous part of the source to the person who pointed it out and put it under quotation marks. EkoGraf (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are dumping all the comparisons of genocide in one quote farming sentence with no attribution. And inserting the incredibly specific views of one Middle East expert when talking about the Syrian opposition (unrelated to the article) in general is the definition of WP:UNDUE. Serious tone issues also. You have deleted the statement by the president of Armenia yet included this obscure academic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.33 (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The statement of the Armenian president is in the foreign reaction section. You would notice this if you bothered to read the whole article. And the comparisons are not to the genocide as you claim all the time, but to the exodus during the genocide. And the obscure academic belongs to a well-know think tank. His assesment has been attributed and quoted properly per Wiki procedure. You should have maybe read the source more carefully before bringing it and inserting it in the article yourself, if you don't like the part about mixed rebel messages that much. EkoGraf (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about this at Talk:2014 Latakia offensive. That's where this conversation should begin, not at WP:AN. You need to develop a consensus about these edits since it is clearly a contentious subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, I have learnt from past interactions that this editor EkoGraf has no legitimate interest in forming a consensus. You can see from their summaries on the article in question and from the argumentative responses here (as well as the personal attack linked above) that this user has not modified their behavior or sought to assume good faith in the slightest. All they seem intrested in is inserting an endless series of WP:SOAPBOX sentences that misuse the references provided to back up a specific POV. I still believe admin intervention is the only solution. At this point I am willing to let the Armenian genocide sentence stand in its current form. It is not fleshed out or specific, yet EkoGraf seems determined in retarding the article in this particular respect, so at least the previous extreme and unreferenced statement regarding the "continuation of the genocide" has been removed. If you (or another admin) could edit the WP:UNDUE qoute EkoGraf is now attempting to stuff into the lede—that doesn't specially mention any factions, or Latakia, is talking about the Syrian Opposition in the broadest sense, and is not even talking about online progranda which is the subject of the sentence/paragraph—then this issue could be resolved and I can (happily!) go about other things.

You need to sign your comments, using four tildes , ~~~~, so it is clear who is commenting here. It's impossible to follow a conversation without knowing who is speaking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, FYI it was me the IP. 94.197.121.71 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

EkoGraf has no legitimate interest in forming a consensus Aha, yeah right, my numerous attempts at changing the wording for consensus's sake in comparison to your full reverts, which can be seen in the edit summary's, is clear indication I have no interest in forming a consensus. And the quote you keep talking about constantly that you want removed is talking about the rebels different ways of treating the minorities, which is the topic of the paragraph. And for the last time, that previous wording that you find extreme was put there by some other editor weeks ago, not me. EkoGraf (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You reinserted that exact wording about the "continuation of the Armenian genocide" (after a 70 year hiatus?) several times. The problem with the "jihad" quote is that it isn't specific and it is broadly speaking about the conflict as a whole (I.e. context was an issue). However, as long as the involvement of Shi'ite militias and Assad regime internet disruption is mentioned in the same paragraph, then it it will be WP:BALANCE and I will consider this matter closed. 94.197.120.188 (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It won't be in the same paragraph because it is not on the same subject. The source talks about the involvement of Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militiamen and even Iranian military advisers in the sense that they were there to bolster the Syrian military in a military sense. There is no talk about them being involved in any sectarian violence or even targeting the civilian population let alone the minorities, as you wrote in the article (totally unsourced). As for the internet thing, I'm not seeing a purpose for it to be in the article since it was going on even before the offensive and was not even a result of the offensive or even linked to it. But OK, I will let it stay in, but not in the same paragraph, because again it has nothing to do with the persecution of the minorities (subject of the paragraph). And I'm still waiting for an explanation of your removal of sourced information that the offensive has been stalled and has petered out. EkoGraf (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The source mentions the targeting of Sunni neighborhoods. But that is not a concern really. However, the source makes clear that they are identified by sectarian insignia. And the subject of the paragraph is progadana and its relation to minorities. Have added a new source to balance the previous quote. Also the "petered out" language is not needed and not a vital part of the source. How about just presenting the facts.94.197.120.188 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I support the action of editor EkoGraf because they are logical and are absolutely justified so I fully support his actions and I also participate in the editing of this article 2014 Latakia offensive. But some anonymous editors try cause harm to this article. But the editor of EkoGraf just trying to eliminate the consequences of such actions and lead article in order. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:PERSONAL User:Hanibal911. Appreciate it buddy. 94.197.120.188 (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also the "petered out" language is not needed and not a vital part of the source. How about just presenting the facts. That is a fact and a vital fact. A fact that clearly shows the offensive has ended/fizzled out. So do not remove sourced information. And contrary to your claim the source makes no mention that Hezbollah, Iraqis and Iranians targeted those areas, as you originaly wrote and obviously continue to claim. Per the source it is the regular security forces who are targeting those areas while hunting rebels, not cracking down on minorities. And their insignias have nothing to do with sectarian violence towards minorities, but rather to signify what religion the militiamen belong to and further to the point to distinguish them from the regular military units. EkoGraf (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do they need insignia to indicate their religion? It likely has everything to do with sectarian violence, but it is easy to misread a source and yes it does say the army targeted Sunnis. Regardless, this insignia ponit is important and should be mentioned. The "petered out" claim is fine and not something to worry about. It would greatly help wrap this thing up if you assumed WP:good faith? 94.197.120.49 (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It likely has everything to do with sectarian violence In other words, its your personal opinion that it has to do with sectarian violence, and its not what is said in the source. yes it does say the army targeted Sunnis It actually says they targeted Sunni areas in pursuit of rebels, in other words, they weren't targeting Sunni's specifically. And I'm not understanding why you want it to read Iraqi militia "bearing Shi'ite insignia" instead of simply Shiite Iraqi militia. I would think my rewording and rewriting of the text at every occasion in pursuit of compromise and to satisfy you has shown enough good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry EkoGraf, but milita who happen to be Shi'ite are a very different thing from milita bearing "Shi'ite insignia" as the source states. And furthermore, milita bearing Shi'ite insignia ≠ Hezbollah—and you stating they are is original research. If you are going to be anal about the exact verbatim wording of references making broad claims about the offensive as a whole, and quoting the exact opinions of academics regarding ill defined "jihadi" factions, then including what the source says in this case is a no brainer. There is no other neutral way but to include this in the article. 94.197.120.49 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I NEVER said militia bearing Shiite insignia equals Hezbollah, that part you made up and accusing me without any proof of OR in this instance could be considered a personal attack. Secondly, milita who happen to be Shi'ite are a very different thing from milita bearing "Shi'ite insignia"? You serious? You going to propose maybe they were Christians but so happened to be wearing Shiite insignias? Doesn't matter, in regards to that sentence, the case is closed. So I would hope that you stop edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Only in your mind is making referenced and constructive edits a form of "editing warring". You are free to disagree with interpretation, or weight, or any other criteria, but it is not edit warring or vandalism as you have accused. I hope you can move on from this and become a more neutral and inclusive editor. If only you had paid as much attention to sources as you seem to be doing now in the first place, this (unfortunately necessary) step could have been avoided. I'm glad I brought light to this issue and it has been recorded. 94.197.121.141 (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I could also make some remarks in regards to your conduct but I'm going to stop at this point and take the high road. The case is closed. EkoGraf (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey admins

Is 172.56.10.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Kumioko? We had some of his disruption in gun-related articles, and I think this is a continuation thereof. And if it's not him, it's some other troll attempting to disrupt a couple of discussions; dropping a warning with some chit-chat on User talk:Lightbreather. Anyway, if there's an expert of some sort--whether a CU or a Kumioko expert--please have a look. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Check the edit filter log. The "banned user" filter had been triggered multiple times... Connormah (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So, that's a yes? Please block, if so--I already filled my quota today. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

And this has nothing to do with Candleabracadabra, for sure? See this. Very similar edits, here-> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly. I am apologizing if I am wrong but it is strikingly similar edits, behaviour, style and voice. And remarkably similar misspellings, see this one of the IP, from the:

23:30, 19 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+372)‎ . .Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly ‎ (Please respect All edotors. Thanks) misspellings, .

As far as I know there are not many editors who spell like that ( except me, of course). ^{[sorry to but in]} Hafspajen (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No Haffy, your English is fine, and it's not Candle, as the filter log suggests, though the latter has taken the IP's case to heart on their talk page. That IP, of course, could have expected to be called out on their own English when they were trying to improve "non sentences". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Now, I say that that IP it is User:Candleabracadabra. Same style, similar edits, behaviour, voice. Drmies, don't forget that if it is the way I say, (and it would be worth checking), Candl. can't use his/hers account right now, because you blocked that for some hours, so s/he must go IP. If I am wrong I will apologize to Candle, promise. But I don't think I am wrong. I really think that the "banned user" and the User:Candleabracadabra is same person. Same topics too, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly same talkpages (yours, Drmies), same style, same ... everything. Hafspajen (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• OK, who created that article, Denise Donnelly ? User:Candleabracadabra.

Who goes and votes and turns everything upside down on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly ? Banned IP.

• OK, who turns everything upside down on User talk: Drmies ? User:Candleabracadabra. See also User talk: Drmies#Additional question on behavioural problem, same stuff.

Who goes and turns everything upside down on User talk: Drmies ? Banned IP.

• OK, who has been blocked for harassment, peronal attaks and uncivility by Drmies ? User:Candleabracadabra.
• OK, who has been blocked for harassment, peronal attaks and uncivility Banned IP. (this is I suppose, don't think it was copyvio - issue).

Who goes and turns everything upside down on User talk: Drmies ? Banned IP.

OK, so, considering same edit style, same kind of expressions and so on... Hafspajen (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Who says things that sounds like this style: This is evil censorship and bullying. I am right and they are wrong. You cannot allow lies and slander to appear on Wikipedia articles! This is censorship. This article is about a very important person, clearly 'x' (where x nominated the article for deletion) has never heard of them, doesn't like me and is pursuing a vendetta!, This is pure vandalism – nobody can read the article without these sad and pathetic busybodies graffitiing their self-importance all over the place!

Both. Hafspajen (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Above citations are from the Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram - not what these editors actually said, but it is in the same style, if you got me.

• Now let's see a citation User:Candleabracadabra: So you want to rein in the incivility? Go for it Drmies. But don't get mad at me for telling the truth. When you guys create a mess and involve yourself in it and muck it up, and you get stuck doing mopping I don't break a sweat. Cry me a river. I don't create articles in bad faith EVER and I don't edit in bad faith EVER and I try to keep a sense of humor about all the attacks I face, but I don't like it. So if I hurt your feelings, good. You deserve it. Show your fellow lowly editors a little respect in the future and don't act like such arrogant wp:dicks.

• Now let's see a citation Banned user: have made several other edits that have nothing to do with this. Quit trying to win by attempted mischaracterizations. It is uncivil. Single purpose accounts only cover one subject and besides defending against your ludicris accusation I have made only one comment about this. Please read WP:SPA for clarification. Thanks and please find a better avenue than insulting editors intentions and mischarterizing their contributions.

Hafspajen (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly think this is a very good case for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I would probably fill in if I only knew how. Hafspajen (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• As Tarc has also noticed. And Viriditas clearly helds this user for disruptive too. Hafspajen (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I've strongly suspected that Candleabracadabra is CoM for awhile, but hadn't really intended to make a big deal of that here. The 172.56 IP was definitely an identity-hiding established user, but I didn't see any connection between that IP user and Candle when I was tussling with him in the AFD. Tarc (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

<redacted - banned editor> Kumioko 138.162.8.59 (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know for sure if it was you, but it was certainly someone who's been around the block a few times. That is all. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Tutelary

This user User:Tutelary is idiotically showing up her nature. She's deleting a page showing fake sites. Please look up this user & take a strict action against her PrateekTamilian (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide some links, or diffs if possible. All I see are edits removing messes you've made, including introducing copyright infringements, which (let me remind you) make you liable to be sued or prosecuted in real-world courts. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This is probably the latest TekkenJinKazama (talk · contribs) sock. I've submitted a new report on SPI for this (and another TJK sock). Ravensfire (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely a sock. I've blocked them. I always appreciate TJK being obvious and helping us find their latest socks. -- Atama頭 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Homophobic and antisemitic talk page comments need revdel

The last four (as of this moment) edits on Talk:Conchita Wurst need to be hidden. An attempt to hide the comment yesterday failed to remove it all, making it possible for the same IP to add it back again today through a simple revert. Thomas.W ^talk 16:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Future Perfect. Thanks.Thomas.W ^talk 16:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Need to fix a move

Can an admin kindly move Kalaignar M Karunanidhi, back to its original heading Karunanidhi. A user has recently moved this article 4 times. The present title is not in accordance with WP:HONORIFIC. But I am unable to move it back.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by User:DMacks . --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User also moved/multimoved/moved-and-moved-back several other articles...looking to see if other cleanups needed... DMacks (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up a few more, think it's all done now. I also notified User:Kisskisscheta, whose actions we're discussing, about this discussion here. DMacks (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not inform him/her, because it was just a request for help. Not really a report or something. S/he did not do any page moves after s/he was given general warnings. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User: Alexzr88

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 46 § Removing source

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

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

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

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

Linking to discussions in signatures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to WP:SIG#DL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About sources used in articles about countries

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

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

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

Removal of Deletion Box

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

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

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

Is there some behavior here we should be worried about?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Categories for discussion seriously backlogged

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

BB88/Ich Pilot/et. al

A sockmaster (BB88/Ich Pilot/et. al.) primarily active on Commons (see commons:Category:Sockpuppets_of_Ich_Pilot) has moved on to vandalizing my userpage [8] and creating accounts with variants of my username (see user:Elcobbola4, for example, with vulgar user and talk page). Could I please have my user and talk pages protected (talk archives would be nice too) and, of course, the vandal account(s) should be blocked/reverted? En.wiki checkusers may contact me if additional information is needed to possibly help locate sleepers. Эlcobbola _talk 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Bot-like anon posting gibberish

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

call for help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk spam - part II

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

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

Looks like we're having very good admins who are not even interested to read the whole AN... fu*k you..

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

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

A few notes before deleting an image as NowCommons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We could always nominate more admins (through RfA) for this task. (Full disclosure: I got my bits this way.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This is very true. I got mine for WP:NFCR. Gonna look around a bit. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how so many potential admins said in their RfA that they want to work in contentious areas like XfD. Meanwhile, we have noncontroversial tasks like these that nobody wants to do. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee review of procedures (CU & OS)

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

Participate in this review

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

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

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

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

Also, why is Hasteur deleting my comments from AN? And doing so with no communication? And doing so deceptively, in the same edit as he adds his own comment? My comment was a one-liner, so it's no big deal, but I find the presumption heavy-handed and slightly rude. Howunusual (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds very much like what happens occasionally on a high-volume page like this when two editors edit conflict. Could that be what happened, as opposed to Hasteur deliberately deleting your comment? Did you ask him? BMK (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

yep. he deleted that too. it's the manner more than the substance that is the problem. Howunusual (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent answers, need clarification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, but since the current discussion is dealing with some of the main points raised in the old discussion, I think it's necessary to notify them. I am only trying to find the most uncontroversial way to do it. Tutelary (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I'd make the notification as boring as possible. "You previously commented in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boxxy. This is a courtesy notification of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boxxy_(2nd_nomination)." NE Ent 00:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be fine? Even though I'd be notifier maybe 30-60 editors? (just browsed through the old afd). As long as it's something like that, entirely neutral, and I notify everyone, it would be OK? Tutelary (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Would notification such as this still be neutral if the first AFD had been affected by canvassing? Peter James (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:CAN doesn't make any mention of that when I look at it. Tutelary (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That forces the community to second guess the motives of the person who then does notifications later. As a rule, I would avoid renotifying after the first event was noted for canvassing, for if it went to ANI, it is enough in the grey area that there is no telling how it would be perceived. ie: It depends. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So you're advising me not to notify them? What about editors like Mr.Z-man who in the old afd were strongly opinionated? Wouldn't they qualify under the Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article criteria of WP:CAN?

I am going to start sending the notifications to every editor who participated in the old afd, in approximately 4 hours. These 4 hours will be used for admins who immediately see a problem with the situation that I've described to tell me to not go through with it. However, given the two responses that I've seen here, it is OK to notify all users of the old discussion about the new discussion, as long as it's done in a neutral, non selective manner. Tutelary (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Consider using Template:AfD-notice for notifications. Since it's a template nobody can accuse you of using biased wording in your notifications. And it saves you the trouble of coming up with something yourself. You might also consider only notifying people who've edited in the past couple of years, or avoid notifying blocked editors or anyone with a "retired" template. -- Atama頭 17:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we get some eyes at an unblock request?

Resolved

 – User has been unblocked. NE Ent 10:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Another editor and I agree that a review would be useful for the block of Sceptre (talk · contribs) at WP:AN3, who has now made an unblock request. Both WP:INVOLVED (Sceptre's reason for an unblock) and WP:BLP issues(I was planning to close as no violation) are involved, although the other editor, User:Dominic feels less strongly than I do about the BLP issues. I'm not asking for any action against anyone, just eyes now at the unblock. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

MIT license template

I want to make administrators notice that the MIT copyright tag at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses#Massachusetts Institute of Technology is mentioned incorrectly, because {{MIT}} is a navigational tempate about MIT and the correct license template is {{MIT license}}. In Commons, the license template is {{MIT}}. --Btmpnr01 (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Prime Minister of India - Narendra Modi.

Hi Admin, Please Update the WIkipedia Page Prime Minister of India. The New Prime Minister of India took charge on 26 May 2014 at 6.00PM IST. The Page is currently fully protected. Please Remove the Protection and Update the same

It seems to have been done. Is there something that was missed? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:DENY a pesky banned editor?

WP:RBI is troll-be-gone when applied consistently
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a non-admin, I'm floating the suggestion to the admins here that it might be worthwhile to start revdel'ing Kumioko's comments, rather than just deleting them, in the spirit of WP:DENY, since he seems to get some perverse pleasure out of posting them. Erasing them from the project's history, while a bit Orwellian, does mean that he won't be able to bring them up again and gloat over his rather puerile "words of wisdom", or whatever it is he does with them. Certainly there's no benefit to the project from keeping them, as hackneyed, repetitive. and lacking in insight as they've become. Just a thought. BMK (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC) He has transformed himself from a prolific, but self-important, contributor to a dishonest troll. Read through his contributions and you can see that you cannot believe anything he says. While I'm in favor of revdel'ing, to deny this sad individual the evident pleasure he seeks, doing so would be against policy. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding a cut-and-paste move

Iamriyaas (talk · contribs · logs) began working on a draft on Template talk:Talk header, erroneously believing that was the place to begin a draft.

Can an admin perform a simple cut-and-paste move WP:HISTMERGE of the last 3 or 4 revisions of Template talk:Talk header (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) and move it to User:Iamriyaas/sandbox to preserve the work? It doesn't look ready for article-status yet. Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 06:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now Iamriyaas has taken it upon themselves to copy-and-paste the old revision from TT:TH to Mukesh Officials through a cut-and-paste move here. And it's been tagged for speedy deletion as {{db-bio}}. At this point, I'm going to notify the user and tag it for histmerging (somehow I missed that section of WP:C&P to begin with) and see where that gets me. Probably should have gone there to begin with. Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

To editor RHaworth: Not trying to be a nuisance, just checking--is this taken care of now? Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 09:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Taken care of. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Page Housekeeping

Hello administrators. Can these three sub-pages be deleted. They serve no purpose anymore and were created for now dead or completed projects. User:OberRanks/Travel Log, User:OberRanks/Ranks Workshop, User:OberRanks/Creation Silo. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, you can just tag each page with {{db-user}}. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

slight problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Without comment on the individuals he added, note that Charles Manson is notable, as is Hannibal Lecter and James Earl Ray. Neutrality means that notability is decided by sources, not by our opinion of the morality of the individual that sources are covering. So if it is that he is adding names to organizations you despise, we can't help you. If there is more substance to the complaint, then please share it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, in today's world it's probably easier to achieve Wiki-notability by being a bad person than it is by leading a upstanding upright moral life, since the former gets lots of face time in the media, while the latter is lucky to get a one-shot mention on some program about "everyday heroes", if that. BMK (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

In the removal of the Max Schäfer from the Famous people section of the Karlsruhe article, Catflap08 signed it "not exactly notable". If Max Schäfer isn't notable, then why has he got a Wikipedia article? Sorry Catflap08, but I'm afraid you're not allowed to air-brush history to your personal view, and talking about fascism doesn't make you a fascist. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Guess thats the way it is then that wikipedia offers some a platform to worhip their heroes. At least that person is not mentioned in the German wikipedia --- none appart form the English it appears. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Also just because there is an article on a soldier of a facist regime does that make him famous? could one have some references that support his fame? streets named after him buildings etc? Any mentioning of him elsewhere? Hm not likely--Catflap08 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that "fame" is not the criteria for having a Wikipedia article, nor is "infamy" a criteria for not having one. The criteria is WP:NOTABILITY. BMK (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone may become notable by receiving "a well-known and significant award or honor", and this is generally taken to include soldiers who have been awarded their nation's highest honor for gallantry. I marvel that you automatically assume the worst about anyone who fought for Germany during the Nazi period, as if everyone in the German military were a war criminal. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments Catflap08 I didn't realize this would course a problem with your good self. I listed the holders of the Knights Cross as I study military history of the second world war. I have listed them as notable people in the respective towns as they are holders of their country's highest award for bravery we do the same in England for the holders the Victoria Cross. In my opinion brave men both, as a former member of the Royal Air Force I am certainly not a fascist sir user:Baldymart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldymart (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The VC is one parallel example, as is the Medal of Honor for the US; their laureates are considered notable because of the medal, and the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (with or without oak leaves) should be treated likewise. Anyway, we don't have philosophical or political requirements for editing; fascists editing non-disruptively are permitted to participate here. Fascism has historically been a major perspective (otherwise we wouldn't talk about it nowadays), and this writeup (an elderly version of the WP:NPOV policy) puts it well. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Note that this medal wasn't only given for bravery, but also for "successful military leadership". Being a successful SS colonel is not really comparable to being a VC cross winner for bravery, and comparing them like this seems rather offensive towards really brave soldiers. This doesn't mean that the colonel (or any winner of the award) isn't notable of course, but the above discussion has some inaccuracies (like "I have listed them as notable people in the respective towns as they are holders of their country's highest award for bravery", which is an error by omission) and may not really be helpful to answer someone who is already upset by our equal treatment of nazis. Yes, he should have an article, but no, (judging from the article) he is not morally comparable to a Victoria Cross winner and has not received his award for extreme battlefield bravery, but for being a successful SS colonel, which is "somewhat" less admirable and innocent than being simply a brave soldier. Fram (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sign up nagging

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

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

Thank you. --85.197.12.42 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to stop the nagging, sign up and make an account. BMK (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That is borderline offensive. Please carefully read through my comments before insulting me like that. To summarize briefly: If WMF wants to disable IP editing, fine. But to leave it open, only to deliberately annoy constructive contributors who simply prefer to not have a registered account? That's just appalling practice and will only alienate even more people. --84.44.195.210 (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Borderline offensive"? Grow up. BMK (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this is User:Steven (WMF)'s team. See [9] for more info. Legoktm (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is our work. This is a short (about a week long) test, where we're comparing a couple different ways to encourage anonymous editors to register. If you want to get a new version (or maybe none at all), you can simply clear your cookies. Sorry for any annoyance in the meantime. I realize that there are anonymous editors who repeatedly contribute with a full understanding of the tradeoffs. Our version is aimed more at new or very casual anonymous editors, who may not understand what the benefits are to registering. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Oversight has expunged the revisions in question. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 14:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

To any admin. I posted personal email addresses by error. Please delete the post permanently. Thanks in advance.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've RevDel'd the offending diffs and raised this issue to Oversighters. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 14:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia is agonizing?

Am I the only who's having IMMENSE trouble with Wikipedia at the moment? Pages take minutes to load, and don't load completely, load in cleartext, and other shenanigans. I tried posting on VPT but it won't even load the page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's working fine for me. Faster than I'm used to actually.--Atlan (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No troubles here in California. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I managed to get upwards of 40,000 cookies for this website overnight. Cleared them all and it runs fine. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! I blame Cookie Monster. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, there's a gadget that, under certain circumstances, can generate thousands of cookies. You might want to ask around at WP:VP/T. --Carnildo (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

article deletion

Hi. I created this article some time ago. I am asking you guys now to delete it. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think it should be deleted? Since there are other significant editors than you it can not be deleted under speedy deletion criterion WP:G7. GB fan 23:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you created it is not in itself enough of a reason to give you control over whether or not it is deleted. If you think it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia for some concrete reason, you can ask for people to discuss possibly deleting it through WP:AFD, but I can find no reason to delete the article based on what it says. --Jayron32 00:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Request to relax article restriction on Kosovo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The proposal seems reasonable to me, although I'm not very familiar with the article and its editing history.  Sandstein  16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support - reduce to 1RR/day, subject to restoring the 1RR/week if trouble starts up again. 1RR/week is a draconian step, which should only be taken if absolutely necessary anbd reduced every so often to ensure that it still is necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trooli.fi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unfear revert by https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4ytt%C3%A4j%C3%A4:Pxos in https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Yll%C3%A4pit%C3%A4jien_ilmoitustaulu&oldid=14070712 May I get en.Wiki notice about this. Removing relevant users comment. All involves about this article: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trooli.fi thanks.Jack007 (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing English Wikipedia admins can do on the other language Wikipedia projects the panda ₯’ 23:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well they could go through the process to become an admin on the other language wiki, so saying there's nothing they can do is technically incorrect. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And they could also blackmail Jimbo Wales and force him to give over all of his user rights, but regardless of outré suggestions, there's nothing that English Wikipedia admins can do as English Wikipedia admins to solve problems on other language Wikipedias.

But you knew that. BMK (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cross-wiki vandalism

Resolved

 – User was blocked on Commons. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi admins, I just blocked a slew of editors (socks and maybe meats) on Casablanca. One of them (or one incarnation) is Totoytr, now indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account; they've also messed around on Commons a bit. Maybe someone who's also a Commons admin can have a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons admins tend to hang out at Commons, so I've left a note at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A backlog not to be missed!

Admins! Are you out of duties for some inexplicable reason? Need something to do with the mop? Why not try RFPP! Yes, RFPP has a fine list of articles awaiting your judgement and some are even 48 hours or more old so why wait, come on over today! (less affable version, WP:RFPP has a bit of a backlog once more and I would appreciate your help clearing some out.) tutterMouse (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that is a rather extensive backlog; I'll start wading through the requests. Virtual beer and pizza for whichever admins join me!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We're now down to a more manageable 11 requests so thanks to those who cleared the majority of the backlog, be sure to meet here again in a week or two. tutterMouse (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The collective body of administrators and the watchers of this page are requested to take notice

NAC: Not pertinent to this board. BMK (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is underway that would benefit from the thoughtful consideration of the widest possible cross-section of Wikipedia's editing community. This page is known to be monitored by the exact class of editor that would be of the greatest benefit to the discussion by their participation. All are openly invited.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Why are you spamming this on multiple pages? It's a discussion on a rather obscure category. --NeilN talk to me 18:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC) I have to hope that the header and the prose answers why I posted here, anything else would be colored with bias. Naturally you are welcome to remove it, if it is misplaced or unclear. If you believe it is spam, I would think that you should remove it.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Userfication of deleted and salted content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination) resulted in a salted article. During the extensive editing in which the now-deleted forked article went from the 49K characters of readable prose version of the first AFD to the 33K character version of the second AFD, I added a lot of content (in addition removing a lot, of course). I wanted to check through the deleted article and make sure that the relevant content is in the current main article. I also am interested in becoming a better editor by discussing relevant issues about this fork on some policy and guideline talk pages and it would be helpful to have specifics to discuss. I believe that the history may also contain some information with opinions about the article. For example, I believe a speedy tag was added and declined that I missed. There may be instructive edit summaries and tag explanations to be found in the history. Also, the talk page documented other historical details that might be helpful to have present while discussing policy and guidelines. The long and the short of it is that I am making a userfication request to improve the quality of the encyclopedia by making sure newly found content is properly included in the main article and to become a better editor by understanding policy related to my editing activity. I believe I have offended the closing admin Future Perfect at Sunrise with my candor. Thus, I need some help.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing admins please note: User:TonyTheTiger has previously used this rationale to recreate his article after an AfD and DRV didn't go his way. He is here to ask the other parent. Please have a quick look at the most recent discussion for details; I won't re-hash here. Once again I apologize to Tony for assuming bad faith but someone who's been editing since 2006 and goes on and on about the number of good articles they've created should already know better. Ivanvector (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector Why would you tell a lie like this. I have never done such a thing. I have never asked to have an article recreated to investigate policy in my entire career on WP. Why oh why would you make this up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I dislike when experienced editors ignore consensus, which is what you appeared to me to have done when I came across the second AfD. Normally I would comment and move on, but you got my back up by insulting my edit history, then again by repeatedly accusing myself and others of being canvassed based solely on our common nationality, so my investigation into the article's history was somewhat more thorough. Again, I won't re-hash the details, but you already recreated the article against consensus once, and both your history and your comments indicate that you are a veteran of the deletion process, and searching for those diffs just now shows that you're also quite the veteran of AN/I. As a result, I've been checking your contribs to see if you'd try to do it again, and I think that's exactly what this is. I don't think that you want the article userfied now to hone your understanding at all, frankly, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no power to undelete an article and I wouldn't do it in this case if I did, notwithstanding Floq's offer that you should have taken, but if you would like to discuss relevant guidelines on my talk page in general, I'll do my best to respond, but at this point I think you'd be better off asking questions on the talk pages for the guidelines, as I'm not very impressed with you right now. Accusing me of lying is the third personal attack you've thrown at me, and misusing a gendered pronoun as an insult is in especially poor taste. If you learn anything coming out of this I hope it's to consider what effect your comments have on other editors' interactions with you. (Hint: it's not positive) Ivanvector (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Tell you what, Tony. You say you only want to userfy it in order to look at its history and content. I'll userfy it, then blank it and full protect it. Anything you need to see, you can see by viewing old versions. After a reasonable period (2 weeks?) I'll re-delete it. Deal? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Addendum: also, you would have to agree never to try to put that article, or one that is similar, in main space without a successful DRV. No copy-pasting the content anywhere on-wiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, you agree not to ask people about tags they may have added or edits they may have made to the article. Or, really, anything except what you said you wanted it for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I see a problem here. If TTT really is going to be copying stuff to the main article, then either we need to be sure the content they are copying is uncopyrightable (lacks sufficient creativity or whatever), the copyrighted portions were written entirely by TTT (or someone who has agreed to release their content in to the public domain or under a CC and GFDL compatible licence without attribution requirement), the content is sufficiently rewriten to allay copyright concerns (as if TTT was taking stuff from a copyrighted third party source) or we need to keep the article somewhere, probably not in userspace (the page can remain protected). Also if TTT is going to be copying content and isn't totally sure these apply, they should make sure they follow the appropriate guidelines to ensure the attribution is preserved. This may be a moot point if TTT doesn't find anything useful, but if TTT does, we shouldn't allow any sort of copyvios to occur. Perhaps it will be better if TTT doesn't copy anything if they aren't sure these apply but instead ask again if they find there is something that needs to be copied so we can work out how to manage the attribution. (Ideally we should work out where the article belongs so that TTT can properly link to it when copying content, linking to their user page may be confusing and potentially problematic in the even of a rename, RTV or whatever in the future.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Good thinking, but in fact no such problem exists - all the editing of the content of the fork was done by TTT. Other editors made the odd adjustment to categories, persondata and navboxes etc but the prose was taken from the main article to start with then edited solely by TTT. We will not have to keep a copy of the deleted article around for attribution requirements, in other words. Bencherlite^Talk 22:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I really hope we're not about to see excessive bloat introduced to Jabari Parker#High school career, which already stands at 1 extensive sub-section per school year. Tarc (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)FTR, there were no issues with Tony's article other than that it contained nothing but indiscriminate trivia. If Tony intends to add it back to the main article then that will remain an issue. Ivanvector (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• There are so many people to respond to so I will respond in one place. I will agree to restore content to the main article from the fork through talk page discussion. Of course, I may add new content to the article as it arises without talk page discussion. I.e., stuff like draft predictions/results, summer league, contract signing/holdout, etc. I don't think other limits are necessary. I don't think I should agree to any two week limit since a policy page discussion could lead to an interest in an RFC or something. Its not like I have a reputation for ramming a lot of articles in the main space that don't belong. I think you should just assume good faith and if I stray sanction me or whatever. I am not going to put the userfication in main space without some sort of consensus, be it DRV, an RFC or lots of other feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't really need you to agree to the two week limit, since I won't need your permission to redelete it. But if you want me to do this, I need confirmation that you aren't going to ask people about actions they took on the article. Maybe some other admin will undelete without this assurance but I won't. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm with User:Floquenbeam on this. Tony, you're being offered what you want, with a few extremely reasonable requirements. If you plan on doing the right thing, there isn't any reason you can't follow these simple requests. I believe Floquenbeam is being kind and generous. TLSuda (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
      • How is that kind and generous. I intend to investigate policy. Who knows what I will learn. Suppose I find something out and want to do and RFC about something. Maybe I will need to point to history. Why is " I'll userfy it, then blank it and full protect it. I'll re-delete it after 2 weeks" what I want. How about after 2 weeks we discuss whether I am still actively investigating policy. Also, could a request a 24 hour warning before redelete. For example, three weeks from now I could still be deep in discussions on what constitutes an end-run recreation vs. a good faith recreation on an MOS talk page on splitting articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
        • OK, then I decline to do this. Perhaps another admin sees things differently. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I recommend that TonyTheTiger agree to Floquenbeam's terms. In the AfD there are hints that TTT is unwilling to accept consensus. If that's what is motivating Floquenbeam's reluctance, it's understandable. In his comments above, Tony implies that he is in the midst of an ongoing crusade and that he will continue this effort in spite of the deletion verdicts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
            • EdJohnston Do you know that RFCs last 30 days. Suppose I end up in an RFC that is illustrated by the salted page and its history. What good would it do for me if I agree to have it deleted in two weeks no matter what. Why two weeks no matter what? Why not hey TTT says he would like to learn the issues related to this (I think this type of learning is what you refer to as a crusade. I call it learning) by talking with people about policies and guidelines. Let's see what he is learning (what you call crusading) after 2 weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• I think TonyTheTiger should have taken Floquenbeam up on that offer. Since the article was deleted at AfD and deletion was upheld at DRV, there was no requirement to restore the article in any form. TTT asked to inspect old versions of the article, which Floquenbeam agreed to make possible. Yet somehow this isn't enough. I don't blame people for suspecting the real intent is an end-run around the deletion. I'm reminded of Roald Dahl's short story Parson's Pleasure, which also features a person being denied what he secretly wants by being given what actually asked for. Reyk _YO! 06:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no room for an endrun around deletion the page has been "salted". I want to talk about things on policy/guideline pages and see what I may learn. Everyone knows that there is no telling how long the edits may be relevant to such discussions. Why is everyone against me learning how to be a better editor by learning policy. You would think that is what you want. If you don't want me to learn something from this whole ordeal than just say so.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• TTT was given a generous offer, and based on their semi-regular trips here to AN/ANI and their rather flippant response above, they don't seem to understand that the community does have issues with many of their edits. Floq's offer was sincere, and policy-driven. The flippancy and "I've never done anything wrong and obviously never will again" attitude is disheartening to say the least the panda ₯’ 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How can you call it generous when it will impede my ability to learn policy. We all know that any policy/guideline discussion may last for more than two weeks or may lead to another discussion or an RFC, which will last 30 days. How can anyone interested in helping me to learn from this situation and the policies related to it say they don't want the content and its history to be available for instructive and illustrative reasons until the learning has been had. A generous offer would be something like I will avail the content and its history for instructive and illustrative purposes until relevant discussions have run their course. My desire to learn from the situation is not flippant, it is sincere. What is disheartening about a person interested in learning. DangerousPanda says there is policy-driven reason for a two-week limit. I don't understand this policy. That is another thing I need to learn.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @TonyTheTiger: The sticking point isn't really the 2 week limit; I'm not an idiot, believe it or not, and if there was an ongoing productive discussion I wouldn't sabotage that by deleting the page in the middle of it. However, the discussion needs to be productive, and beneficial to more people than just you. I've become less and less confident that it would be. This interest in "learning policy" is indistinguishable from "I want to continue to argue the merits of the AFD for another month, but this time on policy talk pages". Your refusal to agree not to bug people about tagging or edits they made to the article prior to deletion strengthens that appearance. It is not worth it, helping you learn policy, at the risk of wasting other people's time on an RFC that is actually a thinly disguised AFD#3. I'm not going to be a party to beating a dead horse, especially when others will be dragged into it. So at this point, I'll email you the text of the article and references at the time of deletion if you want, so you can see if there's anything that you can get consensus to add to Jabari Parker, but I'm not going to restore the page to your user space, and my guess (though I could be wrong) is that no one else is going to want to do that either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I was caught up on the the 2 week no matter what issue. I have no intention of debating about tagging edits or other edits. I never refused to consent to this limitation. I don't see those edits as likely relevant to the discussion, although they may be instructive in and of themselves. Given that I have over 8 years of experience on WP and this is the first time I have suffered a deletion that I do not understand the process of its occurrence, I am not sure what I need to inquire about to learn from this. What is odd is that no matter how many times I say that I want to learn from this, no one has asked "How can I help you learn"? Everyone has assumed bad faith and that I want to badger people. This is my first articlespace deletion that I am unable to make sense of and I feel that I do need to learn something. I would appreciate it if rather than assume bad faith, you would attempt to make possible my improvement as an editor and learning as a human being. Anyone who is an admin knows discussions often extend past two weeks and possibly may result in a good faith RFC that lasts 30 days. Two months rather thane two weeks is a reasonable fixed expiry for this issue although I am not sure that a fixed expiry need be set. I just ask that you consider how to foster my ability to learn and grow as a wikipedian from my first article space deletion that I am unable to conceptualize.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I find this case interesting as well. I recall seeing it AfD and I was going to look at the article in depth, but I didn't get around to it before the discussion was over. I read the discussion afterwards and I don't fully understand what happened either (perhaps if I had read it, I would have a better understanding). I think for those interested, understanding what is wrong with articles such as these could be instructive. So, I think we should give TTT's idea a chance, strictly within the limited scope he proposes to use the userfied article. I am One of Many (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
          • None of the admins who have participated in this discussion seem to be blatantly against granting his request, only that there needs to be reasonable tight reigns on this. If he doesn't want to conform to these requirements, no one has to grant his request. Plain and simple. TLSuda (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
            • And given his attitude and evasiveness, that seems like exactly the right thing to do, to not grant his request. BMK (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
          • @TLSuda, I just wanted to say that I see some merit in TTT's request. Whether any admin userfies the article is another matter and I see the concerns. I've been looking through TTT's work and it is very impressive and good. My view is that the risk here is mostly for TTT, since if he doesn't do what he plans to do, no admin would every undelete an article for him in the future.

@BMK I see your point given issues in the past, but I'm struck by his productivity and I wouldn't want to discourage him unless absolutely necessary. I am One of Many (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, in the past the problem has been that TTT needs to be discouraged from certain behaviors. BMK (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, I am not sure what you refer to. I've been banned. I've been blocked. I've had articles deleted. I've lost DRVs. I've been in contentious debates. This article has been deleted twice at AFD. There is a lot of debate about the propriety of the second appearance in main space and various processes (AFD, DRV, userfication, mainspace move). Several things you should note. I rarely get involved in reversion wars or content wars (maybe 1 per 50-100,000 edits). What are the risks for WP. I have agreed to only restore content via talk page discussion. I have agreed not to debate edits. The article can't be moved back into mainspace due to salting, AFAIK. Despite lies by folks like Ivanvector above, I continue to claim to have never been confounded by a deletion result before to the point where I am misunderstanding policy/guidelines and need time to properly investigate policy with the content and its history. Floquenbeam's last comment show that he does understsnd my concern that prearranged limitations not obstruct my investigation and any learning that may result. I don't know what policy there is that a 2 week expiry is required. That seems odd due to the nature of policy discussions. Any one such discussion could last that long, lead to another or lead to a process like RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, I'm guessing you didn't see above where I offered what help I can in reviewing guidelines with you, judging by the fact that you've just pinged me with yet another personal attack. My offer remains open, but please lay off the invective. Ivanvector (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What types of guidelines do you consider yourself "expert" in? Are there policy/guideline pages that you edit frequently? watch? At this point I have 4 or 5 talk pages in mind for discussion, but haven't been looking that closely at them. I have recreated 12 formerly deleted pages that are now at WP:GA so your point that I have recreated this page needs to be qualified a bit. I am not looking to ram this into article space. From what I can tell (I have not seen the edit history to confirm a declined speedy) at least three admins either reverted their own G4 or declined another editors G4 offer yet a large proportion of the discussants feel like you do that this was just another recreation against consensus. I imagine that there is something to be learned regarding this point. Given that I have 12 GAs that you might call deletion recreations in addition to this case, I want to make sure I understand this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the community, twice, has said that our encyclopedia (a summary work) should not have an extensively detailed article about a brief period in a person's career, irregardless of sourcing or notability. We are supposed to be treating works at a 60,000 ft level of understanding, providing just enough detail to allow a reader to get a good idea about the topic, and then let them figure out where to go next to learn more. The fact that you have saved 12 articles from deletion to bring them to GA is good, but it's also part of the problem here - the first thing that most do when they are trying to save content at the cusp of deletion that is find every single possible reference and include them somehow within the article to justify the notability. That's fine when notability is the issue, but it also doesn't show any editorial control that we editors to use in writing articles. I remember blocks of this article, during its second AFD, reading effectively a sentence for each game he played at. That's far far far too detailed. And if this is what resulted after splitting out his high school career from his main bio article, then I can see why admins are extremely cautious in restoring the article. In comparison to all those you've saved, the issue here is not notability, but indiscriminate information and that there's simply no way that a page on a small part of a person's career separate from the person's main bio page can reasonably be justified. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I am not here at AN to debate whether an article on this topic is an impossibility. There are certainly numerous WP:SPLITs on wikipedia based on parts of a subject's career. Admittedly, these are rare for basketball players. It is not clear to me that either AFD closed with the consensus you asserted. One might say the AFD1 consensus was that the SPLIT was an unnecessary redundancy of the main that needed to be trimmed itself and AFD2 was a recreation of the detail in the first without judging the detail of the second. You are in fact correct that most of my GA recreations were cases where proper establishment of notability was the issue. It might be the case that I spend time on WP:N and WP:NSPORTS discussing what makes the subject of SPLITs notable enough to stand alone. Thus, this could be a case of learning the proper assertion of notability. You can tell in the DRV and AFD2, that I attempted to present assertion of the SPLIT being notable based on 1.) the fact his high school career was of interest to as many viewers as many NBA All-Star reserves, drawing the number of pageviews as a Rookie of the Year, 2.) subject of a Sports Illustrated cover story, etc. I am not sure that there has really been a consideration of whether the SPLIT was notable because I don't even know what the relevant considerations for choosing a notable partition of a biographical subject. This may be a subject worth learning about. I don't really know where discussions will lead. I would like to be able to pursue them though because I imagine I will become a more productive editor if I can understand these issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not an issue with notability, though; arguably you had plenty of sources to show the high-school career was notable so it wasn't an issue with notability. Instead, as both AFD1 and 2 spelled out, our purpose as an encyclopedia would never for an article on that detailed portion of a person's career, simply because we are to be a summary work, not an extensively detailed one, and singling out a person's high school career like that, despite how well sourced that could be with every GNG-qualifying source in the world in it, doesn't fly for an encyclopedia. That's why admins are refusing to recreate the content for userification or the like, since we would never would be able to use that content (in addition to the questionable way that you brought the article back after AFD1) --MASEM (t) 15:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Masem, You are getting me bogged down in a DRV type debate here, which is not my point. I would like to investigate policy regarding SPLITS, CSDs, G4, N, NSPORTS, etc. I am not here to have a DRV with you. There are policy issues that I need to get a better understanding of. P.S. if the history is restored, you will note that your objection of sentence for each game (I presented postseason highlights game by game) was valid only for the 49KB version. This was not true of the 33KB version, IIRC. Debating with you is not going to teach me what are the WP proprieties of SPLITTING, with is one of the things I would like to investigate. Do you feel that there is nothing for me to learn about policies such as SPLITS, CSDs, G4, N, NSPORTS, etc.?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved with this discussion, but I do have to point one thing out, Tony: I don't find your statement that you didn't find the consensus in AFD2 clear to be all that credible. Eleven people explicitly commented against the very concept of this article and two more implied the same. Only two people - one being yourself - spoke in favour of it. The consensus was undeniably clear, and rehashing your arguments here in AN is not likely to result in an overturn. Resolute 16:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolute, Are you saying there is nothing for me to learn from this result other than that people were against this high school split?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I said only that there is no reason why you should be unclear about what the consensus was. The lessons you take from it are a different issue entirely, and I don't believe they require re-userfication of the deleted article to study. Also, I am aware of this discussion and have been since it was started. You don't need to ping me back to it. I will see your replies. Thanks, Resolute 18:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Masem and @Resolute, I may have misinterpreted Tony's intentions, but what interested me in his proposal was the discussion of how in depth we should go into biographies. I know of huge articles with forks that go into great depth for BLPs and they are great articles. Charles Darwin was one of the greatest scientists to ever live and his article contains many forks into all aspects of his life. I think it is great, but if all of the articles related to Darwin on Wikipedia were printed and published it would be multiple volumes. There are probably many proponents of creationism and intelligent design who think this is way too much. The interesting argument that Tony made in the most recent AfD was that a reader of Wikipedia should be able to go into as much depth as they want via forks. We do that with Charles Darwin and some others. If the aim of the discussion were to revisit this issue, it might be worthwhile. But, again, I don't know if that was Tony's main intent. I am One of Many (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't care if Parker's high school article exists or not, but I think the consensus so far has been clearly to not have it. Also, as noted in the first AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career, WP:N says that WP:GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." It seems clear that a spinout is judged on per-case basis, not exclusively based on the number of sources available.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is definitely a relevant policy. I still think I have some learning to do as an editor in regards to this type of recreation. Since I do a lot of recreations (12 of my current GAs are of formerly deleted content), I would like to investigate some other policies. This is not a userfication request to get the article restored permanently.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, its a bizarre process at times, but Wikipedia is supposed to be summary style and yet it is neither macro nor micro. Without seeing the content, I couldn't decide, but I understand that you view this as a loss of knowledge. It doesn't sit right with you, but why should it? I've been doing a lot of content work as of late - and the whole one page per subject or entity seems to work well. Exceptions exist, but only the most prominent historical figures with thousands of books dedicated to their lives are ones that span multiple pages. Most of these are blocks of years, not something like small careers. Exceptions exist in Benedict Arnold's case, Military career of Benedict Arnold, 1777–79, the famous turncoat. But even still, this is a summary of a summary that dozens of books dictate and are pivotal in a nation's history. Jabari Parker does not have such a lofty status, and despite there being a great deal of source material, condensing it is half the battle. I typically avoid direct diaries and other logbooks for topics - most is of little importance to general or even expert readers. This seems to be a case of too-detailed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Everyone wants to have a DRV now. That is not what I seek. I need to be able to investigate policy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri BTW if "too-detailed" was the indictment against the first version that was 49KB of readable prose. Does that mean that the 33KB second version was "too-detailed" without consideration. Many of the votes here were that this article has been considered once and you have approached the topic a second time with a third of the readable prose removed which is wrong. A "too-detailed" argument would actually not be an indictment against any future recreation because the fact that a 49KB version is too-detailed does not mean that a 33, 25, 20 or 15KB version is "too-detailed" for all readers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the WP:CONSENSUS certainly appears to be that you need to use WP:DRV to have the article restored in order for you to 'investigate policy' - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bushranger, There has been no one prior to you who has stated that a DRV request is a requirement for a userfication.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

After two AfDs and a DRV already on this subject, consensus seems clearly against the existence of this article. I see no benefit to "investigate policy" for this case, as WP:FIVEPILLARS says: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone." —Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Bagumba, Is that an WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another backlog you don't want to miss!

If you thought WP:RFPP was a cool backlog, I suggest you check out WP:RM. There are more than 70 articles in the backlog section (meaning the discussion has gone past seven days, but many are longer than that). Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

For that matter, if any admins would like to try helping out with CFD closures for April, please see the index page at WP:CFDAC. The admin instructions are at WP:CFDAI. A minority of the nominations relate to gender or ethnicity, in which case either see WP:EGRS if you can get your head round it, or skip those. If you would prefer to just close any discussion and leave the implementation to "CFD regulars", drop me a line and I will arrange that (either doing it myself or listing at WP:CFDWM). – Fayenatic London 17:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Persistent vandal(s)

Like to get some more eyes on the attack going on at the reference desks. A person (or persons) with IPs geolocating to Venezuela is being fairly persistent, blanking the various reference desks, and popping up at a new IP moments after being blocked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly coordinated; last one geolocated to China.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the IP addresses mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baseball Bugs/Archive (unrelated to the user) were in Venezuela and China, and some had been blocked by ProcseeBot before, these haven't but maybe they're also proxies. Peter James (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

These are mobile IPs, which unfortunately are extremely dynamic.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Category pages will be movable soon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They will be logged. See [10]. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Category moves: this is looking bad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who exactly is "they"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only admins to move categories? Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going live

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

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

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

Too narrow of a community base here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The real fix is now live here (early because of a SWAT deploy). @Mr. Stradivarius: Can you delete MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-gb and MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-ca under G6 now? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Jack doesn't even have that power, but on the other hand you do. Have fun. Legoktm (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

All categories that have been moved so far

Extended content

+----------------+----------------------+---------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | log_timestamp | log_user_text | log_namespace | log_title | log_params | log_comment | +----------------+----------------------+---------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 20140523035006 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Trịnh_Lords | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Trịnh lords";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | To match capitalisation of main article [[Trịnh lords]] | | 20140523055212 | Markhurd | 14 | L’Oréal-UNESCO_Awards_for_Women_in_Science_laureates | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:62:"Category:L'Oréal-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science laureates";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Non-smart quote, same as articles | | 20140523193330 | ThaddeusB | 14 | Numerologist | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Numerologists";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | plural | | 20140523195731 | Lugnuts | 14 | Slough_Council_elections | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:41:"Category:Slough Borough Council elections";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140524014351 | Callanecc | 14 | User:Callanecc/test | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:33:"Category:User:Callanecc/testmoved";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140524020612 | Callanecc | 14 | Pseudoscientists | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:35:"Category:Advocates of pseudoscience";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | History merge | | 20140524020614 | Ktr101 | 14 | Former_Essential_Air_Service | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:46:"Category:Former Essential Air Service airports";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | It should be under this name, since it makes no sense under the old one. | | 20140524021620 | Callanecc | 14 | Nguyễn_Lords | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Nguyễn lords";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | [[WP:C2C]], [[Special:Permalink/605527865#Current_nominations|requested]] at [[WP:CFD]] | | 20140524021628 | Callanecc | 14 | Mandarins_of_the_Nguyễn_Lords | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:40:"Category:Mandarins of the Nguyễn lords";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | [[WP:C2C]], [[Special:Permalink/605527865#Current_nominations|requested]] at [[WP:CFD]] | | 20140524082057 | Mr. Stradivarius | 14 | Test_category | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Test category 2";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | test the new category move function - will delete in a second | | 20140524125353 | Oncenawhile | 14 | Demographic_history_by_country | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:49:"Category:Demographic history by country or region";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Expanding to include region articles, given this category currently covers both | | 20140524143445 | Woz2 | 14 | Software_companies_based_in_Estonia | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:Software companies of Estonia";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Consistancy | | 20140524223857 | BrownHairedGirl | 14 | Demographic_history_by_country_or_region | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:39:"Category:Demographic history by country";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | revert bold move. Please take it to [[WP:CFD]] | | 20140525020447 | Mitch Ames | 14 | Heritage_Hotels_by_country | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:35:"Category:Heritage hotels by country";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Capitalisation | | 20140525083343 | Robbo128 | 14 | Nova_Entertainment | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:27:"Category:NOVA Entertainment";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140525163151 | Vin09 | 14 | Lists_of_cities_in_India | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:32:"Category:List of cities in India";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | spelling correction | | 20140525184622 | Editor2020 | 14 | Early_Hebrew_Christians | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:32:"Category:Early Jewish Christians";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Makes more sense. Corresponds with usage of other categories | | 20140526000820 | Editor2020 | 14 | Judeo-Christian_polemics | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:34:"Category:Jewish-Christian polemics";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | not judeo-christian, i.e. ethics and beliefs common to both | | 20140526012059 | BrownHairedGirl | 14 | List_of_cities_in_India | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:33:"Category:Lists of cities in India";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | revert bold move. Please take it to [[WP:CFD]] | | 20140526012333 | Warrenjs1 | 14 | Plastics_trade_unions | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:41:"Category:Plastics and rubber trade unions";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140526050543 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Historical_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:History stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge (no pun intended) | | 20140526051035 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Academic-bio-stub | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:33:"Category:Academic biography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526051240 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Computer_Specialist_Stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:34:"Category:Computer specialist stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526051426 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Cayman_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:29:"Category:Cayman Islands stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526051751 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Geologic_feature_of_the_Solar_System_not_on_Earth_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:27:"Category:Astrogeology stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526052010 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Business_bio_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:33:"Category:Business biography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526150242 | GeorgeLouis | 14 | Conservatism_articles_needing_infoboxes | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:48:"Category:Conservatism articles without infoboxes";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Infoboxes are not required; therefore they are not "needed." | | 20140526170343 | PatGallacher | 14 | MEPs_for_the_Republic_of_Ireland_2014-2019 | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:53:"Category:MEPs for the Republic of Ireland 2014–2019";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | normal pattern | | 20140526173534 | PatGallacher | 14 | Elections_in_2019 | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:2019 elections";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | normal | | 20140526183058 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Northern-Ireland-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:31:"Category:Northern Ireland stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526183450 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Haiti-stub_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:20:"Category:Haiti stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526183739 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Typography_stub | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:25:"Category:Typography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526183836 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Typography_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140526184113 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Nigeria_related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Nigeria stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140526194030 | Rich Farmbrough | 14 | Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_Whitehouse_website | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:75:"Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the White House website";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140526231935 | Lgcsmasamiya | 14 | Bavaria_Party_politicians | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:36:"Category:Members of the Bayernpartei";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | redirect to a proper name | | 20140527055800 | Filastin | 14 | Irish_republicans_imprisoned_on_charges_of_terrorism | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:91:"Category:Irish republicans imprisoned on charges of alleged terrorism by the United Kingdom";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | This is a highly dubious category. I believe in its removal, but would prefer its accuracy in title until a debate has been had. | | 20140527060853 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Adelaide-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Adelaide stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527061122 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Adelaide_suburb_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:33:"Category:Adelaide geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527061332 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Canberra_suburb_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:53:"Category:Australian Capital Territory geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527061701 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Canberra-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:43:"Category:Australian Capital Territory stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527061828 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Historical_Fiction_book_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:Historical fiction book stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527061911 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Historical_fiction_book_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140527061948 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Historical_fiction_book_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140527062136 | Od Mishehu | 14 | UK_geography_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:39:"Category:United Kingdom geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527062357 | Od Mishehu | 14 | US_geography_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:United States geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527062651 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Liberal_related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:25:"Category:Liberalism stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527062902 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Football_(soccer)_player_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:42:"Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527062931 | DoctorKubla | 14 | List_of_Unidentified_Shipwrecks_in_Australian_Waters | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:52:"List of unidentified shipwrecks in Australian waters";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | This is a list article, not a category. | | 20140527062949 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Football_(soccer)_biography_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140527123456 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Afghanistan-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:26:"Category:Afghanistan stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527123639 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Party_related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:30:"Category:Political party stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527123852 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Female-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Feminism stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527124203 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Melbourne-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Melbourne stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527124350 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Melbourne_suburb_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:34:"Category:Melbourne geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527124500 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Sydney_suburb_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:31:"Category:Sydney geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527124619 | Od Mishehu | 14 | United_States_television_programme_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:47:"Category:United States television program stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527124758 | Od Mishehu | 14 | United_States_football_club_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:40:"Category:United States soccer club stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527125652 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Serbia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Serbia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527130016 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Buddhism-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Buddhism stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527130211 | Od Mishehu | 14 | RAF_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:30:"Category:Royal Air Force stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527130333 | Od Mishehu | 14 | California_County_Routes_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:California county route stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | historey merge | | 20140527130424 | Od Mishehu | 14 | California_county_route_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140527130610 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Catalonia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Catalonia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | hsitory merge | | 20140527130742 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Gibraltar-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Gibraltar stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527130909 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Fungi_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Fungus stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527131315 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Scotland-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Scotland stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527131619 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Computer_file_system_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:31:"Category:Computer storage stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527152808 | Jackmcbarn | 14 | Id1f03240c203f32a12953f49a075cfd5c25f0f31 | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:56:"Category:Id1f03240c203f32a12953f49a075cfd5c25f0f31 moved";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140527161156 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Macao_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:20:"Category:Macau stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527161432 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Netherlands-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:26:"Category:Netherlands stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527162419 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Faroe_Islands-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:28:"Category:Faroe Islands stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527162746 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Slovenia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Slovenia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527162918 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Georgia_politician_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:46:"Category:Georgia (U.S. state) politician stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527163331 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Environmental_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:26:"Category:Environment stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | history merge | | 20140527163711 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Energy_development_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Energy stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527163913 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Greenland-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Greenland stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527164353 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Texas_stub | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:20:"Category:Texas stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527164708 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Ice_hockey_player_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:35:"Category:Ice hockey biography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527164901 | Od Mishehu | 14 | U.S._newspaper_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:United States newspaper stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527165053 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Maritime_Provinces_geography_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:45:"Category:Prince Edward Island geography stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527165252 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Central_America-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:30:"Category:Central America stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527165432 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Canadian_newspaper_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:31:"Category:Canada newspaper stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527165612 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Theologist_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:25:"Category:Theologian stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527165857 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Africa-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Africa stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140527170048 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Albania-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Albania stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140528074841 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Argentina-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Argentina stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140528075043 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Australia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Australia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140528075230 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Austria-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Austria stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140528100812 | Mabalu | 14 | Israeli_jewery_designers | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:36:"Category:Israeli jewellery designers";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Spelling mistake | | 20140528112445 | Samwilson | 14 | Local_History_Collection,_Fremantle | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:124:"Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the City of Fremantle Intrepretation Plaques and Panels Research Project";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | To be in keeping with other Wikipedia source categories. | | 20140528151658 | Mosmof | 14 | European_retractable-roof_stadiums | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:44:"Category:Retractable-roof stadiums in Europe";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | consistent structure | | 20140528151834 | Mosmof | 14 | Retractable-roof_stadiums_in_Europe | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:42:"Category:Eurpean retractable-roof stadiums";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | error | | 20140529131700 | BrownHairedGirl | 14 | England_MP_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:50:"Category:Parliament of England (pre-1707) MP stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | per [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 14#Category:England_MP_stubs]] | | 20140529203058 | The Sage of Stamford | 14 | Members_of_paramilitary_organizations | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:60:"Category:Members of paramilitary and terrorist organizations";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | To merge 2 categories which are difficult to distinguish | | 20140530032833 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Belgium-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Belgium stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530033124 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Brazil-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Brazil stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530033319 | Od Mishehu | 14 | California-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:25:"Category:California stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530033447 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Cambodia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Cambodia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530033850 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Canada-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Canada stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530034037 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Central_Asia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:27:"Category:Central Asia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530034156 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Chicago-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Chicago stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | History merge | | 20140530034226 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Chicago-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140530034304 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Chicago_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140530034421 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Chile-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:20:"Category:Chile stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530034819 | Od Mishehu | 14 | China-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:20:"Category:China stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530035116 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Colombia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Colombia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530035233 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Croatia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Croatia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530035351 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Denmark-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Denmark stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530035531 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Estonia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Estonia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530035704 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Fiji-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:19:"Category:Fiji stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530040236 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Finland-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Finland stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140530223119 | BrownHairedGirl | 14 | Irish_republicans_imprisoned_on_charges_of_alleged_terrorism_by_the_United_Kingdom | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:61:"Category:Irish republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | revert bold move. Please take it to [[WP:CFD]] | | 20140531011102 | Futbase | 14 | IF_Elsborg_matches | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:28:"Category:IF Elfsborg matches";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Correct name | | 20140531024229 | LT910001 | 14 | Physiology_articles_needing_images. | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:43:"Category:Physiology articles needing images";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | remove full stop from title | | 20140531123626 | AlanM1 | 14 | Lists_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:45:"Category:Lists of Righteous Among the Nations";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Correct cap'n per sources and other articles | | 20140531184807 | Roycekimmons | 14 | Educational_technology_authors_and_researchers | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:41:"Category:People in educational technology";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Needed to include innovators (e.g., designers and CEOs). | | 20140531190437 | Corvoe | 14 | Films_directed_by_Phil_Lord_and_Chris_Miller | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:59:"Category:Films directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Lord_and_Christopher_Miller&diff=610965754&oldid=610890316 | | 20140531190754 | Od Mishehu | 14 | France-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:France stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140531190936 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Germany-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Germany stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140531191116 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Greece-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Greece stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140531191215 | Nyttend | 14 | Testing | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:29:"User:Nyttend/category Testing";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Will this work? | | 20140531191306 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Guyana-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Guyana stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140531215019 | Wolbo | 14 | Rafael_Nadal_tennis_season | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:36:"Category:Rafael Nadal tennis seasons";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Plural | | 20140531215728 | Wolbo | 14 | Juan_Martín_del_Potro_tennis_season | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:46:"Category:Juan Martín del Potro tennis seasons";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Plural | | 20140531220026 | Wolbo | 14 | Victoria_Azarenka_tennis_season | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:41:"Category:Victoria Azarenka tennis seasons";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Plural | | 20140531220209 | Wolbo | 14 | Li_Na_tennis_season | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:29:"Category:Li Na tennis seasons";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Plural | | 20140531220441 | Wolbo | 14 | Andy_Murray_tennis_season | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:35:"Category:Andy Murray tennis seasons";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Plural | | 20140531220855 | Wolbo | 14 | Novak_Djokovic_tennis_season | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:Novak Djokovic tennis seasons";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Plural | | 20140531221059 | Wolbo | 14 | Maria_Sharapova_tennis_season | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:39:"Category:Maria Sharapova tennis seasons";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Plural | | 20140531221347 | Wolbo | 14 | Roger_Federer_tennis_season | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:37:"Category:Roger Federer tennis seasons";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Plural | | 20140531222310 | Denhud | 14 | Badminton_at_the_Summer_Youth_Olympics | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:40:"Category:Badminton at the Youth Olympics";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140601025259 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | UK_road_articles_by_quality | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:46:"Category:UK road transport articles by quality";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601025358 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | A-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:43:"Category:A-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601025441 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | B-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:43:"Category:B-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601025552 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | C-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:43:"Category:C-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601025649 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Category-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:50:"Category:Category-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601025748 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Disambig-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:50:"Category:Disambig-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601025822 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Draft-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:47:"Category:Draft-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601025858 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | FA-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:44:"Category:FA-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601025929 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | FL-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:44:"Category:FL-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030010 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Future-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:48:"Category:Future-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030100 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | GA-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:44:"Category:GA-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030130 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | List-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:46:"Category:List-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030156 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | NA-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:44:"Category:NA-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030247 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Project-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:49:"Category:Project-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030317 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Redirect-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:50:"Category:Redirect-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030352 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Start-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:47:"Category:Start-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030439 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Stub-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:46:"Category:Stub-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030508 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Template-Class_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:50:"Category:Template-Class UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030537 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Unassessed_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:46:"Category:Unassessed UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030726 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | UK_road_articles_by_importance | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:49:"Category:UK road transport articles by importance";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030826 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | High-importance_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:51:"Category:High-importance UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030853 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Low-importance_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:50:"Category:Low-importance UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030925 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Mid-importance_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:50:"Category:Mid-importance UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601030957 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | NA-importance_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:49:"Category:NA-importance UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601031024 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Top-importance_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:50:"Category:Top-importance UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601031051 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Unknown-importance_UK_road_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:54:"Category:Unknown-importance UK road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601041747 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Australian_road_transport_articles_by_quality | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:53:"Category:Australia road transport articles by quality";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601041854 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | A-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:50:"Category:A-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601041928 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | B-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:50:"Category:B-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601042019 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | C-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:50:"Category:C-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601042107 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Category-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:57:"Category:Category-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601042303 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Disambig-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:57:"Category:Disambig-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601042501 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | FA-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:51:"Category:FA-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601042530 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | File-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:53:"Category:File-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601042602 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | FL-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:51:"Category:FL-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601042641 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Future-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:55:"Category:Future-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601042744 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | GA-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:51:"Category:GA-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601042818 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | List-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:53:"Category:List-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601042843 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | NA-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:51:"Category:NA-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601042930 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Portal-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:55:"Category:Portal-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043010 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Project-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:56:"Category:Project-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043040 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Redirect-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:57:"Category:Redirect-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043108 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Start-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:54:"Category:Start-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043138 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Stub-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:53:"Category:Stub-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043210 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Unassessed_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:53:"Category:Unassessed Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043326 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Australian_road_transport_articles_by_importance | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:56:"Category:Australia road transport articles by importance";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043411 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | High-importance_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:58:"Category:High-importance Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043444 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Low-importance_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:57:"Category:Low-importance Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043511 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Mid-importance_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:57:"Category:Mid-importance Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043537 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | NA-importance_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:56:"Category:NA-importance Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043603 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Top-importance_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:57:"Category:Top-importance Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601043627 | Imzadi1979 | 14 | Unknown-importance_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:61:"Category:Unknown-importance Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601085005 | Wolbo | 14 | Serena_Williams_tennis_season | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:39:"Category:Serena Williams tennis seasons";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Plural | | 20140601124834 | Evad37 | 14 | Draft-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:54:"Category:Draft-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601125239 | Evad37 | 14 | Template-Class_Australian_road_transport_articles | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:57:"Category:Template-Class Australia road transport articles";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | common naming convention with the other roads projects | | 20140601132328 | Tachfin | 14 | People_from_Ariana,_Tunisia | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:28:"Category:People from Aryanah";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140601151919 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Hawaii-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:21:"Category:Hawaii stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140601152158 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Hungary-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Hungary stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140601214728 | Victor Lopes | 14 | Universities_in_São_Paulo_(state) | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:56:"Category:Universities and colleges in São Paulo (state)";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | so it follows the established naming pattern | | 20140601235523 | Xoegki | 14 | Chief_ministers_of_Telangana | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:37:"Category:Chief Ministers of Telangana";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140602052334 | Anthony Appleyard | 14 | Joaquim_Maria_Machado_de_Assis | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:25:"Category:Machado de Assis";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Requested at [[WP:RM]] as uncontroversial ([[Special:Permalink/611153267|permalink]]) | | 20140602052338 | Anthony Appleyard | 14 | Novels_by_Joaquim_Maria_Machado_de_Assis | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:35:"Category:Novels by Machado de Assis";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Requested at [[WP:RM]] as uncontroversial ([[Special:Permalink/611153267|permalink]]) | | 20140602065321 | Fayenatic london | 14 | Fortification_in_Central_America | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:42:"Category:Fortifications in Central America";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_1#Category:Fortification_in_Central_America]] | | 20140602121847 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Iceland-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Iceland stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140602122043 | Od Mishehu | 14 | India-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:20:"Category:India stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140602122502 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Qatar_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:25:"Category:Qatar stubs/temp";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | Moving out of the way temporarily - will move back | | 20140602122604 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Qatar-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:20:"Category:Qatar stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140602122652 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Qatar_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"User:Od Mishehu/dev/null";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140602122723 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Qatar_stubs/temp | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:20:"Category:Qatar stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | | | 20140602124126 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Sri_Lankan_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Sri Lanka stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140602124147 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Sri_Lanka-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Sri Lanka stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140602125034 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Indonesia-related_stubs | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Indonesia stubs";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | History merge | | 20140602134455 | Icarusgeek | 14 | Actors_from_Punjab | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:34:"Category:Actors from Punjab, India";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Original name was inconsidered and although nested under an Inian actor category, did not by name distinguish from Actors from elswehre in Punjab | +----------------+----------------------+---------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

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

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

Patrollers can look here for real-time patrolling - all category moves which don't supress a redirect (only admins, bots and 'crats can supress it) leave an edit there. This doesn't, however, give us information about reversed moves, moves where the redirect was subsequently deleted, or where some user removed the template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just updated the above list. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, almost all of mine (all excepot the first, I think) are actually history merges. Now that we can fix these, I've started to work on doing it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A list as of the end of Jack's, without the end of my history merges, can be found at User:Od Mishehu/cat moves in a more readable format - including marking non-admins in bold. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've once again updated the list. This is the last update I'll post here, as starting on Thursday, you will be able to filter for category moves via the API. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So one coder is better than the foundation?

I have to say that I am utterly shocked by this.

When the foundation wanted to implement something (schools, etc.) and the community wasn't happy about it, the foundation started an RfC, the community had its say, and the implementation went forward per the community.

But in this case, since User:Jackmcbarn wants it, and since User:Jackmcbarn coded it, we the community have no say and this one coder bringing it to other coders trumps the community?

Is this really how things work now?

This is not hyperbolic hysterionics. This is a sincere question. And one I think may need to be posed to the Foundation.

Somehow, I just don't think this situation meets the exception listed here: Wikipedia:Consensus#Decisions_not_subject_to_consensus_of_editors - jc37 02:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I submitted the patch. The developers accepted it. The default behavior is to allow anyone to move categories (because that's what's appropriate for new installations of MediaWiki, and in fact the developers questioned why it was even possible to restrict it), so that's what it was introduced with here. If we get consensus here, the sysadmins will be more than happy to restrict it, but we don't have that yet. Also, note that I did request they restrict it here initially, but they denied that due to lack of consensus. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a different picture of MediaWiki development, that's not really how it works. It's an open source project that anyone can submit patches for, and those that are of good quality get accepted. The "English Wikipedia community" does not control MediaWiki development. We've wanted native category redirects and moving for YEARS now, and Jack took the initiative to get the first step out of the way. Having a bot move categories is a broken system that we really need to get rid of. Legoktm (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Please take a moment and read Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_25#Revising_the_user_rights_for_the_Education_Program_extension.

If the foundation deemed that it should ask a community, why is this situation any different? Read some of those statements there, including by several long standing Wikipedians and at least one Arb at the time.

If you want to fix the system, have an rfc for implementation, learn implementation details from those who do the work in the trenches. Just doing something for IWANTIT reasons, without even looking over the details is bad implementation, even if we weren't a consensus following community.

You've had nearly every closer from CFD tell you that this is asinine. At what point does the mindless runaway train get stopped to consider repercussions as noted by those of us who actually use the system? - jc37 04:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I read it. That was a WMF employee asking about changing some of enwp's userrights, which a completely different subject IMO. That scenario wanted local crats to manage rights for a WMF-run program (as I understand it).

You still seem to be confused about the English Wikipedia community versus the MediaWiki community. They do have a lot of overlap, but are definitely not the same. MediaWiki has different procedures for accepting new patches and features, and a RfC on enwp is definitely not one of them. This feature change does affect enwp, yes, but it also affects every single site that runs MediaWiki, which happens to include 800+ WMF wikis. The needs of WMF wikis are usually taken in to account, and in this case an extra userright is required to move category pages, allowing for easy per-wiki customization. I haven't actually read any comments that this feature is a bad idea. MediaWiki also ships with sane defaults, so it makes sense to give that right to any user who can normally move pages. If enwp wants to change that, that's fine, but some sort of discussion needs to come out with a consensus to do so. I haven't seen anything like that in this thread yet. Legoktm (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, because English Wikipedia is nothing special, just one Wikipedia among many others, just as important as any other of the 800+ WMF websites. Certainly it's not the flagship of the system or anything like that. BMK (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be curious to find out: when you take the number of edits, or editors, or users, or page views, or whatever metric you want for the 799+ other sites, it is more than the number of edits, or editors, or users, or page views or whatever for English Wikipedia? BMK (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Legoktm, trying to be dismissive because you want this, doesn't make your comments valid. This is merely a userright that's being added too. And if you try to suggest that moving categories is just like moving anything else, I'll point you at the file mover right, and while we're talking doing actions in namespaces, I'll also point you to the template editor user-right.

The reason we have RfCs on such things is so that all the details can be noted. issues worked out etc. I really think this was more a case of coders on some other website deciding they didn't want to go through the process of getting community input and just decided unilaterally. "Oh it'll be fine" are commonly also known as "famous last words". And now when it's clear that this was not supported as implemented, there's all sorts of attempts at dismissive wikilawyering.

But whatever, clearly you are not someone who is listening to the community in this, so no worries, clearly the next step is to petition the foundation, and see what their thoughts are. While I'm at it, I think I'll drop a few notes at arbcom, not for them as a committee (as I don't know if this is under their purview), but merely as a large swath of Wikipedians voted that they trusted their judgement. I'd be curious as to what they would think of this.

Or to put in another way, I think it's time this discussion grew beyond the confines of WP:AN.

Thanks for helping me come to that understanding.

If anyone else has thoughts on who should be made aware of this, please feel free. As this is being discussed on a noticeboard, a neutral notice concerning this discussion would presumably be considered appropriate canvassing. - jc37 06:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

My intention wasn't be dismissive, sorry if I came across that way. The file-mover userright was initially not given to all users due to performance issues (which still exist unfortunately), not because of an RfC or the enwp community's requests, which is why it was initially given to administrators only. The template editor userright applies to all namespaces, so I'm not sure what your point is about that.

Sure, but RfC's are usually for major changes to software (take a look at mw:RfC if you want an idea of what I mean), which this really wasn't. Imagine if every single new feature to MediaWiki had to go through an enwp RfC ;)

It's a bit rude for you to say that I'm not listening to "the community" given that I am just a part of this community as you are. And had I been not listening, I wouldn't have even bothered to comment here. Legoktm (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: WP:BLAMEWHEEL says it's ArbCom's fault anyways.

Haven't looked at blamewheel in a while, thanks for the smile : )

I think what people are trying to tell you is that this is a major change. Do you remember the several RfCs that it took before giving rollback out? I believe the initial proposal from coders was to give it to every user (I think there are still some out there who feel that way : ) - But due to multiple RfCs now it's a user-right given by admins. Some coders (among others) may not have liked that, but we're a community of more than the coders.

Personally, I think we'd be better with this as a user right given out, rather than automatically to all users.

And yes, in the past, the default almost always was to dump new abilities on the admins first. not because they were better than anyone else, but just because they were (presumably) trusted editors who wouldn't intentionally misuse the ability. then once the admins had tested the abilities out, then it could be discussed whether to broaden things to a large group (autoconfirmed, all users, etc.)

A nice middle ground would be to make this admin grantable, that way, it's still (presumably) in the hands of (presumably) trustworthy editors, without restricting to admins alone.

But as it stands, this has been done and decided arbitrarily by a (oh does, the evil cabal) small group on another wiki, without even bothering to even ask for the insight of those of us who currently implement these things, much less the broader community.

And so, no intention to be rude, I'm merely looking at how it looks so far. And yes, a person can be a fellow Wikipedian and still appear to not be listening to the Wikipedian community. That said, thank you for taking the time to comment here.

I'm trying to decide from here which action to take. I'd like to hope that those who made this decision elsewhere would read this thread and realise that the implementation needs to be changed/fixed. But I'm not seeing evidence of that so far. And so, I guess the next step is as I noted above, let's get other (presumably) trusted Wikipedians aware of this, and the wmf too, as potentially this affects multiple wikimedia wikis. - jc37 20:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, you keep on missing the point. Consensus here amongst some small group of AN watchers is irrelevant. We have longstanding consensus that categories cannot be moved, renamed, or deleted in any way shape or form by normal editors, and ONLY by consensus after discussion can admins take these actions (they aren't allowed to be bold either except in extremely rare circumstances). See 7 years of such at WP:CFD. If users had previously copy/paste moved categories with a redirect trick and an admin discovered it, it would be reverted on sight and the user would be told to go to CFD. There are no exceptions to this practice and it is all encoded in reams of CFD history. Thus your reading of 'no consensus' here based on a few dissenters is irrelevant compared to longstanding consensus. And that's the message you should bring to the devs who control the flag-setting-oracle in the temple. What I suggest is the opposite - before providing this right to users, you need to get consensus for THAT. You certainly won't find such consensus established in writing or in practice anywhere on the wiki as of today.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone started an RFC yet? This thread began May 10, it would have almost concluded by now if it was started back then. –xeno^talk 13:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I just about lost it here (laughing). Irrespective of the potential harm in the patch the amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in this discussion is STAGGERING. We can't forget that we are WP:NOTFINISHED. Until we get consensus on who we should trust with this do... what we always do with vandals? Block the bots (since that seems to be the real potential for abuse) until things are sorted out, OR move-protect the categories, OR you know... block the vandals like we've been doing since Jimmy let sysops start doing that. Crazynas ^t 10:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The bots can't be blocked since we rely on them to do regular, by-the-book category moves. We can't move protect the categories since there are tens of thousands, do you have a bot which does that? Seems excessive. And the people doing category moves aren't vandals, in some cases they are good faith editors who see the option to move a category, like a page name, and decide to just do so. Many people seemingly aren't aware that this isn't permitted by consensus yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

New guidance to disallow category moves by users

See Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Limiting_category_moves, please join the discussion and provide your input. The goal is to simply encode long-standing consensus and place it directly in the categorization guideline.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

For reference, that was archived to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Archive_15#Limiting_category_moves. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Banned from creating page on organization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Many users have tried to create a wikipedia page for our LGBTQ youth organization, Everyone Is Gay, and have been limited in doing so as the name flags as spam of some sort. Can anyone help resolve this so our organization (and its founders and initiatives) can have a space here? For validation, etc you can check out everyoneisgay [dot] com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karladelongpre (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

'Validation' requires evidence that your organisation meets Wikipedia notability requirements, as demonstrated in third-party published reliable sources. A link to your website proves nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like this doesn't meet notability guidelines, but there's also a title blacklist entry that would prevent creation (it's also covered by two other entries, one for page moves and another for non-confirmed/autoconfirmed accounts). Maybe an admin could make this remaining entry case-sensitive (as was probably intended) or remove it entirely. A proposed article could be created as a draft or userspace draft (or if you're sure that it meets notability, in the main namespace); if the title blacklist is still preventing it, just use a different title (such as an abbreviation) even if not correct and put a note in requesting to move it. Peter James (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You should probably never write an article on your own orignization - please see Wikipedia:Autobiography, some of the resons equally apply to your own orginization. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User::Director in Dalmatia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Director, whom you may remember from Jews and Communism [[11]], is now quite active in Dalmatia. 34 for the last 50 edits to the article are his; most of the remaining edits are attempts to revert or unrevert his changed. Edit summaries include "Rv nonsense" [[12]]. The talk page is completely dominated by Director; his primary interlocutor, User:Silvio1973, writes that without administrative intervention -- of which he despairs -- he plans to leave the project.

Director's most recent talk page entry addresses this user specifically: "The man barely seems to know English and/or has no concept of how to articulate his position, let alone argue for it in some relevant way." [[13]] User:Director is a sophisticated and experienced editor who adeptly stays just this side of the 3RR rule (typically with the assistance of a colleague ready to contribute reverts 3 and 4) and who has a long, long record of WP:OWNing one article at a time by posting floods of edits, every line of which he defends tirelessly. Less experienced editors, and editors without experienced backup, can literally not get a word in edgewise.

I'm uninvolved, and know nothing about Dalmatia after the 4th century. I don't want to get involved. If Wikipedia is not to become the exclusive province of zealots and cranks, however, someone needs to step in and do something. The next post will doubtless be User:Director calling for an army of boomerangs; ruat coelum. This may belong at AN/I; I'm posting it here because I think this involves a question of the spirit of Wikipedia policy rather than the enforcement of its letter. I do feel it would be wrong to stand by in silence, yet again. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that Director makes constant reference to Silvio's Italian nationality, referring to him in a belittling way as "the Italian fellow", saying that no doubt he requires half an hour to translate a simple sentence from Director into Italian [14] and other similar comments. I don't know what this dispute is about either but such insults are out of order in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, most distressing. "Italian fellow".. Especially since I myself am more than half Italian by ancestry. Have you read some of Silvio's comments on the Balkans and the people thereof? "these situations are common in the Balkans", "I am not from the Balkans - I am a peaceful person", so on and so forth.. -- Director (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm always "active on Dalmatia", both on the project and literally: I am Dalmatian (no, not the four-legged variety :)). A few points.

• MarkBersntein and Smeat75 are both most certainly involved with regard to myself. MarkBernstein has made it perfectly clear he bears a grudge against me personally. Over and over again. The user is, by his own virtual admission - "out to get me", so to speak. I request the user please be advised to try and keep his distance, as I certainly (will) do myself.
• MarkBernstein was pinged to the talkpage in question by Silvio1973 [15], along with several other users, all openly selected on grounds of being personally involved with myself in some dispute (mostly the latest JB dispute). I think no doubt with a mind to soliciting support from those with a personal grudge against me.
• I appeal for a thorough readthrough of the discussion. Among other things, in order to ascertain whether Silvio1973 (talk · contribs) is displaying WP:DE, especially WP:ICANTHEARYOU, to a very large degree. Such that one might well lose one's mind trying to cope, especially if that someone has had the misfortune of having extensive experience "discussing" with the user. Its like a hellish game of Chinese whispers.

"The man barely seems to know English and/or has no concept of how to articulate his position, let alone argue for it in some relevant way." - I stand by that. In spite of the sentence being deliberately taken out of its context - which was an elaboration on how Silvio1973 has directly contradicted himself in just the two latest successive posts, rendering his position once again entirely indiscernible. And while it may be inappropriate to post such comments on an article talkpage, I have no qualms about voicing those concerns here. The conduct of Silvio1973 is simply unbelievable. Trying to discuss with him is, to me at least, a nightmare. I'm puzzling for a means to convey the myriad forms of disruptive behavior the user has engaged in, not only on that talkpage, but elsewhere as well (e.g. Talk:Istrian exodus, especially Archive 3). I could write entire essays full of diffs and complex breakdowns of the user's pattern of conduct.

Firstly. In my personal opinion, the user does not possess sufficient English skills to conduct complex discussions on the English Wikipedia. This manifests in two ways: a reluctance to read - and thus properly reply - to user comments on every other occasion (incrementally more and more), and the frequent posting of barely-understandable "word salad" replies. Note especially that the user can, with effort, both read and write in English (as he will no doubt display here) - but the point is that it clearly requires effort, at translation into Italian. When a complex and serious discussion develops, the user pays less and less attention to what is written, and pays less and less mind to keeping his own posts intelligible. To the extreme irritation of those actually attempting to fully discuss an issue with him.
To be sure, a lack of English skills is not, in itself, disruptive - but to therefore ignore other user's posts, and become offended when one's own poorly-written posts are misunderstood, is another kettle of fish.

This, however, is merely one part of the problem. The other is Silvio1973's own conduct independent of any linguistic skills.

• The user inevitably adopts a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT position, deliberately avoiding to post a relevant argument for his demands - which he nevertheless pushes forward with relentless repetitiveness and edit-warring.
• He will ignore the position of sources he quotes, misquoting them (just so as to stack them). I myself caught the user misquoting sources and/or falsely representing their position on at least a half-dozen occasions.
• When sources against him are presented, he will usually just ignore them and brazenly demand to have his own way regardless. (So in short, complete disregard for WP:V and sources in general)
• He will change his position and argument (when there is one) continuously, according to what is most convenient in replying to a specific post by another user. Often, in fact, contradicting himself directly (completely unphased by that, he just moves on). This I have attempted to demonstrate on the talkpage in my latest couple of posts there.
• Silvio will always assume bad faith, thinking that you might be "up to something" when you do your best to simply follow sources. His own lack of knowledge with regard to Wikipedia policies, makes such assumptions on his part all the more offensive. This is I think particularly obvious in this matter, as he seems to think I have introduced some kind of slant to the article (a claim for which he provides no backing, as per usual).
• The user will periodically express contempt and apply offensive stereotypes to Croats and people from the Balkans in general, assuming an air of superiority.

My work on the Dalmatia article was conducted in the most complete spirit of good faith and NPOV. And I've done my best to display the various areas on the map I created (posted two years ago now), and to equitably explain the various points of view found in sources with regard to Dalmatia's extent. Silvio1973's argument, in its most recent form (remember he changes it around), amounts to a claim of "WP:UNDUE" for which he refuses to provide any sources in the way of support. In spite of repeated pleas and requests. But he nevertheless continues on arguing for his POV regardless, ignoring one post after the other. You hear things like "UNDUE is a matter of policy, not sources!".

There's much, much more. But as this thread was posted at about 4 AM in my time zone, I am going to have to leave it at that for now. With Silvio1973, one always starts with a surplus of good will, which he swiftly drains. All the more swiftly for any previous (nightmarish) encounters. Above all: please do read the discussion at Talk:Dalmatia (and the previous altercation at Talk:Istrian exodus) to get a clear picture of what I'm talking about. If this matter is to be properly evaluated, I fear it will probably take some uncomfortable amounts of reading. -- Director (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I hit an edit conflict asking MarkBernstein exactly how he became aware of this situation, having professed to know nothing about the topic area, but I see above it is because the other editor that pinged pretty much every editor that Director has had a conflict with of late. I find that to be a bit disconcerting. Tarc (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been reading (and have volunteered at) DRN, which in theory and principle might address the sort of problems that occurred in Jews and Communism, that are occurring here, and which if unchecked will eventually lead to the marginalization of Wikipedia. There was an attempt to request help from DRN earlier this week; it was turned down because an RFC was in progress. A few days later, I noticed the ping from User:Silvio1973, who is clearly vexed at User:Director's unremitting combativeness, and suggested he refer the matter to AN/I. He replied, sensibly, that he had other obligations in life; my concern, again, is that under the cover of observing policy User:Director is in fact owning another page. Having an hour to spare and no reason to be involved in Dalmatia, I thought it worthwhile to see whether administrators could and would distinguish what perhaps might be construed as nominal adherence to policy from a long-standing pattern of abuse that is far from, and has frequently been inimical to, the interests of the project. I believe this is the entire history of my involvement here, as requested by Tarc.MarkBernstein (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we "marginalizing Wikipedia" again, MarkBernstein? Since this isn't the first time I've had to read these sort of "appeals", please don't mind if I ask: how in the world can you pretend to gauge the supposed "marginalization of Wikipedia", and especially the effects of some specific action or other on said alleged process? Be that as it may, I'm sure our project would particularly benefit from less malicious WP:HOUNDING, grudge-bearing, and especially less personal attacks and character assassination.

You are here solely because of my having opposed your point of view and edits in the previous dispute, where I was subjected by you to a relentless barrage of the most serious and appalling personal attacks and insults. Its a grudge, plain and simple. Please spare me the distaste of having to see it cloaked in painstakingly-crafted sentimental "appeals", or references to an imaginary process you alone are the oracle of. -- Director (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's leave it for other websites to discuss the unknown motivations of MarkBernstein because the issue that should be of concern for AN is that yet another page (Dalmatia) is the subject of ugly bickering. How can that bickering be resolved? The only thing we can be confident of is that MarkBernstein is not contributing to the underlying problems. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Well if you want to guarantee 'bickering' with someone you are in conflict with, one way to do it is to canvass a load of editors to a discussion you know are already in conflict with the other editor. That is never going to resort in any sort of dispute resolution. I would suggest a topic ban between MarkBerkstein and Director at this point as its clear their interactions only escalate. And in this instance its pretty clear MarkBernstein adds nothing to the discussion except drama.

As for the talkpage, its unfair to say Director 'dominates' the discussion any more than it would be to say Silvio dominates it. The Dalmatian talkpage is just another common or garden content dispute over boundaries. It should be familiar to anyone who has seen some of the UK historic/modern county arguments in the past. You could literally argue all day about if a historic region should also be depicted in its current setting. Suggest its taken to formal mediation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to briefly point out that this is not a Wikipedia iteration of a "real-life" territorial dispute. Unlike with Istrian exodus, so far as I know nobody disputes over what Dalmatia's ethereal borders are. -- Director (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:, I see your point and actually agree. However I feel so intimidated that I would never felt strong enough to open this discussion, so I must thank MarkBernstein for raising this issue. Dear Johuniq, Director really treats like shit (I am sorry for the word but that's a fact) everyone who disagrees with him. Hereafter a small extract of the dozens of "nice" things we wrote about me. The sad thing is that I never did something like this to him (and I could not, because it is against the education I received). The saddest thing is that he behaves like that not just with me, but with a lot of other users. And of course at the end people react at risk to be blocked. Is this is normal?

30 May 2014 Since it is clearly impossible to briefly elaborate on this subject without Silvio1973 arriving to write odes to the tragic departure of Italians (who's fascist authorities invaded their neighbors, occupied the region, and herded people to concentration camps, with the frequently-stated intent to Italianize and cleanse the Slavic barbarians, never extraditing their war criminals)...

19 February 2014 - Lets be blunt: Silvio is an Italian-nationalist POV-pusher who goes around the project searching for areas where he believes Italy has been "wronged" and then posts masses of posts in bad grammar that ignore most of Wikipedia's policies ("heraldry expert"?) in pushing a pro-Italian bias.

31 October 2013 - User:Silvio1973 is here only through following my edits, as a sort of petty "revenge" for my opposing his edits elsewhere. He is not here to provide a constructive position, but only to oppose my own, and you may expect that's pretty much all he's going to do (in poor English). I personally doubt he has any background understanding of the Republic of Kososo issue.

28 September 2013 - You are obviously and unfortunately unable to contribute here due to your lack of English skills. You do not posses sufficient knowledge of the language this wiki is written in. Go away please. I will not be the only moron on this project stupid enough to discuss with someone who doesn't understand me.

28 September 2013 - You are obviously and unfortunately unable to contribute here due to your lack of English skills. You do not posses sufficient knowledge of the language this wiki is written in. Go away please. I will not be the only moron on this project stupid enough to discuss with someone who doesn't understand me.

22 September 2013 - I used to think its a communication issue. But now I'm convinced you're just a nationalist POV-pusher attempting to have his way through fraudulent referencing and edit-war. You would have to be institutionalized if you did not understand: #1 non-Italian/Yugoslav sources. #2 Scholarly. #3 With page number and quote. Very simple...

.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste effort "retaliating" by posting Silvio's own attacks (and borderline-racist comments) out of context. I'm only going to repeat my advice and appeal for a thorough examination of the discussions at Talk:Istrian exodus/Archive 3, Talk:Istrian exodus, and now Talk:Dalmatia. I would have reported Silvio1973 a long time ago if there was an easier way to have a look at what he does, other than examining a long-time pattern of multiple forms of disruption. -- Director (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Silvio, why did you ping editors with whom Director has had past arguments with? Director's combatants list should not have been pinged, and one of the combatants should not have filed an AN report on a matter that he was not involved in. This all simply smacks of collusion to monitor an editor and leaping to AN/ANI at the first perceived misstep. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, strong smell of fish. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc and DeCausa. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ladies, Gents, I don't know why this ANI was filed. The only thing I know is that I would like Director to speak me better. At the end of the day I do not have similar problem with anyone else, whilst Director got the same problem with a lot of people. However and again, I just would like to be respected more. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:BLANKING

I have proposed a change to WP:BLANKING, regarding which notices a user under sanction (topic or other ban, block, etc.) is or is not allowed to remove from his or her user talk page.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Current wording of the first bullet does not reflect actual practice TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

USER:DIRECTOR'S CONDUCT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear users, I did not post, neither requested User:MarkBernstein to post on the Administrators' noticeboard anything concerning Director's conduct.

Indeed I do it now by myself, because I can defend myself alone.

Hereafter there is a small extract of some of the "nice things" that User:Director told me during the last 9 months. Indeed he got so used to deal with me impolitely, that he assumes he got this right for granted. Allegations of me being a fascist or having sympathy with a fascism are particularly disgusting and are actually false. And I cannot imagine that Director does not expose himself to a sanction if he cannot provide any citation showing my sympathy with the fascism.

1 June 2014 - Maybe you should correct your behavior, curtail the disruption, and stop with the condescending, arguably-racist, Mussolini-style comments about the Balkans and everyone from there?

30 May 2014 - Since it is clearly impossible to briefly elaborate on this subject without Silvio1973 arriving to write odes to the tragic departure of Italians (who's fascist authorities invaded their neighbors, occupied the region, and herded people to concentration camps, with the frequently-stated intent to Italianize and cleanse the Slavic barbarians, never extraditing their war criminals)...

19 February 2014 - Lets be blunt: Silvio is an Italian-nationalist POV-pusher who goes around the project searching for areas where he believes Italy has been "wronged" and then posts masses of posts in bad grammar that ignore most of Wikipedia's policies in pushing a pro-Italian bias.

31 October 2013 - User:Silvio1973 is here only through following my edits, as a sort of petty "revenge" for my opposing his edits elsewhere. He is not here to provide a constructive position, but only to oppose my own, and you may expect that's pretty much all he's going to do (in poor English). I personally doubt he has any background understanding of the Republic of Kososo issue.

28 September 2013 - You are obviously and unfortunately unable to contribute here due to your lack of English skills. You do not posses sufficient knowledge of the language this wiki is written in. Go away please. I will not be the only moron on this project stupid enough to discuss with someone who doesn't understand me.

28 September 2013 - You are obviously and unfortunately unable to contribute here due to your lack of English skills. You do not posses sufficient knowledge of the language this wiki is written in. Go away please. I will not be the only moron on this project stupid enough to discuss with someone who doesn't understand me.

22 September 2013 - I used to think its a communication issue. But now I'm convinced you're just a nationalist POV-pusher attempting to have his way through fraudulent referencing and edit-war.

.

Now, Director has claimed many times that he was pushed to write such comments because I display [WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] and because my English is so poor that I do not understand what he tries to tell me. Now, my English is far from being perfect but it is largely enough to understand what all other users on Wikipedia tell me. Indeed I never encountered any similar problem with any other user, just with Director.

Director often claims that I do not understand nor wants to listen his arguments. Actually, I do listen very carefully Director's arguments and understand them quite well, but sometime I disagree. Hereafter an example. I posted a RfC on the Talk:Dalmatia in the hope to find a solution to a discussion that has already filled 3 archived. I am not the only one disagreeing with the cut that Director is giving to the article. Indeed, Also User:Joy and [[User:Banjar] disagreed with him (both are users with big experience and I want to state that usually are not on my side), but Director did not pay any respect to mine and their comments and continued to edit the article his way despite the RfC was open (more than 30 edits since the RfC was opened). Of course I did not even dare to revert any of Director's edits because this would have likely driven to an edit war. Unfortunately even just the fact that I disagreed on the talk page was enough to make Director comfortable enough to write me:

27 May 2014 - You don't read what's being told. You push an Italian POV relentlessly and with no regard to sources, which you routinely misrepresent, misquote, delete, or cherry-pick only parts of what they state.

And BTW I do not see where is the Italian POV. Indeed Director often claims that when I disagree with him I push an Italian POV. Even when there is no Italian POV at all.

Perhaps what Director does not like is that I am almost immune to his provocation. Indeed I rationalize always what he says and never react. And yes, I can handle a lot but this does not mean that I like it or look for it.

Finally I want to be very clear on one thing. I am not posting this edit because I want Director's conduct put under scrutiny or worse because I want him to be blocked. No, I just would like that he starts to treat me with more respect. Because what he does hurts. It hurts a lot. Of course it is possible that Director deals with me in a way that is fully conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. In that case, I kindly ask to an administrator to tell me that this is normal, because this would mean that this project is not for me. I do not, by instance, call the other users extremist or fascist when they disagree with me.

However a concept has to be crystal clear. If Director believes that he is right and that I am opposing wrong arguments, he can post an RfC or request a 3O. If he thinks that I am voluntarily disruptive he can post an ANI and make me blocked. But Director has not the right to deal with me improperly. And he has not the smallest right to qualify my English of being too poor to participate to this project nor to post any allegations about my political beliefs. Last but not least, Director has not the smallest right to write that I have the smallest sympathy with the Fascism. This is nauseating and actually wrong, because I have no sympathy for the darkest years of the history of Italy.

There is a small appendix to this post. Pushed to the exasperation by Director's words, last month I wrote that possibly Director had a confrontational attitude not because he wanted to do so, but perhaps because he's from a region of the world (the Balkans) where people can be confrontational. Now I realize I was wrong, very wrong. Clearly Director's attitude has nothing to do with his country of origin. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• WTF? You saw the closure 2 or 3 sections above, right? the panda ₯’ 23:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course I did. And I do not discuss (and BTW I had not the slightest idea MarkBernstein wanted to post an ANI). However, I want just to know if the way Director deal with me is normal and acceptable. If it is acceptable, it means this project is not for me. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, open an WP:RFC/U and edit elsewhere until it's resolved, if editing a website is causing you that much grief the panda ₯’ 00:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The user does not understand that his own behavior at least contributes to (and I would say causes) the deterioration of civil discourse. This kind of obstinacy and failure to notice any fault in his own conduct, is a big part of that "contribution". Any RfCU the user posts, with the customary out-of-context cherry-picked quotes, and the standard canvassing of any users he believes may hold a personal grudge against me from the recent dispute - can yet again only be replied to in terms of "just read the discussion..". Viewed out of its context of Silvio1973's truly incredible disruption my own conduct can indeed be regarded as uncivil, but I personally hold that given the former, it was in fact much less so. Indeed, from my point of view, it can be seen as a display of some considerable patience in the face of nightmarish behavior. -- Director (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need a technical fix

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article Guru Singh was first created on May 2009 about some spiritual Guru. Article was PROD-deleted in Sep 2010. In June 2011 page was re-created about an actor named Guru Singh. Article was nominated for speedy deletion, deleted and then restored. But restoring admin restored all the previous versions of the page i.e. versions about spiritual Guru Singh. Since the previous versions are not about the same subject, can an admin delete those. I came across this while tracking a user who re-wrote this page with his own biography (who did similar vandalism on another page, both of which I have restored). --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 08:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter (talk) — 09:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Account belonging to a minor

Reported. Revdel'd. Censored. Notified. Suppressed. Oversighted. and Goodnight. TLSuda (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

This account claims to be operated by an editor who's years old. I'm pretty sure this is one of those things that isn't cricket? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's apparently okay. I had to look it up. WP:COFAQ#AGE. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's permitted, but they sure as heck shouldn't a) advertise it, or b) provide anything remotely resembling identifying information the panda ₯’ 00:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I reported it at WP:RFO for the guys sake it isn't permitted by policy to tell people it. Dudel250 ChatPROD Log CSD Logs 00:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I hit the relevant links here with revdel, if you're already in contact with RFO you might want to pass that along--if they're going to oversight there, they should do it here too. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Already done. i also did some temporary Censoring and added a notice to his/her userpage. This may take a while Dudel250 ChatPROD Log CSD Logs 00:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've suppressed these now, per policy. Thanks, everyone :) - Alison ^❤ 01:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Can a single edit be an edit war?

This is something I have seen more than once and I believe may have been discussed here at one point, but I wanted clarification. Can a single edit be an edit war?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is impossible to answer without context. Which single edit do you have a question about, and please provide background context so we know what the prior history of all involved accounts are. --Jayron32 02:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I am basically asking a procedural question and is generic overall, with no current situation. I should mentioned that, I had come to believe, from reading the comments of others overtime that even a single edit can be an edit war and that it need not always or necessarily be multiple edits that violate 3RR. I may well have been misguided with either what I was told or its meaning, but...since I am asking this question I will use myself as an example where I had been blocked by an admin (years ago) for a single edit I made on the Occupy Wall Street article. I reverted an edit and then went to discuss what to do next with the editor I had reverted and we were discussing a compromise between what I had written and what he thought could change. I was blocked within about 5 minutes. I feel that mentioning that admin is unfair as I am not questioning their actions. This was without previous reverts, but after I had added some content and it was deleted by a new editor to the article and my edit constituted a revert of a revert. I was told that since I have a history of edit warring a can be blocked for a single edit if the administrator felt it was an act of edit warring (I'm just guessing but probably broadly construed). The admin felt that I would be seeking a consensus and unblocked me sometime later the following day, which could have been after a few hours as that was late in the evening. So from that I gathered is, at the very least, an editor that has a history of edit warring, that makes an single revert of someone else's revert, on a controversial article could be seen as edit warring. This seems to be reasonable logic and have since just come to understand it as accurate. I have repeated it before, but it is possible that I am misleading myself. I don't know if this is a question of policy but stems from a proposed text I suggested where I worded in that a single edit could be an edit war. Obviously because I am asking it wasn't supported, but that is not the reason I ask and there is no situation or edit war. I hoped to get clarification for myself. Perhaps multiple opinion or a discussion of administration method on this.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A single edit can't be a "war". But you can implicate yourself in a war with a single edit. Wikipedia:Tag team. In edit wars, there are no legally defined rules of engagement. The combatants are not uniformed. Our volunteer admins are not trained arbiters of war. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The point is, a terse or trite statement of "is <very general idea> a violation of policy worthy of blocking" will always be unanswerable. Even based on your explanation and characterization above of your own personal experience, without diffs and a full history, there is literally no way to decide if a block is, or is not, warranted in that situation; never mind the very general question you asked which is impossible to answer. We don't even know what a "single edit" means, unless we know the full history of the articles in question, the history of the accused and other participants in the subject matter the article is about, etc. etc. What one person characterizes as a "single edit" another may characterize as "yet another in a long string of tendentious editing, stalking, and otherwise disruptive behavior which has been going on for months across a wide range of articles and needs to be stopped eventually." I have no knowledge of your own specific situation, but your basic premise in the original post is FAR TOO VAGUE to make any meaningful statement about. If we were to "rule" on such vague question, such a "ruling" could easily be used by people trying to "game the system" one way or another. Instead, we can only make rulings on specific situations with a full history, before we decide what we should or should not block someone for. Any other discussion in this direction is pointless. (post EC comment to SmokeyJoe's answer). I'd take issue with the notion that a "single edit" can't be a "war". The problem is that tendentious editing can spread across several articles in a specific subject area, and what one person characterizes as "being blocked for edit warring when I only made one edit" someone else could see as "months long disruption over many articles which finally reached the tipping point." Without a full history, I'm not comfortable telling anyone that "a single edit is not edit warring" We simply can't say that without knowing which single edit is being cited as blockable, and what the full history of the conflict leading up to the block is. --Jayron32 03:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A single edit can't be a "war". A single edit is an edit unconnected to any history of other problem edits, or other problem editors, anywhere. If there is a history of conflict, and the editor is at all involved, not necessarily actively involved, then the phrase "a single edit" is being used misleadingly, even deceptively.

A single edit, made in good faith, by someone not playing games with others, is always to be welcomed. I completely agree with Jayron32's intent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the crux, isn't it? Which is why I am uncomfortable making any statements without knowing specifics. If we give any indication that what the OP is calling a "single edit" may be fine, if the full context shows that it isn't, then we've just given unwitting fodder to defend what actually isn't a defensible position. On the other hand, maybe the OP was treated unfairly all these years ago. We just can't say, without context. --Jayron32 04:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If Country A bombs Country B is that a war? Until Country B retaliates, it's an attack, not a war, although it can be taken as a declaration of war. Until there's reciprocity, however, there's no war.

Except... Look back into the history. The "attack" may have been retaliation for something that happened a long time ago (bearing in mind that on the Internet a "long time" can be a couple of months). So it's important to get the history right, in order to get the context, to see if what looks likes an isolated attack is actually a response to an earlier one. In the RW, people have long memories, and there's no reason to think that it's any different online -- so what appears to be a one-off incident can turn out to be a delayed reaction to something that happened in the past, and it should be incumbent on the admin looking at the situation (sorry) to do due diligence and figure out what's going on. Too often the response is to the immediate action, and not to the long-term situation. Of course, that's made harder by socking and by IP hoppers (who hide their identity by changing IPs frequently), so mistakes can easily be made. BMK (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Jayron32 confuses my question with a request for a ruling or even a discussion of my situation used as an example. It is not a question of whether or not I was or was not indeed blocked for a single edit, it is merely the example of how the implication was first presented and heard over time (That I have come to accept) that, even a single edit could be seen as an edit war or even as part of an edit war, whether even similar edits with any similar situations were present with the same editors. Simply put, is the premise that a single edit can be an edit war valid? Has it ever happened, could it ever happen and can you imagine a scenario where it is possible or is it an impossibility on the face of it.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Define "single edit" in an unambiguous way. Until we know what you mean by such a concept, we can't say whether or not you could be blocked for it. I am not, was not, and will not be (to cover all available tenses) referring to you or any situation you were in in any of my responses. The problem is "is <insert poorly defined term here> a blockable offense" is an unanswerable question. I have no idea (and still do not) what you mean by a "single edit". The only way I could know what you meant is if I had some examples, with history and context, to go by. Otherwise, there's no way to provide a meaningful answer to your question. In my experience, when a person claims they were "blocked for edit warring when they only made a single edit", there's one of two possibilities. Either they were actually unfairly blocked, or they are using a self-serving and inaccurate use of the concept of "single edit" to make it look like they weren't misbehaving when they were. Again, this has nothing to do with you. Just that we can't answer your question meaningfully for all cases. We need to assess every case on its own. --Jayron32 05:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) A simple definition of singular edit, without another edit within a 24 hr period to new content. Or a single revert of the reversion of adding content for example where the other editor objects (that still seems to be the most common example I can think of) deletes it and a revert is your first reversion of article in a 24 hr period (where only clearly there is just normal additional content being created that itself does not violate any policies guidelines or procedures) Could a singular edit itself with no other in 24 hours ever be seen as an edit war in any scenario? Or even a single "revert" after content creation....or any other possible way an administrator might see a possibility that a "single edit" could be seen (even if no block is given) as an edit war.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, yes. Imagine that a bunch of people are repeatedly reverting each other in that 24-hour period: if you're one of those people, you're participating in an edit war, even if you make just one edit, and even if you've never edited that page before. On the other hand, if it's just you and one other person, one edit by you can't be an edit war: even if you revert the other guy and he promptly reverts you, "it takes two to tango", and coming by just once isn't enough for an edit war. Note that I'm using "one edit" to mean one edit from the software's perspective: it only has one line in Special:Contributions/Mark Miller, the page history will display exactly one line with Mark Miller (talk | contribs | block), and your edit count through Special:Preferences is exactly one larger than if you'd not performed the edit. I have no comment on a situation where you make a series of edits, since the possibilities are virtually endless — I could only offer a comment on a specific situation. Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the very scenario you first mention may even have been used once in how a single edit can be seen as edit warring in a discussion I was part of once by someone. Participating in a large group, all reverting the same content back and forth and a single edit participates in that war and is how the tag team implication comes in play. OK, this seems to answer my question. I don't see this as being as important an issue as to ever have it part of anything official because in the long run its more like an essay, the opinion of various editors. I think there is some truth to it and some myth. That in some ways it is a technical count and can always be seen as a "single edit" that is one of many in the click of our edit count. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I recommend blocking (a short block) all involved in an edit war, over page protection. Page protection doesn't recognize acceptable vs unacceptable behaviours, and puts the warring editors on the same level as other editors trying to discuss. This would see a lot more collateral damage short blocks given to more-or-less innocent editors, but it takes very little investigation to find out that someone's single 1 hour block was a group remedy, and is not evidence of a problem editor, while an editor with a steady history of short blocks is probably appropriately labelled an editor with difficulty in collegiate editing. Mark Miller's short block log (three, averaging less than one per three years, and less than one per 10000 edits) is not evidence, per se, that he is a problem editor, or even unworthy for adminship. On the contrary, without making any effort to investigate any deeper, the lack of repeated blocks for the same reason suggests the valuable ability to learn. And the negotiated unblocks speak further to this. Generally, I think people take occasional short blocks too seriously, both in giving, and receiving. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I can follow your logic on how short blocks are better than page protection in many ways. If you look at this through the lens of dispute resolution I think, I might be inclined to look at the individual situation and if the number of involved weren't too high, ask for explanations of the edit before recommending a block. This is not always needed for more blatant efforts where the editor was involved in a discussion and they made a declaration that they were going to make that edit. And I appreciate the comments SmokeyJoe.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Mark has omitted the context: He really is just asking for a general policy statement, because this question is being discussed there. The policy says, "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". So one of the questions is, if you are innocently looking at diffs in Special:RecentChanges, and you happen to revert someone (perhaps a bit of peacocking, perhaps a bit of unexplained section blanking, perhaps some poor grammar) to an article that you have never edited before or since, are you edit warring? Well, no: the policy says "repeatedly", and you did not "repeatedly" edit the page.

Further: could you (legitimately) be punished for "edit warring" if other people were edit warring, without your knowledge? Imagine that this was the fourth or fifth time that the particular bit of peacocking text had been reverted that day. You had no idea, because you were just looking at RecentChanges. Should the actions of other users even be taken into account in determining your involvement? (NB that this is different from you knowing, e.g., because of talk page message, that an edit war was underway.)

Anyway, if this interests any of you, then please join the discussion at WT:EW. The ultimate goals are to figure out what, exactly, "a revert" is (because a few months ago, an admin went around here saying that any edit at all, after the one that created the page, was "technically a revert") and what, exactly, "an edit war" is (which should paradoxically be easier), but the current main question is whether a section titled "What edit warring is" should continue to claim that "Bold-revert" (with no discussion) is exactly the same thing as "Bold-revert-discuss". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion involving COFS

"The Arbitration Committee has resolved by Motion

Remedy 7 of the COFS arbitration case is vacated with immediate effect. Any extant enforcement actions taken under the remedy remain in force, and shall be treated as if they were imposed under standard discretionary sanctions authorized by remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case.

Archived discussion

Discuss this

For the Arbitration Committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)"

Possible IP range block needed?

I've been playing whack-a-vandal for some time with IP editors (probably just one) in the range of 2602:306:25A5:82A9:x:x:x:x. See, for example:

• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:89C3:D5E2:16EE:7F6E (talk · contribs)
• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:E8B0:326F:4521:D1E3 (talk · contribs)
• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:F806:74E7:8326:2FA0 (talk · contribs)
• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:F194:3DA1:C2CC:4BAE (talk · contribs)
• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:6519:693F:9012:6B9F (talk · contribs)
• 2602:306:25A5:82A9:186B:4C7E:B162:9666 (talk · contribs)

and that's just the past four days. There does not seem to be any letting up, even though I block on sight and protect the most-targetted pages.

Is a range block warranted for this group? I don't know much about them so I'm not about to try it myself. ... discospinster _talk 20:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is probably all one user. I've blocked 2602:306:25A5:82A9/64 for a week, to see how it goes. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast! ... discospinster _talk 00:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Another: 2602:306:25A5:82A9:7537:EDB7:D12E:D536 (talk · contribs) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This one should have been covered in the above range block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have now blocked that range for 2 days, Black Kite blocked 2602:306:0:0:0:0:0:0/64 instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that happened! Black Kite kite (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Will Any Administrator Here Consider Unblokcing me?

Block evasion, user is aware of proper unblocking procedures. -- John Reaves 13:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi. It's been a good long break since I last edited Wikipedia. I was permanently blokced but I'm asking an administrator here to consider lifting it. I recognize that I was ucnivil here and there in my editing of Wikipedia and I pledge to improve. I tried asking individual administrators to unblokc, but when one does, it gets dragged over here. I don't think that's right, but it is reality. If any of you consider this and communicate about it, I am sure you will run smack into my detractors. They will tell you things about me. I ask that you do not accept what they tell you about me as factual, without my being able to respond. This is a matter of basic human fairness. If you like you can unblokc me temporarily to discuss the question. I promise not to edit anything else but discussing the question. You can place a time limit on it, and I won't object when you revoke it at the time limit, no matter what. Thanks. Do not believe what anyone says about me before hearing also my self-defense. Signature forthcoming, unless I am reverted. PS: There is nothing at WP:EVADE that says evasion *must* be reverted. Whoever does it, it's on them, not policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.250.243.26 (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Every time you WP:EVADE a block, it resets the clock, if you were extended WP:OFFER, for another 6 months - as well as torpedos the chances of becoming unblocked. Unblock requests are to be made on your usertalk page of your named account. You cannot approach individual admins requesting unblocking as that's wholly appropriate the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I do not agree with what you say. Nothing in policy says that. Just because you are an administrator does not make your words law. Besides, I can't post to my talkpage. You are the administrator that told the one editor to "rot in the hell that is eternal blokc." That tells me something about you. It makes me not want to interact with you because I don't want the same treatment. Please step away and let another administrator handle it. Signature forthcoming, unless the thread is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.250.243.26 (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC) O Hai, Mr. Cosmic! In order to be "unblokced", per our unblokcing policy, please email snowballschancehell.com and a response will be forthwith!. --64.85.216.253 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Ok here's another completely uninvolved admin's opinion: you will not be unblocked while ever you are evading your block, each time you evade your block it makes admins less likely to be willing to consider (that is, bringing it to the community for discussion) unblocking you. I have blocked the IP address you used above for block evasion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Callanecc, I have no choice but to blokc evade to pursue being unblokced. I can explain this if you want to talk about it. I think really that you can put a mouse in a maze, and make the maze progressively more difficult by dropping in partitions here and there, but it becomes a bit unsporting when you leave no route at all to the cheese. And that is the maze where this mouse has been put. You blokced my IP above and that was your discretionary act, like I said nothing in WP:EVADE mandates that. I will try to signature in a bit if the thread is not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.145.247 (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC) From WP:EVADE "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked". As said above you need to follow the standard offer which means no block evasion for at least 6 months and then appeal to either WP:UTRS or WP:BASC. Until then any further edits by any account or IP address will be met with reverts, blocks and/or page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Callanecc, okay you are right and I was not on what WP:EVADE says re: IPs used to blokc evade. However I am right on the fact that WP:EVADE does *not* mandate reverting of the blokc-evading edits themselves. WP:OFFER is just an essay, and a lot of administrators won't go by that. Your idea that I should take six months and then go to UTRS or B@SC and ask them "now please bring me up at the administrator noticeboard, and we'll see how it progresses from there" is a far-fetched, fanciful, and cruel recommendation. I said in the first post above that I have taken a good long break already. I will tell you why I can't use UTRS. It is a privacy-invasive computer finger-printing system staffed by anonymous people, including some of those that have hounded me in the past. I can't subject myself to that for common-sense online privacy reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.145.247 (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC) No it doesn't however it does mandate blocking and a suggestion that the block/ban clock is reset. No you haven't taken a "good long break already" you're evading your block now and the recommended time is 6 months. Pretty much everyone on Wikipedia is anonymous the only difference is that UTRS collects your email address - those are your options if you continue to evade your block you will not be unblocked, period. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC) For the records, UTRS doesn't store any private data that MediaWiki does not. It's also under similar restrictive use requirements. And only developers who have database access and check users can even see any of that data. Furthermore, it hashes the data after a week preventing any of it from ever being retrieved. And lastly, no you arn't avoiding UTRS because of privacy reasons, you're avoiding UTRS because you were banned from it. You're only chance of being unblocked is by going to BASC. I speak for all administrators, we had a meeting </sarcasm>. We are all of one mind on this, block evasion will not ever get you unblocked. Period dot, there is nothing you could say that will change any of our minds on this matter. Your arguments above are meaningless. We don't care what your reasons and rationales are. Understand ours, you will not be unblocked while you are evading your block. If you want to be unblocked, we've lit the path with giant spot lights, it's WP:OFFER. Go away for six months without evasion. That's the only way. Your ability to follow WP:OFFER is what will demonstrate your ability to follow all other ENWP policies and guidelines. If you cannot follow WP:OFFER, we'll know you cannot follow the rest. It's that easy. Don't reply, don't argue, don't bother emailing anyone. Go away. Mark six months from this date on your calendar. Don't come back until the day after that, and when you do, send BASC an email and do not evade your block. That is the only way. If there is any administrator in the world who disagrees on this matter, they are sufficiently wise enough not to openly support you and dissent which is the practical equivalent of their agreement with us. Now go.--v/r - TP 19:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please disposition WP:ANRFC#WT:Shortcut.23Template_shortcuts

Please disposition WP:ANRFC#WT:Shortcut.23Template_shortcuts, which has been open for over one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: all of WP:AN/RFC is duplicated here at WP:AN so there is no need to place a separate duplicate request. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply - This request has been open for more than 30 days, so it is for that reason that I am listing it here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no indication that this even is an RFC, just a normal talk page discussion, so it should probably be removed from ANRFC. Fram (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it's just that is why nobody has attended to the request. I'd remove it myself, but as you can see I've already replied to Jax there. — Scott • talk 09:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking more clsely, ANRFC is not just for RFC, the "Requests for Closure" and "Requests for Comment" just share an acronym. Still, I see little there that can formally be closed. Fram (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply - With all of the RfDs taking place, it would be nice to have closure on the issue, so that people know what types of template redirects should be created and how. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A large number of articles reference a site which is now something else

silverbulletcomicbooks.com is referenced in 157 articles. [16] The links to reviews and news no longer work, it just a page advertising something, the type of thing you see tossed up whenever someone buys an expired domain. An administrator needs to use their tools to eliminate all those links at once. Dream Focus 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There aren't really any admin tools that will help with this, per se; this sounds to my uneducated ear like a job for AWB, so you might have better luck at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Many of these are external links, and these can just be removed; doing so is not an administrator-specific task. Those that are used as references should not simply be removed. Please see https://archive.org/web/ and refer to Wikipedia:Link rot#Repairing a dead link and Help:Using the Wayback Machine.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Use Special:LinkSearch/*.silverbulletcomicbooks.com to search for external links. However, I have used the API to list all articles (only) which contain one or more such links, see User:Johnuniq/sandbox (permalink). I don't have time for it at the moment, but such a list can be fed into AWB. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Dream Focus: It appears that silverbulletcomicbooks.com is now comicsbulletin.com, but there is no simple way to determine the new URL. See Comics Bulletin. For example, I made this edit by using the given archive.org link to find the old text, then searching for some of the text on the new website (confusingly, I left the archive.org link as it seemed undesirable to remove it). In other words, silverbulletcomicbooks should not just be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting for a ban to be lifted (sincerity entailed)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Half a year (actually a bit longer) ago, I underwent a most unfortunate experience and made a few regrettable mistakes, which resulted in me getting blocked indefinitely, topic-banned from editing race-related articles, mainspace creation of articles and getting involved with the DYK? project. I am deeply remorseful for what I have done. Thankfully, I have since been unblocked my a most magnanimous administrator. I will not ask for my topic ban on race to be lifted. It is only the bans on mainspace article creation and nomination of articles at DYK which I wish to be removed, as the former poses a great inconvenience on my editing, and limits what I can contribute to this project, while the latter lowers readership. Please recognise my ability to produce fine, non-controversial content and re-empower me with this right. I believe strongly that I have reformed. Additionally, is this the right platform to make this request? Cheers and love, --☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: The opening statement above has been modified slightly because of the good point raised that DYK ban is not an inconvenience. I phrased it loosely and I have since corrected the sentence. A hyperlink has also been added per a suggestion by DangerousPanda. Please view rev history. Thanks ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Bonkers' new "peace and forgiveness" mantra doesn't move me much. To create an article like Eat Frozen Pork and then rush off to nominate it for a DYK right after its creation seems a perfect example of precisely why this restriction is in place. Doc talk 09:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please understand that it is natural for it to have slipped my mind. Now that it is clarified, I will honour the ban and wait for something to be reached. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, Bonkers should have linked to this in their opening statement ... but I can understand why they would want to try and ignore it. the panda ₯’ 09:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I will. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you claim that a ban on nominating articles at DYK "poses a great inconvenience on my editing, and limits what I can contribute to this project."? Not being allowed to create articles directtly in the mainspace is a minor (and well-deserved) inconvenience, but DYK? Fram (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am happy enough if the mainspace ban can be lifted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that Bonkers the Clown edited his opening post after my reply here, making it inadvertently seem as if I replied to a non-existent claim he made. Anyway, you are straight of an indef block, wouldn't it be a lot better if you first showed six months of problem-free editing before you attempted to get any restrictions lifted as well? Fram (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

But this would be most ideal for me. I was hoping you could agree that I can be trusted to treasure this restriction-lifting. I promise to be a good editor and I just request to be able to create pages directly to mainspace, to make my life easier. However, if nobody is convinced, I am most fine with waiting. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would I agree that you can be trusted? You have been given a final chance to show us that you can be trusted, you haven't given us any compelling reason to believe that that is true though so far. Convince us with your editing, not with promises. Fram (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - it has been 2 days since your indef block was lifted; show 6 months of clean editing and we might consider it. The fact you had to put "sincerity entailed" in your request header says it all, really. GiantSnowman 12:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that I'm trying to be nicer, you doubt my sincerity. That cuts me deep, Snowman. It really does. :( ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for Eat Frozen Pork, I enjoyed that. When I find the right buttons, I intend to re-nominate it for DYK.

You should not have created an article or DYKed it whilst under such a topic ban though. I expect (given the antipathy towards you) to see you indeffed for having done so. I'm against that, I'd like to see you return - however not like this. It's the flaunting of an existing ban that's more of an issue than any problem with the article you created.

Is there any support for relaxing the ban here so that article creation would be permitted, but only within the draft: namespace? (or your userspace) That allows you to contribute productively, yet provides a review mechanism and doesn't remove the topic ban altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I forgot about it. Editing has always been my joy, and I am glad my work is appreciated by some. Guess you can't please everybody though. Or, I could submit it through AFC. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked you, Bonkers. Everyone deserves a 43rd chance. Happy editing! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What are you going on about, Lugnuts? He isn't blocked, you haven't unblocked him; you can't even unblock someone, not being an admin. Fram (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad joke. :( ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No joking. This place is serious business! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Jokes are allowed but are supposed to be funny, not simply confusing. The fun of claiming to have unblocked an editor who was already unblocked but asks for the lifting of some topic bans totally escapes me. Fram (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The "funny" part is "43rd chance" ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm prepared to re-block for making significant changes to his "opening statement" after it had already been replied to multiple times, thus changing the meaning of the replies the panda ₯’ 13:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you wish for me to show the diffs or something? I was wanting to clarify my point, having realised that the phrasing was awkward. It's only one line, not the entire thing. Plus, the link I added was per your suggestion! Does even that warrant a block? :( ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose primarily via GiantSnowman. Too soon. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The question of editing restrictions ought to have been addressed before the user was unblocked. At the moment, I see no reason why the topic ban should be lifted. Far from expressing "sincerity" and "remorse", comments like these are sarcastic and suggest that the user has learnt little, if anything, from their experiences.

  Frankly, I think that the indefinite block should have been brought here for review. Given that the block was issued by community consensus, and that the user engaged in CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppetry after it was imposed, I do not consider the unilateral unblock especially prudent. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 14:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It's often hard to distinguish sincerity from sarcasm when a returning editor constructs an entire article out of a government advertising campaign that lasted perhaps two months and had no lasting effects, then nominates it for a DYK. But I'm more perturbed by the confidence verging on WP:OWN of today's[17] NACs and deletion of content from multiple articles, with comments such as "There is too much primary school crap", "trigger happy massacre of all crappy articles. Begone, non-notable pri. schools" and "i pity whoever drummed this up but that's life". I would have hoped that an editor offered WP:ROPE would not be so quick to claim authority. NebY (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now In line with thoughts of others, I'd like to see months of editing before entertaining a request for a removal of the restrictions. Promises are good, demonstrations are better.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – Let's take this one step at a time, slowly. While your contribs are appreciated, Bonkers, two days is too early to gain trust. Wait another three to six months and then ask again. Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I wanted to see what it was that led to the block so I followed some links here, and what I see is an editor who was first blocked for using offensive racial epithets, violated their very reasonable unblock conditions in a most egregious fashion by creating topic-banned articles with highly inappropriate names, and was indef'd again for BLP violations which the user appears to have added on purpose in order to sensationalize. The user has vigorously defended all of these actions, only backing down when a significant community reaction has been stirred up. And as SuperMarioMan points out, this user engaged in sockpuppetry to WP:EVADE a community-imposed block. Why should we believe now that this user is here to build an encyclopedia? The restrictions on mainspace article creation and DYK nomination are a highly appropriate response to this user's very serious infractions, and I support reviewing the decision to unblock. Ivanvector (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose His sarcastic comments on the admin who unblocked him really surprised me...Sincere apologies for forgetting something stated more than 180 days ago to quote one....surely that's not the way you need to behave if you want to continue here!! ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 16:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose DYK is but of many many areas to edit at WikiP. Try visiting those other venues and then ask again in 6 months. MarnetteD | Talk 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem - Regardless of the result of the above discussion, someone seems to have actually unblocked Bonkers, who has gone on a rampage of bad reviewing at AFC. Such bad reviewing was a major factor in the block being imposed in the first place months ago. Please check that the block is actually still on place and effective. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

BTC was unblocked prior to this AN request; this request was not about an unblock, but about also removing a topic ban. However, based on this new disruption, I've reblocked him indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Babysitter sought for RfD

This isn't a specific request for closure, so I thought I'd leave it here rather than ANRFC or ANI. I'm going to be on vacation from June 9–24. Wikipedia will survive, I suspect. But lately, I've become the unofficial dean of WP:RFD. I don't say this as a matter of pride, and I appreciate every ounce of effort expended by other closers, admin or not. It's just that I've been doing most of the closes for a little while now, which can also be problematic since I participate in a fair number of discussions too. (I hope this doesn't sound terribly vain or OWNy. I'm sure if I just dropped off the map, someone would step up to the task.)

I would love to get a few more admins interested in RFD on a more full-time basis, but just having someone minding the shop while I'm gone would be great. Never worked at RFD before? I'd be happy to give you a crash course. It's not too difficult, I promise! --BDD (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The Pistol: The Birth of a Legend recreation

The Pistol: The Birth of a Legend was previously WP:CSDed. Could somebody compare the current stub to the prior article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's significantly different, but be aware that the deletion before was based on notability, and the sourcing on this is very weak (not very reliable sources). --MASEM (t) 03:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It is marginally notable. If it wasn't for the recent modest accolade after the Blu-ray came out, I would not have recreated it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

History merge requested

Resolved

De728631 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I've been working on history merges for categories (now that moves are possible). I ran into one which I think I shouldn't do in order to avoid the appearance of COI: Category:Palestine-related stubs to Category:Palestine stubs. What I've been doing is fairly simple - restoring the old category (in this case, all revisions), moving to the new name (while deleting the current page there), deleting the newly moved page (to "disappear" the new move-caused revision, to avoid confusing the history), and restoring all the revisions but the last. I would do that here, if not for the appearance of COI. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. My first time histmerging a category though, so let me know if I've messed anything up. Also wasn't sure if I should be leaving the previous title (in this case Category:Palestine-related stubs) as a redirect or deleting it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, although I would delete the redirect (since the original state is that the old name no longer exists) - that's what I've been doing (see the category entries in my move log. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Request for topic ban lift

No convincing arguments have been presented to lift a recently enacted topic ban. Unless evidence of misconduct in the banning discussion can be shown, the ban won't be lifted. De728631 (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Hi,

I was recently topic banned from the Ta-Nehisi Coates pages.[[18]] This was due to what was described as persistent efforts to insert material against consensus.

Before the ban, I had stated that I would accept the results of the RfC regarding the content, and if I didn't, I would support a ban myself.[[19]]

I am requesting the topic ban be lifted, with the pledge that I will not edit any of the related pages, ever. Enforcement should be easy because the page is watched and editors are quick to note any change. I have never violated any admin's order. I assure you I am done with this issue.

I believe this is a better, more amicable solution because 1. it achieves exactly the same result, 2. with no need for sanctions, 3. allows the people concerned to know that the page will not be touched, and 4. allows me to know I had my chance to hold an RfC and have my views heard, without the added stigma of a ban.

I think this is a way for the situation to end satisfactorily for everyone. Thank you. Useitorloseit (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Two initial thoughts on this, without having read that ANI thread: 1) You have been topic-banned for literally less than 24 hours. An appeal brought this fast is almost never going to fly unless you can show that there was misconduct of some sort in the procedure of that ban being imposed. 2) You want to be un-topic-banned so you can...never edit anything in the topic again? So basically no change to what's already the case? Why is this a change that needs to be made? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a waiting period for appeals, but I guess I was just hoping to deal with this whole thing quickly and move on. I think due to the fact that there had been 3-3 consensus split about my eariler edits, and my pledge not to edit the page anymore, there would be support for agreeing to let this end in an amicable way without the need for sanctions. If things can end peaceably, why not let them? Useitorloseit (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I started reading this, wondering how long the ban has been in effect. As the sandwich says, unless you are alleging misconduct in the ban, this is a waste of our time and ought to be closed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

East Germany

No admin action needed here. Please start a move discussion at the article. De728631 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

In 25 years the political landscape has changed. I merely watched the ongoing conflict about East Germany vs German Democratic Republic. We now are in the year 2014 and the GDR is in the past, the term “East Germany” today refers to a geographical part of the FRG, this should be considered. I would therefore support that the Lemma East Germany should be changed into German Democratic Republic. The Term “east Germany” may reflect the area that was once the GDR, but it reflects a different reality within the FRG today.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This would not be an uncontroversial move, so admins can't move it unilaterally. The best thing to do is to start a formal move discussion on the relevant talk page; WP:RM has instructions on how to do that. 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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

User requesting unblock

This user User_talk:Deass#May_2014_2 is requesting a review. I am still unclear if they understand copyright and am having trouble with their English. They have made statements like "Come on, I'd like to threaten some of this is taking the piss. i'd like my money back, or i'll put someone on the bomb" which I have no idea the meaning. Also concerns of sockpuppetry.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Competence is required. There's really nothing we can do here. -- John Reaves 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• This may put things in perspective. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• I removed a 'tlx' from Deass's unblock request to make it active, but can't see any reason why we should consider unblock. The stream of warnings on his talk page indicates he would be in constant need of advice if he continues working here and is unlikely to take advice if it is given. His unblock says, "I don't know about legal/copyright matters. It's not my job to know about that." This is a case of WP:Competence is required. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it might help a lot if the editor indicated which, if any, is his native or local form of English. It might be useful in helping him get some sort of mentoring, and a mentor might help him to a degree with acceptable English around here. Without that information, however, I really wonder if there is anything that could reasonably be done to address the issues which seem to have led to the existing block. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Mentoring may be useful; short of that, however, I see no reason to unblock this user unless we can find some red line that this user can be trusted not to cross, which would keep him/her reasonably in line with our copyright policy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Uh, guys? This edit is a clear threat of harm, and this is not the only one on their talk page (see bomb comment above). Request admins take appropriate action immediately. Ivanvector (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  As for the user's other actions, their response to the block suggests they have no interest in learning our policies and will continue copy-pasting copyvios and synthesizing from sources. They don't get it, and that's enough reason to turn down the unblock request. Ivanvector (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

BAC Drone / B.A.C. Drone

Why can i not open the articles of this name which I know are in Wikipedia??? I fail to see why a 1930s light aircraft can have any contentious issues!!!!!!!!!!! A reasonable answer would be appreciated as the last enquiry seems to have been ignored!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem? British Aircraft Company Drone seems to open ok for me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, works fine for me too. @Petebutt: can you describe what you're experiencing? Ansh666 14:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite; both the suggested titles are redirects to British Aircraft Company Drone, and work just fine. Also, to head something off at the pass (given the OP's editing history): Pete, if you're considering moving the page's current title to one of the shortened ones, please do not, as "B.A.C." in common useage refers to an entirely different, later, company. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting assistant with removal of reliable sources by POV-pushing user

User:Qizilbash123 has been repeatedly removing material backed by reliable sources and inserting claims by unreliable sources in The Stoning of Soraya M. article. In his latest edit he has removed material backed by The New York Times and The Daily Mail and instead has inserted material from blogs such as [20] and [21].

Please arbitrate! - Marmoulak (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Marmoulak, I explained my edits on talking page, and inside of article I backed it by two Iranian sources, expert from Amnesty International, and two film critics including Pulitzer-awarded Wesley Morris. You simply removed it all without any discussion, twice. You're also forcing WP:FRINGE material in this article, even removing NPOV tag (calling it as "garbage") and commanding others what to do. Unseen arrogance. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it for administrators to judge. The POV blogs your have added as sources do not meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And the other sources you have added don't dispute the fact that the film is based on a true event, they just criticize how this true event is presented in the film - Marmoulak (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Qizilbash123 has been also removing material backed by reliable sources here. He calls Reuters and Daily Mail POV and "disident" sources (his words!), and refers to them as WP:FRINGE! - Marmoulak (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please also see discussions here and here - Marmoulak (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Marmoulak, both Iranian and some Western critics deny film is based on "true events". It's actually based on book, written by monarchist Freidoune Sahebjam, your ideological pal. Not even strongly anti-IRI Amnesty International support his claims. You're obivously forcing one-sided view based on your ideology, and the same goes with fringe theories about the richest man on Earth. As I said on talk page, it reminds me of anti-Semitic conspiracies about "Rotschild's trillions". --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No reliable source denies that the book is based on a true stoning event that took place in Iran: The Guardian, Daily Mail, NPR, Yahoo News nytimes - Marmoulak (talk)

It's just repeating claims from movie and book (I mentioned to Eric days ago that there are hundreds of sources like that), not significant and does not change fact that story is disputed. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Authors of former claims are Babak Dehghanpisheh and Yeganeh Torbati, sort of disidents as I said, and beside it's not reliable it's also mispresented by you because you confuse "economic control" with "net worth". --Qizilbash123 (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

According to all the sources, Khamenei has amassed $95 billion dollars and is using it for his personal gain. This is his net worth: WSJ, Telegraph - Marmoulak (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it to administrators to judge the validity of the Reuters investigation. Your POV is irrelevant - Marmoulak (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "I'll leave it to administrators to judge the validity of the Reuters investigation" That's not what we do. As far as content goes, administrators are just editors - just like you two. You two gotta work out the content disputes yourself or get a third opinion.--v/r - TP 03:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration is needed when a POV-pushing user is waging edit wars - Marmoulak (talk)

Third opinion is needed for sure in both cases. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It must be noted that user Marmoulak broke WP:3RR with removing neutrality tag:

(cur | prev) 03:57, 6 June 2014‎ Marmoulak(talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,525 bytes) (-24)‎ . .(Undid revision 611771616 by Qizilbash123 (talk) - rv false tag) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 02:37, 6 June 2014‎ Marmoulak(talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,525 bytes) (-24)‎ . .(Undid revision 611762683 by Qizilbash123 (talk) - rv) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 01:28, 6 June 2014‎ Marmoulak(talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,525 bytes) (-24)‎ . .(removing garbage tag) (undo | thank)

--Qizilbash123 (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's 3RR not 2RR! - Marmoulak (talk)

• Comment: this has mostly been resolved already (or neutral editors are working on it) on the talk page. Recommend speedy close, warn both editors re: WP:EDITWAR, WP:3RR, WP:GODWIN, etc., and let the discussion play out where it's supposed to, but block both editors if they start reverting again before this is settled. Ivanvector (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Kenji Miyazawa

Could someone please remind the IP user 126.0.96.220 who by his own words also is aka this user it is not okay to simply delete referenced material again and again? --Catflap08 (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, believes that the statement you added is not supported by the reference you cite so bring it to the talk page instead of crying wolf at AN, which is not the place to bring up disputes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Also of note, Catflap08 intentionally posted this on a semi-protected noticeboard (WP:ANI is presently not protected) to force Hijiri88 to log in, which he is currently not wont to do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Without getting into the IP's specifics, this is clearly a content dispute, not an admin matter. There's no reason for it to be taken here, where the IP can't participate without logging in. Back to the talk page, please, and seek dispute resolution if necessary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

PC2

Any thoughts on my closing statement, or Jc's? I just need feedback from Jc on one or two words before we publish it to the RfC page, but I'm open to suggestions, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Just browsing through, it looks alright. Though I'm gonna hijack this for just a brief moment to ask; if I see a page protected by PC2 (that isn't Conventional PCI), where would I go/ask about that as there's no consensus to use it? Tutelary (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that half a dozen other articles have also had PC2 applied apparently as IAR actions. See [22]. BethNaught (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The last discussion I see on PC2 at WT:RFPP is WT:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_8#PC_level_2.3F, and I think periodic questions on PC2 would be welcome there. There are occasional requests for PC2 at WP:ANI, and it's occasionally granted per IAR. I try to keep up with what people are planning on PC2; feel free to drop me a line anytime. And of course, you can ask the admin who added PC2 protection. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. My hijack is over, I just got confused because the protection policy said no consensus to use, yet...using it! ^^ Tutelary (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Articles for deletion (June 3, 2014)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Somebody carelessly closed discussion on numerous open AFDs for 3 June 2014. One AFD (One Magnificent Morning) was withdrawn, and when closing out, someone closed out all of the subsequent following AFDs, most but not all of which were still open as they were only three days old (see [23]). Quis separabit? 23:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki backlog

Hi Admin(s), I am trying to assist in clearing some backlog items, specifically pages with incorrect ref fomatting and have come across many admin NB, RFC etc with a cite error (or reported as a cite error), can I with your permission(s) clear these, I am able to do so without adjusting the actual contents of the discussions. For your approval. The Original Filfi (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't need permission, except in a technical sense, if a page is fully protected. Just go ahead and do as many as you want, and feel free to come back here (or go to WP:RFPP) for help with any that are fully protected. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, thank for the reply, however I should clarify, the main admin NB and RFC etc that are on this listing are archive boards and there is the standard top banner saying "This is a closed archive of past submissions. Do not edit the contents of this page." and the like. My intention is to fix the ref or hide the ref text whichever is most appropriate solution for each entry, without removing or changing any of the actual discussion text and points. With the above in mind, is it still ok for me to go ahead and clear these. Kind regards. The Original Filfi (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The point of the message is that you shouldn't add content, remove sections, fix spelling, etc., but there's nothing wrong with a minor edit to remove the page from an error category. I made a few such edits (example), using edit summaries such as "Clearing Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting" lest someone question my action; I doubt anyone will complain if you do the same. Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion that folks here might be interested in contributing to

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Reversion_of_vandalism_compared_to_five_years_ago. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian Turanism and User:Maghasito

USer:Maghasito try to spread of pseudo science, the so-called Hungarian Turanism , which is now a politically motivated chauvinist pseudo-science from the 19th century and a core agenda of far right Jobbik party and ww2 nazi Arrow Cross Party . There are not a single contemporary scholar (academics university professors) linguistics, historian population geneticist on this planet, who support that fantasy theory. Wikikpedia is a free encyclopedia, however it is not the place of the popularization of pseudo-scientific politically-motivated fantastic nonsenses. The best option would be the permanent ban of Maghasito. --Dosemark (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Moved from WT:AN. GiantSnowman 11:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Evidence, please? Unsubstantiated allegations that someone's trying to spread Nazi=like ideas will not be tolerated. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A thread concerning Hungarian Turanism was archived recently: [24]. Avpop (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Can we please have some administrative eyes on this issue and on the behaviour of the original poster here (Dosemark). I have redacted this personal attack on and speculation about the identity of another editor which he posted both on my talk page and Talk:Hungarian Turanism and warned him. But I fear it is falling on deaf ears. Voceditenore (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Dosemark for personal attacks, including this edit summary and this edit summary, and attempts at outing, such as this edit. Please let me know if he switches to any of the older accounts listed on the user page or pops up again with a new user name. You could also file a report at WP:SPI if that happens. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Diannaa, thank you for blocking Dosemark, he was kind of turbulent. However it is quite obvious that Dosemark is a sockpuppet himself, the sock master being User:Stubes99. The argumentation includes extra-wiki evidence, and I hope it's not a problem with that. So:

• User:Stears555 and User:Stears81 are confirmed socks of User:Stubes99
• I've found a user named Stears on a forum where he labels somebody as an idiot from uneducated proletarian worker class family just like Dosemark who affirms that Maghasito belongs to a worker class family (as most of the Turanist believers. On the forum Stears talks about the pseudo-scientific turan fantasy just like Dosemark who states that Turanism is a pseudo-scientific politically-motivated fantastic nonsense Avpop (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's possible but I don't find the evidence compelling enough to file at WP:SPI. Please do so yourself if you wish. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

One-second blocks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What's the panel's view on one-second blocks? What are they intended to achieve, and aren't they contrary to the received wisdom that blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Corbett (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If you could please give us some more information, that would be swell. I highly doubt this is a hypothetical situation. GiantSnowman 21:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Having been blocked as many times as I have it's hard to keep track, but on 5 November 2009 I (Malleus Fatuorum) was blocked by Georgewilliamherbert for ten seconds.[25] What was that supposed to achieve? Eric Corbett 21:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• The one second block on your account was only so the Crat could point to the new name of the account you took. Eric Corbett was already taken, so he usurped it, ie: changed it's name, then make you an account under the old (but now vacant) name, then link back to the usurped name in case anyone comes looking via the 1 second block. In this unusual circumstance, it seems perfectly logical. As for other uses, such as when an admin think you are being a bad boy, I would call a seconds long block a dick move worthy of sanction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  But the dicks don't get sanctioned, only the proles. Eric Corbett 21:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking purely from a policy standpoint (not in regards to any specific situation), I can't see how a one-second block would be anything but punitive, and as blocks should be preventative, I would say that one-second blocks are inherently against policy. As I can't think of a good scenario in which they would be OK per IAR, then I am going to say they are bad. Go Phightins! 21:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You would need more detail, which it so happens I have since I was involved. One of his one second blocks was a necessary function of usurping accounts (so it seems). The other, on his previous account (thus not in his current block log) was not kosher. That is why I qualified my response. As always, the key is "motivation" for the block log entry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

    You also need to factor in GWH's 10-second block I linked to above. Eric Corbett 21:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

    I've said on more than one occasion that this isn't an acceptable use of the block tool as it is purely punitive, to put a "mark" on your record, but that is too stale to bring up for action now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

    If I was asking for action I'd be posting at ANI, not here. Eric Corbett 21:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

    I worded it poorly. I knew you weren't looking for action. I'm saying if it were fresh, I would be very open to starting an action as I find that kind of block objectionable as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Except for situations such as Dennis has described where momentary blocks are necessary to link accounts w/ stuff like usurpation for bureaucratic purposes, I wouldn't imagine there would be a single instance where a one second type block would be worthwhile (and if someone was making one second blocks to give people a punitive scarlet letter type thing, I'd second Dennis in viewing it as a dick move worthy of sanction.) I don't understand GWH's block at first glance at all, and would be curious to see his rationale for it if he remembers five years later (though wouldn't favor sanctioning him over a five year old questionable block, of course - far too stale.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  Curious. There is a series of high-profile trials taking place here in the UK involving well-known entertainers who are accused of abusing young girls and women during the 1960s and '70s. The police didn't say "Oh, that happened a long time ago, doesn't matter now". Eric Corbett 21:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  Eric, you are a very smart person, so I'm going to assume that you know that in the real world, different crimes have different statutes of limitations in different jurisdictions, and that these are spelled out specifically in legal codes. Here is the U.S., for instance, there is no statute of limitations on murder, so those cases can be kept open forever, while other crimes, especially financial ones, lapse after a specified time. I'm assuming that in the U.K. the statute of limitations on the crimes you speak of have not lapsed.

  Of course, the real-world situation has nothing to do with any "statute of limitations" on Wikipedia, because nothing is specifically spelled out, and different people will interpret "stale" to mean vastly different things under different circumstances. There's no real general consensus on what is and isn't "too long ago", so it all depends on the willingness of any one admin to act. BMK (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

And in any case, there is a rather obvious difference between sexually abusing children and briefly blocking an account on a website. Eric needs to acquire a sense of proportion. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Uh, by the way, not to be a pedant, but the one-second block in the block log for Eric Corbett isn't because Eric's account was usurped. It was usurped (the account that was originally named Eric Corbett is now at Eric Corbett (usurped)), but that's not the reason for the log entry. The log entry is because Eric's original account, Malleus Fatuorum, wasn't actually renamed; it was simply abandoned, and the account Eric Corbett started in its place after the usurp. That disjoint account history is the reason for the block log entry; the fact that the current name happened to have been usurped doesn't really matter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Writ Keeper, then why does the link go to the usurped account and not Eric's old account? That doesn't make sense. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmm, you're right; I didn't look closely at the URL and though it was liking to the Malleus account. That indeed doesn't make sense; it's not part of the usurpation process that I know of at least. Shoulda kept my mouth shut. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I had assumed it was to link back to the original account, which was a vandal, and Eric was taking over an account because he had too many edits for a traditional move. Why else link to the old account? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh, I'm sure that's why it was done; I have no doubt that it was purely meant to be informative. I certainly don't think there was anything like ill-will behind it. I just don't know why that bit of information was deemed necessary enough to create a block log entry for; it's not standard procedure as far as I know. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

          Ill will is my explanation, but obviously YMMV. Eric Corbett 22:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

          • The only reason I rule it out is because I know Will reasonable well, made the original request of him, and talked with him during the process. Plus he and I spoke almost daily back then, before he left Wikipedia. I've talked to him more than any other person at Wikipedia, period. I checked my emails from that time and don't see any discussion of it at that time. I can't say there is zero chance it was ill will, but I see zero evidence it was and have good reason to believe it wasn't. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I believe (but can't currently confirm) that users with one-second blocks in their history correlate with users who are remembered in the village stocks. Ivanvector (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, you learn something new every day - I have never seen Wikipedia:Village stocks before. Just deciding if that page is in poor enough taste to warrant nuking. Or is it funny. Shit, could be a powderkeg. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Eric, using the moniker Malleus_Fatuorum, took the the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia so well he made more edits than the account rename function could actually handle, so when he decide to man up and use his real name onwiki, the normal rename option was not available for his account. After bureaucrat discussion, it was decided that he should just start a new account. Despite the fact that User:Malleus Fatuorum redirects to User:Eric Corbett, and User:Eric Corbett clearly identifies his prior account, it was deemed very very important that the permanent record of his past misdeeds (real or alleged) as Malleus Fatorum be transcribed to his new account. Hence the one second block. NE Ent 22:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• • No. Nowhere in that block entry does it mention Malleus, it only mentions the usurped account. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, if you're going to argue using facts... NE Ent 22:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Casliber, please note the "Nominations" section — nobody's allowed to be included at the Village Stocks without their permission. It's meant to be humorous, and if you get sent there, you're always free to remove yourself. I'm still amazed I wasn't sent there after accidentally causing this incident (documentation) in early 2013. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Ye-eah, except that means some whoppers won't get recorded - I get that it's only supposed to be humorous but....anyway, I'll probably forget about it now for years.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
          • There's actually a very old discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:Village stocks if you're really interested in opening it up again. I see it as the ultimate WP:TROUT - everyone there acknowledged that they made some kind of huge blunder and gave their consent to be included. Ivanvector (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• One-second blocks occasionally used to declare that a previous block was unjust, when it has already expired (otherwise, an unblock would be used). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen such blocks used in the past to add annotations to a block log, usually to clarify that a block was revoked or vacated by the community after it had expired. I don't think that particular type of use is improper. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

I agree. The only reason to perform a one-second block is to record something in the block log, as a substitute for the fact that we can't add comments any other way. I can't imagine a circumstance in which such a block, per se, would be wrong. The appropriateness of any one-second block depends on whether such a message should be recorded in the block log, so we have to judge each instance separately. Nyttend (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question on if a proper admin action

The Last Guardian has been a highly anticipated game that has been in development hell, but until March this year have been told its coming. With E3, the big video game show due out next week, people were expecting news, but tonight a normally-reliable source claims it has been cancelled [26] but based on reports from an internal meeting at Sony (the publishers). This to me feels like rumor mongering on the eve of the show.

Already there are new editors and IPs making changes based on this source, as well as vandalism changes (if true, this becomes the biggest vaporware title in a long time, so people are tagging it as such). I, as one that has maintained the article for all this time, feel its better to wait to get word from the mouth of Sony than from IGN's second/third-hand report. As such I have submitting the page for request for semi-prot protection simply because I feel this one source is far from key, and we'll have better news within the week (heck, even last year's E3, one spokesman mispoke that the game was cancelled to be corrected within the hour by another rep).

So I'm following all the proper channels to avoid claims of admin abuse but I wonder if myself, as both admin and a key page maintainer, were to place the protection myself if that is abusing admin power, or, as I thought it better, trying to avoid disruption until we're sure of things. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(And FWIW, my gut was right : a Sony rep got on Twitter right away to counter the cancellation claim). --MASEM (t) 06:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if you've got any doubt, it's probably best to have someone else do it, unless it was something that required urgent attention like a BLP article. In this case, it's all moot since User:Casliber has gone and protected it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC).

• • If it were obvious and ongoing *hard* vandalism, it wouldn't be controversial, but since this is a bit more in the grey area, I think submitting it is the best thing to do. It isn't just about it being a conflict of interest, it is about it appearing to be a conflict of interest to do so. Looks like Casliber already took care of it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

BAG membership nomination

Per the bot policy, I am making this post to inform the community of a request for BAG membership. Please feel free to ask any questions/comment there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit filter for refdesk troll?

Not sure how the Edit Filter works, but could anyone look into seeing if the pattern of edits displayed by our current refdesk troll is the sort of thing the edit filter could recognize and stop? Three recent accounts used by said troll are here:

• Lastwine123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Overone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Minky543 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The pattern is fairly easy to recognize here, and in the interest of WP:BEANS i'd rather not give too much away, but is this the sort of thing we can set up an edit filter to catch? --Jayron32 18:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin removing content

I am reporting a disagreement with Nikkimaria who has done something rather strange. We have the File:Flag of Winnipeg.svg and File:Crest of Winnipeg.svg hosted on Commons in the SVG format. However this admin has uploaded PNG copies of these two images (File:Flag of Winnipeg.png & File:Crest of Winnipeg.png) at greatly reduced resolution and under non-free licenses. They have also repeatedly replaced the Commons SVGs with these PNG copies on 3 articles ("Winnipeg", "Flag of Winnipeg" and "Coat of arms of Winnipeg"). In each removal, they only cite "licensing problems". I have initiated a discussion on their talk page trying to understand their reasoning. I have attempted to explain that the images hosted on Commons both have licenses and that they have already been under DR process and it was determined that the licenses were valid. I also asked if this admin doubts the validity of those licenses, why they wouldn't go to Commons and nominate them for a second time. Instead of addressing this, they simply say there is no requirement to use Commons files (something I did not state or infer) and that the Commons files do not meet Wikipedia's standards. It should be noted again that except for the difference in SVG and PNG format both versions are the same thing. This admin speaks nebulously and refuses to address any of my questions. I believe they are improperly altering content without any benefit or positive end. Because of their status as an administrator, I require greater attention and possible intervention in this matter. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Nikki's comment that the images in question have obviously false licensing details on Commons is entirely correct (the uploaders falsely claimed to be the copyright holders). As such, she's also entirely correct to remove them from being used here: we try to avoid using images under a copyright cloud at Commons, or where this can be reasonably be expected to be the case. Rather than attempting to understand Nikki's reasoning as you claim, you have actually been ignoring her responses and hectoring her. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As I have explained several times now, the images underwent the DR process and it was determined they are not copyright violations. Commons has the exact same copyright concerns as Wikipedia, if not stricter ones considering copyrighted material can not be hosted there. As these images are on Commons and were determined to be acceptable, there is no perceivable reason why they should not be used on Wikipedia. This is not a simple answer of somebody uploading images on Commons under false claims, they have already faced scrutiny on that basis. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is that any admin can unilaterally remove Commons images from Wikipedia based on their own personal opinions on the licensing status, ignoring any other information such as that provided in DRs or other discussions, and use their administrator status to forcefully exclude these images. That makes no sense. If you believe these images are copyright violations, there are channels to go through, both Commons and Wikipedia have DR processes for images under a variety of grounds, users do not unilaterally get to decide "it is a violation and I will not allow it to be used". Fry1989 ^eh? 03:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, abusing me as well is really going to help your cause. You were the only person to think that the images are clearly OK in the deletion nomination, and did not respond to Nikki's request for evidence to support your argument (instead you posted charming stuff like this abuse). The other editor who commented there was focused only on the criteria which applied and did not comment on whether the images in question met them or not. That the DR was closed as 'keep' says more about the lack of activity in Commons' processes and the judgement of some of its admins than anything else, and it seems entirely sensible to not use these images on Wikipedia. It's also unclear to me why this matter is on this board: Nikki has not been using her admin tools, and this is a disagreement over copyright matters. Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And falsely calling something abuse when it is not helps nothing either. I asked a question about why we shouldn't use these images from Commons and it was not directly answered, instead I get a completely different tangent about "we have no requirement to" and "they don't meet our standards" which could mean anything from quality to accuracy to sources to yes their licensing. And why is this on this noticeboard? Because discussing it on the article talk pages would do nothing, I attempted discussing it on the user talk page and got cryptic responses, it was not edit warring, it was not vandalism, so I don't know anywhere else I could raise this matter to the attention of others than here. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This truly is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a while. An admin unilaterally decides that Commons files are "not acceptable", I ask for clarification on why, and when I describe the response I receive as either indirect or cloudy, I get accused of personal attacks, and I also get accused of abusing someone for stating the fact that we do have normal channels and processes for matters like this, instead of unilateral decisions. Yes, I'm the terrible one, I'm the abusive one. What a waste of time trying to find a resolution with those not interested, and then to be mocked for "not coming to the right page" when I don't know anywhere else I could have brought this to. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

To be polite, I would not trust commons deletion discussions as far as I can throw the participants. The licensing issues with those images on commons are too sketchy to trust, after a quick look I agree with Nick-D's comments above. As for actions by Nikkimara here - we are under no obligation to use images from commons just because 'commons' has decided there are no problems. Commons is a project that has numerous issues in its processes, and when we have a perfectly acceptable (and copyright safe) alternative, it would be better to use it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Absent the licencing question, the SVG versions are clearly superior, but it's not unreasonable to temporarily replace them while the discussion is in process. It may be the case, for instance, that the person who uploaded to Commons has simply used the wrong tag, or wants to indicate that they are releasing their particular impression of the logo into the PD, or any one of a dozen or so other plausible explanations that don't involve copyright infringement. But, we need to wait for Commons to make up its mind on that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC).

Also, I know this happened on Commons and not here, but it's a good thing not to make comments like this and keep the moral high ground if possible. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC).

The OP posted a comment at Nikkimaria's talk page that a discussion was taking place at A noticeboard, but didn't say which noticeboard. She may very well have looked at WP:ANI and not found anything relevant. I have notified her. When discussing an editor's or an administrator's conduct at this noticeboard, please use the appropriate notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We have no obligation to use images from Commons, especially if there are concerns over the copyright status of such images. I don't see anything wrong with Nikki's actions - she replaced the potential copyright violation with fair use images prior to discussion close - it is common practice to remove potential copyvios from articles. It is at her discretion whether the images should be reinstated after Commons closed the discussion as keep, as we are not necessarily bound by the consensus on that project. If you disagree, follow the relevant process at WP:NFCR. This should not be at AN. —Dark 17:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989 said: "Commons has the exact same copyright concerns as Wikipedia, if not stricter ones considering copyrighted material can not be hosted there." — That's news to me. I seem to have uploaded a number of images that I own the copyright of to Commons. That they are licensed under the CC BY-SA or BY license does not mean that they are somehow not copyrighted—you are just free to use them under the terms of the license. When people say things like this, it makes others wary of trusting them when it comes to correctly handling copyright. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Double bottom line

Resolved

 – Fixed. Graham87 06:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Earlier today HamiltonFromAbove moved this page from mainspace to the Wikipedia Talk space (probably in error) with an edit summary indicating that "double bottom line" is a proper name and should be capitalized. It is not a proper name, it is a financial concept in the same way that time value of money or double entry bookkeeping are concepts. Every article we have that refers to it has the words in lowercase, as well as the pointers to triple bottom line which is a related concept. According to the site dialogs I can't undo the page move myself; requesting admin assistance. Ivanvector (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Not sure why you couldn't have done it yourself; seems like a standard move over a redirect to me. Perhaps it was because of the namespace change. Graham87 06:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing ought to offered as a one-year, post-graduate program at colleges and university's: maybe as a part of language study's. Wikipedia tutorials, and efforts to help newbies to become productive editor are just not organized enough or presented in a digestible form. HamiltonFromAbove (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need a full year for just editing, but if we include all the maintenance aspects. it did take me about a year of almost full time attention to be any good at it, and there's still half of it I would need another year for. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was a shot at me (let's say not) but I can assure you I know how to move pages, and the software did not let me do this one. I don't know why, I'm not a coder, but the change in namespace seems like a good reason to me. Anyway, thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Automatic detection of inappropriate-looking new usernames has again stopped.

• Page Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot has not been edited since 21:27, 20 March 2014. User:DeltaQuadBot, which is supposed to keep it updated, has done nothing since 15:10, 17 March 2014 (see Special:Contributions/DeltaQuadBot), except many edits to User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Wait (see Special:DeletedContributions/DeltaQuadBot). (User:Elfix deleted User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Wait on 16:36, 11 July 2012.) What is happening? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I always thought username patrol was rather pointless considering how many accounts never actually edit. That being said, I would speak to the bot's owner regarding the issue. -- John Reaves 14:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed usernames who have never edited should not be reported, by bot or otherwise. –xeno^talk 14:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
      • So then, if the bot has not operated in months, and there may be no consensus to block unused usernames, and filters are able to blacklist certain strings, therefore it follows that the bot-reported section at UAA may be no longer needed? I'd take this to WT:UAA and see what comes of it (RfC? or maybe just be bold?). Rgrds. --64.85.216.181 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Piguy101 and WP:DRC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Piguy101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has restored a warning message onto my talk page using Twinkle (a semi-automated tool), denied knowing about the essay and claimed no guideline prevented him from doing this wrongful revert. 85.210.177.155 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, this is way out of context. I restored a warning once, and have not restored it again. Sysops: Please take a look at User talk:85.210.177.155 and my talkpage history before making any actions. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; I'm not really sure what the issue is here; this IP was warned for vandalizing Arrows in the Dark and now has an issue with the removal of one of the warnings given to them for that vandalism. To me it just seems an excuse to continue their same behavior. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Consider this retracted. 85.210.177.155 (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Consider yourself blocked. Nick (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe consider talk page removal. --64.85.216.181 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock request discussion for User:Russavia

Russavia has requested that his indefinite block be lifted. His request is being discussed on ANI in this thread. Someone raised the question whether this unblock discussion should be taking place here on AN rather than on ANI. I believe it is too late to relocate the entire discussion from one noticeboard to another, nor does it make a lot of difference on which board the discussion take place. However, I am cross-posting here so anyone interested will be aware of the ANI discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Youtube links in article on opera singer

The article Cheryl Studer, about an opera singer, has many links to youtube videos. The text of the article says twice "you can see her sing this in the youtube video linked to" and the sections [27] and [28] have many many links to youtube videos,I believe this article is maintained by a fan who has in fact linked to every youtube video with her in it (and a site I have never heard of before, "Dailymotion"). There is even a youtube link to a video of her daughter, a pop singer. I am sure some or all of these must be copyright violations, I tried to take some of them out (I didn't even notice them all the first time) but they were immediately restored. Probably this is not the place to raise this concern but I don't know where that would be. I looked at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions but they both have page long instructions, procedures, do this, do that if "x" or "y" if that, I don't feel like trying to figure it all out. Could someone tell me the best place to raise this concern, or tell me that it is nothing to worry about and I should forget it. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

Dailymotion is another one of those streaming sites that jumped on the bandwagon not long after YouTube became popular. It's a lot less discriminatory in the types of things that appear on it. Blackmane (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

See Dailymotion. I've never heard of it before, either. Let me look at the article and come back with an opinion. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind; Diannaa already did the hard work. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa's changes were reverted, I reverted back to the improved version but was promptly undone. There appear to be WP:OWN issues here. hbent (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Goustaff is edit-warring the changes several of us have made to the article over the last few days, not just about youtube links but WP:PEACOCK terms and the way this article is written like a fan page (and the user is even repeatedly removing content from the talk page).Smeat75 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Goustaff has been warned multiple times at his talk page, and he's been told of this discussion. We're past the point of assuming good faith, and I'll readily block if (before any other admins come along) I learn that he's again reverted the cleanup. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: User:Goustaff has once more reverted my efforts at clean-up. Please consider a block now. I can no longer block as I am editing the article. Thanks. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll do it, Diannaa, but I was meaning a situation in which I discovered it by myself or in which a non-admin let me know. I trust I'm "any reasonable admin", and I already came to the conclusion that a block was necessary, so you should have felt free to consider this a "straightforward case" in which you could levy the block anyway. WP:INVOLVED isn't particularly meant to restrict admin-versus-spammer situations. Lest this be unclear, I'm not complaining at you or saying you're lazy or anything :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You just beat me to the draw. I was reading up on the case. Definitely an editor who has earplugs in and blinders on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend. I just don't feel comfortable blocking/protecting once I have started editing the article. It lacks that certain je ne sais quoi and smacks of "respect mah authoritah" -- Diannaa (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Editathon

Tomorrow, Thursday 12 June, I'm going to be running an editathon in conjunction with Barclays Bank:

• Wikipedia:Barclays edit-a-thon

Around 350 Barclays staff will be editing Wikipedia - some for the first time - throughout the day from several different locations including Singapore, India, Lithuania, England and the US. They will all be logged in, but some may not be autoconfirmed yet and may not know their way around the Wiki. I'd be grateful if due courtesy could be extended to these new editors, please.

The last time I ran an editathon, one of the members of the Royal Society of Chemistry was blocked during the session for "suspicious activity", i.e. several new editors were creating similar user pages under my direction. I'd really prefer this not to happen again, so I'm posting here to notify admins of what is happening. As an aside to checkusers: many of the new editors will make edits originating from a very limited range of IP addresses (the proxies that Barclays uses for its outward-facing connections to the internet), so please consider the possibility of a Barclays editor, should you receive a report of multiple new editors that you can see are using the same (closed) proxy.

Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you maybe add a notice to user pages/talk pages? GiantSnowman 19:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's important. They should not be allowed to edit any articles connected to the financial crisis of the 2000s considering their COI. 166.137.8.78 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't support fully the last statement above, because many of them might have quicker access to reliable academic and professional sources than the rest of us do, but it might be preferable if they were, individually or collectively, decide to edit content related to it, that they do so on a userspace page which could then be looked over by an independent party for review and possible changes. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm confused about why we're running an edit-a-thon at/for a business. I mean, I guess there's no reason why we can't, but it brings up a whole host of COI/neutrality issues that are going to need to be addressed before anyone at the event puts finger to keyboard - issues that are not typically a thing at other edit-a-thons at, say, libraries. The edit-a-thon page doesn't say anything about why Barclay's, in particular, or about what training the participants are going to get, so it's hard to promise RexxS anything about how participants will be handled onwiki while we don't know how they're going to *behave* onwiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, folks. I should have said that I have no connection with Barclays myself (I'm a retired educator/IT manager) and I'll be present to remind them on our CoI policies. I've already done 9 training sessions for their new editors, so most will understand already. In any event, they are specifically forbidden to edit on subjects directly connected to Barclays or their staff, but are encouraged to look at issues like women in business and to use their expertise in financial and technical areas, although they could edit on any topic that interests them. Perhaps I should have given you a little more background: Barclays has a "citizenship" element in its staff development programme and one of their staff in England suggested to Jimbo that they might do an editathon - it ended up on my desk as a volunteer for WMUK and I've done my best to ensure that we get a chance to recruit a number of new editors who will be productive in many different fields. This is a little different from traditional pools of potential editors, but I remain optimistic that it represents a key demographic in our search for broader participation. I would only ask you all to treat these new editors in the way that you would have wished to have been treated when you were a new editor. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for topic ban lift

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was topic banned at Ta-Nehisi Coates [[29]]. The reason given was because I was a SPA.

I believe this came about through misconduct: the main opposing editor, NorthBySouthBaranof, repeatedly made false charges against me on noticeboards, which created a false sense of “where there’s smoke, there must be fire.” The resulting “Too long, didn’t read” mess meant that uninvolved editors who watch noticeboards tended to blame me for the whole thing. I think this was an abuse of process simply to win an edit conflict.

Please see these edits: here [[30]] he admits there’s no consensus, and even suggests [[31]] a noncontroversial version to revert back to while we work out consensus, but then 14 minutes later, in his very next post, he tried to have me topic banned [[32]] at ANI due to the discussion being “beaten to death”. It is very difficult to counter the argument of someone who is willing to lie about discussion like that on ANI. He previously made similar false statements about consensus in an earlier post at the BLP noticeboard as well [[33]].

That ban request died a deserved death, but it was revived by another opposing editor with the same motive. There had been splits over consensus of 2-1 and 3-3, so that’s why I started an RfC, which I promised to abide by, so the situation was working itself out. I also explained I wasn’t an SPA, just a low-volume editor. Here are my previous usernames: Fallsdowne (talk · contribs); Wyngarde (talk · contribs); Hypotheticalcolors (talk · contribs); Dojoarigato (talk · contribs); plus one more which I'd like to keep private, that made one edit of 30,000 characters.

Unfortunately, I was topic-banned instead. I am asking my topic ban be lifted, and NorthBySouthBaranof be given sanctions for abusing process by making false statements about others on ANI to win an edit conflict. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm not an admin. Though while I'm still assessing, I have a curiosity; why did you create those accounts and not stick to just one? I'm not trying to create animosity or derail from the topic ban removal request, just wondering. Tutelary (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it's a fair question. I make one edit, then don't edit again for a year or more, so I forgot the passwords. Plus I don't like any of those usernames - I just made them up for the one edit. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the finalized topic ban (from a week ago) so that people can make up their own minds instead of being told what to believe. Also, it hasn't even been a week since the previous (and similar) unban request (not quite a week ago) was closed for lacking convincing arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The user above shows signs of WP:HARASS, by following me around and warning others [[34]] not to support me. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

For adding pertinent details that you overlooked? They haven't edited the page in question or commented on the talk page. No way that could possibly fall under WP:HARASS unless you construe it as meaning anyone who posts something contrary to your view is harassment. Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I included a link to the topic ban discussion. And I said "signs of". Useitorloseit (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)You didn't include a link to the finished discussion, only select portions in a context chosen by you, including rather inappropriate and unevidenced claims on NorthBySouthBaranof that you need to withdraw.

And you citing WP:HARASS for me commenting on a talk page that almost every user watches is nothing but blind hypocrisy. I warned a user not to encourage you? Go read WP:AGF, now, because there was nothing in that post that was a warning. In the talk page post that you're linking to, I asked the user to actually look into cases before commenting on them. The user in question was under the impression that paid editors are more valued here (quite the opposite), and had fallen for your claim that editors are more valued according to the number of edits they have than their behavior (while you tried to shift the blame from your behavior to imagined persecution by editors who make a ridiculous number of edits per day). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose You were topic-banned a week ago from one subject. Go and edit other stuff (which you haven't during this week) instead of obsessing over this one area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In April this user reverted the page in question, against the consensus of 2-1, in favor of NorthBySouthBaranof. Last week he inaccurately accused me of breaking a rule about soliciting comments [[35]]. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Focus on your behavior instead of blaming others. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Given Useitorloseit's refusal to drop the stick and walk away from the stinking carcass of the long-dead equine, I formally propose an indefinite block.

We have wasted too much time on this already, and it is self-evident that Useitorloseit is incapable of contributing usefully to Wikipedia. A block will put an end to this nonsense once and for all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support, barring an immediate promise to reform and quit asking for unbans - user fails to get that everyone has an issue with his behavior because of his behavior, not because we're all evil. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well, while you were posting this, I've already blocked him for a week, and told him that if he requests a review of his topic ban within 6 months from today, I'll block him indefinitely. Is that good enough? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that Useitorloseit's response to the block is to once more argue that s/he was in the right regarding Coates, [36] I can't see much point in postponing the inevitable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess the point is we can get there without more discussion. If he files another appeal next week, I won't bring it here, I'll just block indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Does the topic ban extent to Useitorloseit's talk page? If so, it has already been broken [37] - by someone who claims to be "capable of dropping this whole thing". [38] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does the panda ₯’ 22:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kanghuitari and Dan Benson

Kanghuitari (talk · contribs) has reposted Dan Benson at Dan Benson (actor) and Dan Benson (actor born 1987) on consecutive days after being speedily deleted as REPOST. Dan Benson itself has an history of being reposted and speedily deleted. Kanghuitari has repeatedly removed speedy deletion banners, even though s/he has been apprised that doing so is the incorrect method for contesting deletion. So this may represent a problem topic, considering the repeated reposting over the years and subsequent speedy deletions. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Dave Brat page needs eyes.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Once again, Stephen Colbert has suggested alterations to a Wikipedia page on air. I suggest some admin attention - and prompt page protection if necessary - for the next couple days until this episode fades a bit from the forefront of popular culture. VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, mentioned here [39]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Already handled on RFPP—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:165.248.217.238

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please block user 165.248.217.238 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablothepenguin (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! This topic belongs much better over on the vandalism noticeboard. I encourage you to post this there, and also to remember to sign your talk (and talk-like) posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks! —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harmful websites need blacklisting

Further information: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways § Harmful website

It would appear that a number of websites need blacklisting due to them containing viruses (i.e. all those named at UKT talk page.) WP:BLACKLIST appears to be for dealing with spam sites. Where do I report these sites to get them blocked? Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you look at the link you already posted, it has the link under "Requests for listing". This is done on meta and is wikiwide, not just on the English Wikipedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Reported. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at CSD

Bit of a logjam developing at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion - 224 articles and counting. If anyone fancies joining me in a bit of a deletion blitz today, you'd be more than welcome. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be a number of folk festivals up for A7. I'll see if I can save any of them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Now looking much more managable (<60 remaining), thanks to the hard work of Number 57, RHaworth, WilyD, Black Kite and others. Thanks all! Yunshui ^雲_水 10:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Except for what looks like some Sailor Moon stuff, it's now empty the panda ₯’ 11:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Feedback for an editor re the requirements for editing BLPs

This post related to a problem related to WP:BLP, and has been moved to the Biographies of living persons noticeboard (BLPN). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Od Mishehu (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Fairly lengthy backlog at WP:RFPP

'nuff said - I'd get stuck into it myself but am in the middle of something else. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Only a few left now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion needs closing

Would an uninvolved Admin please close the merger discussion at Talk:Ukrainian_Air_Force_Ilyushin_Il-76_shoot-down#Proposed_merge_with_2014_pro-Russian_conflict_in_Ukraine per the clear consensus reached by a large number of editors. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In the future, this would be better off listed at WP:AN/RFC which is the centralized location for specific closure requests like this. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask over there. Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit filter problems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(This might not be the best place for this, but please bear with me...)

As per Talk:Druk Air/Rewrite, I'm trying to update Druk Air with the work done by User:This cowboy's running from himself (who is apparently a sock of Russavia) at Talk:Druk Air/Rewrite. The work looks good - it's replacing dead links, completing the citations of others, etc, and I believe it's OK for me to take it over so that good improvements aren't lost. But I'm getting problems. The first time I tried to save a new version of the article, I was hit by:

"We are sorry, your edit can not be completed at this time. Your contribution appears to contain a link to the archiving service archive.is. In accordance with Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC, links to archive.is are not allowed to be added to Wikipedia. Please feel free to make your contribution with a non-archived link or a link from a different archiving service (such as web.archive.org). If you believe this message is in error, we apologize for the inconvenience, and request that you may please report this error for correction and assistance"

But I can't find any archive.is links in either the original or the new version. So I tried again, and this time I got:

"An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error."

I've tried making null edits to both Druk Air and Talk:Druk Air/Rewrite and I get no edit-filter errors (though I presume the edit-filter only works on article space, so a null edit won't tell me anything about the latter). The instructions tell me to report the problem at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. But there's a backlog there, and if I can't get this done fairly quickly then I really won't have the time to do it. So can anyone help? Looking at the changes, can you see which new link might be causing a problem? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It's edit filter 559, and it disallows not only "archive.is", but also "archive.today". There are apparently several of those in the new version. The fact that you didn't get complaints when saving the draft version is because the filter is only active in mainspace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks - I'll see to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opposition leaders of Rhodesia

Hello everyone! I already posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zimbabwe, but maybe it would be helpful to post it here too:

For some time now, I want to create an article about leaders of the opposition of Rhodesia, from introduction of the responsible government in 1923 until the demise of Rhodesia in 1979. Also, that article could contain opposition leaders of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, since 1980 (in the same fashion as List of Speakers of the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe contain parliamentary speakers of all three entities). As you know, all the countries which adopted Westminster-style system at some point in their history have lists of leaders of official opposition (UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc), so I want to make a list like that for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe-Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any source online which contain list of Rhodesian opposition leaders. So, I'm asking all of you for help. If anyone knows where to find sources about this, please let me know. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is for requesting administrative assistance, not for requesting source assistance. Your question is much better suited to the Reference Desk, so I'll copy it there, and you should go there to see responses. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you, Nyttend! I posted it here just to make more eyes see it. Hopefully, the Reference Desk will be helpful too. --Sundostund (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandal from a highly volatile IP range

I just noticed some vandalism from the 112.215.66.* range at Kuroko's Basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Normally, I would just revert, warn, and ignore. But given that the IP changed for every edit, should any admin action, such as blocking the range, be taken? —Farix (t | c) 19:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The range is 112.215.66.64/28 if it needs to be blocked. Seems to have stopped now, though. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving a category page

• It seems that at last, pages named "Category:......" can be moved. That will likely allow a big backlog of category page history-merges.

  When such a move is asked for, a message in red appears:

  Warning: You are about to move a category page. Please note that only the page will be moved and any pages in the old category will not be recategorized into the new one.

  It would be clearer to write:-

  Warning: You are about to move a category page. Please note that only the page will be moved and any pages in the old category will not be recategorized into the new category.

  Elegant variation here is confusing and not called for, as that line is an instruction, not a literary work. Many English Wikipedia users likely do not speak English as their first language

  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • What would be nice, though, is to "disappear" this message for empty categories (defined using the PAGESINCATEGORY), to prevent banner blindness when it really counts. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that there is at least one discussion about turning off this feature off since it runs counter to established consensus policy and guidelines. A number of these moves have been reverted and cleanup is a mess. WP:CFD is still the correct way to do category moves. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Don't bots do the recategorization? –xeno^talk 13:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• If not, they should. GiantSnowman 14:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• They used to, but whoever ran the bot that did it stopped once the moving categories feature was introduced. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Cydebot (talk · contribs) is still moving pages after CFD and CFDS, can that not be used for this? @Cyde: GiantSnowman 16:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll need to do a lot more investigation, but it's looking like we'll need to modify, in the PyWikiBot framework, how category.py handles category moves. If the destination page does not exist, we should now be doing a true Move instead of a copy/paste of category contents, is that correct? --Cyde Weys 17:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Ian Gow

Hi all. An RfC has been running here for quite some time and I'd like one or more of you to have a look. Page protection is one thing that depends on it--there's a somewhat low-key edit war going on for quite some time now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was going to close it, but feeling feisty so I just participated instead. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Good comments, albeit borderline too feisty :) . Careful or you may need to change your username to "DennisTheGrump" (with all affection to Andy). JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe. It's been a very rough couple of weeks for me, I'm probably a bit more testy than normal. Probably a good thing I just voted and didn't close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible abuse of STIKI, and also possible block evasion

Resolved

 – These aren't the droids you're looking for. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

On 10 June AHLM13 was blocked for a week for making a very large number of strange reverts using Twinkle. Unfortunately they seem to be back as Occults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user account that was created two days ago. Now using Stiki at an even higher speed, making several reverts per minute, a speed that means that there's no way they can check if the edits they revert are correct or not. Thomas.W ^talk 12:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, Occults claims to be a legitimate alternate account of User:OccultZone, so we probably should be asking OccultZone before doing anything else. I've notified them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it is my alternative account. I have carefully read the edits too. I just wanted to test Stiki with my other account, like I had described here[40], although I found this tool to be pretty good. Probably another reason is that I remember reverting about 5 bad edits of a ip, from this account, I had made them under 3 minutes. I would see that the editor would start reverting back not only those 5 edits but revert my other changes, though they had nothing to do. Just for some amount of safety I use that one. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I was afraid it was this guy. And to be honest the speed still worries me a bit... Thomas.W ^talk 13:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I understand, but good it's cleared now. Happy editing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Me User :OccultZone, this thomas is very stange AHLM13 talk 11:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User:AHLM13, was the personal attack an absolute necessity? the panda ₯’ 12:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Being penalised for using a very similar name to an admin.... WHY?

Troll dealt with liberal application of block and WP:DENY Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think I'm being p****lised for my name. Yes it was chosen carefully as a dedication, but it is true that I come from the streets and my name is not Elen. Photo commented out by Dwpaul (see history) Thankyou for understanding. Fluffer (London Underground) 22:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Streets (talk • contribs) Troll blocked. added They are asking for review. Feel free to do so, collapse this and whatnot. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC) The account is clearly an imposter of the admin User:Elen of the Roads, as is made clear by this edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Page view statistics" and "Contributors" don't work any more

Those blue links at the top of "edit history" "Page view statistics" and "Contributors" have stopped working. Why is that? and if they don't work any more why doesn't someone just take them away. It gives the impression that this site is not functioning very well any more.Smeat75 (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Edit history": what do you mean? I'm not seeing any links that say that. The "Contributors" link sends me to a page that I've never before seen, so I can't say whether it's working, but I see no error messages. What makes you believe that it's not working? Meanwhile, as far as I can see, stats.grok.se (the hit counter) has crashed, but that's definitely temporary. Note that none of those links, except for the number of watchers, are Wikipedia sites: they're sites run by other people that interact with our servers, and we're not responsible if they go down. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not edit history, I mean when you click on any article on "view history" across the top of the page there are several other blue links that say "Contributors" and "Page view statistics". They don't work any more. "Contributors" has a message that says "complain to Daniel (whoever that is) not me" and "Page view statistics" just goes to a blank page. Why doesn't someone just get rid of them if they aren't going to work any more? I often look at "page view statistics" for various reasons, I find it very useful.Smeat75 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Daniel" is Daniel Kinzler. He has two en:wp usernames, Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) and Duesentrieb, but he's much more active at de:wp, so I'd suggest that you contact him there (he speaks English; you need not use German) or over at Commons. Can't speak for Contributors, but Page view stats was working just yesterday if I remember rightly; it's more likely asleep than dead, so it wouldn't help to get rid of it. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already complained about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

For registered editors you can add a pretty phenomenal gadget. Instructions here. Sample output. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

For page view statistics, there's a new tool at http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/ -- Diannaa (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The best place for this sort of thing is the technical village pump, and it's being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 127#Wikipedia Article Traffic Stats: Problems, weird counting, and questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 08:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Spanish speaker?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are there any Spanish speakers out there who could help me on my talk page? I am having an issue conveying the problem with edit warring to an editor whose first language is Spanish. Thanks. Go Phightins! 16:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You might want to check Category:User es too. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot about that category. Either way, found someone. Thanks a lot. Go Phightins! 18:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CFD backlog

Hi. There's currently a backlog at WP:CFD with some discussions still open from 10 April. Please could someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reply - You may wish to list this at WP:ANFRC if you have not already done so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That has a backlog too! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Added. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And a powertrip admin reverted it with no reason why! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

First, that isn't an admin who reverted it, and he certainly isn't on a powertrip. Second, requests at WP:ANRFC are for specific open requests, not entire backlogs. I would recommend listing some of the older open requests there first, and add more later if necessary. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected that they are not an admin. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Two month backlog today. Go Team Chocolate Fireguards! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well we can't sit around on our elbows all day. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeating the offer and advice I gave here: if any admins or suitably experienced non-admins would like to try helping out with CFD closures for April, please see the index page at WP:CFDAC. The admin instructions are at WP:CFDAI. A minority of the nominations relate to gender or ethnicity, in which case either see WP:EGRS if you can get your head round it, or skip those. If you would prefer to just close any discussion and leave the implementation to "CFD regulars", drop me a line and I will arrange that (either doing it myself or listing at WP:CFDWM). – Fayenatic London 21:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

THanks FL. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

10 April backlog still there. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Still just a potato. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Now just back to the 22nd April. Things are moving at a pace. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

At a pace. In 15 days, the backlog has been reduced by 12 days.

Feel free to peruse the unclosed backlogged discussions: very old CfD discussions & Very very old CfD discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsalting - Tom Moran

Could an admin please unsalt Tom Moran. There is an Articles for creation draft parked at Draft:Tom Moran (writer) that in my view is ready for mainspace, and there is no other obvious candidate for an article with this title. The last CSD was in late 2009, well before any sources wrote about this person. (Caveat empor : the article seems to have been written by his wife, though I have cleaned it up a bit). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. This seems to be a new Tom Moran, not the one(s) whose articles caused the salting. JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think that the fact that the wife wrote it is relevant, since a neutral person who knows Wikipedia policies made the request. If the wife herself had asked, that would be a different question. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Jesse Clyde Nichols

Last couple edits (by an IP address) seem like a personal vendetta against the article subject. Some of the recently-added material is readded stuff I tried to delete before. Not sure what you guys want to do about this but I'm not interested in a slow war with an IP, so your participation would be welcome. Townlake (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Two edits (in a row) by a single IP, 4 days ago, with minor to moderate WP:NPOV issues. I'm not sure this is the beginning of a "slow war." Don't forget to assume good faith. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Could I get a relist?

Please could any experienced editor do a relist of this AfD? It's not had any relists so far. It has several delete comments, but I've made a bunch of cleanups to the article since those editors chipped in. I'd like to notify them I've since edited it if they fancy taking another look. It's due for closure (7 days) though. I doubt my having edited the article makes WP:INVOLVED complaints likely were I to place the relist template myself but just in case. Thanks. 91.125.29.135 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no need to relist. You're welcome to comment on the AFD that you have done significant clean (as you believe) and hope that either a) the !voters review, or b) the closing admin reviews the changes the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The point of a relist was prev. commenters won't necessarily have watchlisted the AfD much less the article. A relist just means a better chance of seeing any friendly talkpage note before closure. 91.125.29.135 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A relist before the current AFD has closed is not the way to go. If you want the editors who have commented so far to return to the AFD you can leave a message there where you ping them. You do this by typing {{ping|editors name}}. That will leave them a notice that they will see the next time they go to their watchlist. MarnetteD|Talk 17:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A relist after an AfD has closed isn't possible (DRV aside). To be honest I didn't think a relist where either a debate had insufficient comments for consensus or the article had substantively changed since the comments were made would be contentious. It's pending closure anyhow. Anyway, thanks. 91.125.29.135 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reasonable request, IMO. Done. It was going to be deleted and this gives the editors who have voted delete another week to take a look rather than <24 hours. At the absolute worst, we keep an article about a non-notable company up for another week, so I really see no harm in this. Jenks24 (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there's no guarantee that it will stay open for another week. If any admin sees that a) discussion has stopped and b) consensus has been reached, then they can close it any time after the original 7 days, even if relisted the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically, you're correct. Realistically, it will now get another week. Jenks24 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure and review of actions

Two things, but related:

• Could an uninvolved admin look at closing this non-free use discussion Wikipedia:NFCR#File:Windows logo - 2006.svg which has been open for a few months now?
• And I would ask that my actions on this be reviewed: specifically:
  • I have commented - as an experienced NFC reviewer - in that discussion
  • The discussion has no clear results yet (as of yesterday)
  • User:FleetCommand closed the discussion under the claim of NAC giving a large chunk of reasoning.
  • I reviewed the reasoning they gave but found several fundamental problems with the understanding of NFC (moreso than just subjective takes) that makes the closure doubly-questionable (both a NAC on a non-obvious case, and from understanding the language). I note that this user has not has any significant participation in NFC discussions before.
  • I thus boldly undid the closure, letting FC know about this as well as commenting on the faulty aspects of the closure from someone close to , believing that the NAC closure was bad, and needed a non-involved admin to actually review (see above).
  • User:Codename Lisa questioned if I really should have done that per WP:INVOLVED, which is completely a fair question. I have no intention to close that discussion myself as that certainly would be INVOLVED, but undoing a NAC on a unclear discussion with fundamental bad logic and requesting an uninvolved admin to close does not seem controversial. But I do offer my apologies if this was a case of INVOLVED, though I still as for the uninvolved closure to help out.

Thanks. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate Masem's mentioning me. The primary reason for which I protested Masem's action is that I myself was present in two deletion discussion which ended with NAC. The first one is {{Notability}}'s TFD and the second is... I don't remember its name but it had three Keep and four Merge. From these two, I learned that a tough NAC is discouraged but it is not a bad NAC; and participants, for the most part, must not revert NAC closures preemptively. (A communication with the non-admin is a must.) As WP:BADNAC says, only a non-involved admin can. I think, one some level, I might have resented the way I was treated in those two cases of NAC while Masem did it anyway.

I guess I was also relieved when I thought the discussion ended. You see, I believe I have come to know the norm of Wikipedia. In my opinion, in Wikipedia, it is impossible to permanently rob those eight Windows articles of their primary mean of identification. The image WILL come back like a phoenix. It is only a matter of time and effort. The reason is obvious: Those articles really, really, really need the logo of their subject.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Greetings, Earthlings!

Let me make things easy for the closing admin: None of the participants want the image in question deleted, replaced, curtailed, moved or cropped. All of them want this very same image appear on the articles on which it is already appearing, only some of them want the wordmark to also appear along the image. The problem is: Some of them think the only viable course of action is to make copies of this non-free work and add the wordmark to the image. To justify this act, they resort to some clause about logos of events which does not apply to logos of software.

Well, there is another more WP:NFCC#3-compliant way of doing that: Using one of the wordmarks that are freely uploaded to Commons:Category:Windows wordmarks alone instead of uploading multiple copies of the non-free image. Like this:

[[File:Windows Phone 7.5 logo.svg|x64px]][[File:Windows Phone 7 wordmark.png|x64px]]

Result: (These images are free, by the way)

Hence, I closed the two-month-old discussion.

Fleet Command (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC on Conflict of Interest guideline

There is currently an RFC concerning the applicability of the new m:Terms of Use on our Conflict of Interest guideline. Interested editors are encouraged to participate at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Proposed_changes_to_the_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy.--v/r - TP 18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This one will be big and hairy. I'll offer to be a closer, but maybe we could get a couple more volunteers to close, and then all offer at once. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

UKIP Wikipedia Party page being vandalised by politically biased individuals

Numerous attempts to vandalise and damage UKIP's Wikipedia page in recent months. Most recently referenced and cited membership changes have been undone without explanation. Ie: Membership has increased from 38,000 to 39,000+ (edited cited and referenced by party yet undone?) Personal point of view as to the parties status on the political spectrum have been allowed to stand rather than the parties actual political standing. Thus reflecting Wikipedia and UKIP negatively. UKIP's status as a Libertarian Party has been confirmed by the party itself not to mention Party leader Nigel Farage, it has been discussed multiple times on Daily Politics programs and articles in the National press, evidence as to the parties standing has been including in the 'talk' page, however this status is not allowed to exist on the Wikipedia page due to repeat vandalism by people with political bias (have noted political standing of people doing the edits). I would suggest this page needs to be placed under partial protection until this problem can be resolved. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

As Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources makes clear, Wikipedia prefers to cite third-party sources. UKIP is clearly not a neutral source when it comes to reporting membership figures. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding to Andy's correct information: When someone makes a change you don't like, that doesn't make it "vandalism". See WP:VANDAL for how we define that term here. Be forewarned that WP:3RR is in effect as those edits aren't vandalism. If you revert back and forth in an edit war, you will likely be blocked. Take it to the talk page of the article and work it out there. WP:BRD might be worth reading first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

User:RoverTheBendInSussex, I've taken a look at your post to User;GimliDotNet - it's that editor in particular that you seem to be complaining about (having seen your post to another editor) but you haven't told him that you have come here. I strongly suggest that you drop the 'vandal' comments. And the editors who are telling you that we shouldn't be using a party's website as a source for its membership are correct. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, just noticed this, despite not being notified by the original poster that it had been raised. My 2 pence worth is this [41]. If someone can explain to me how leaving edit summaries and contributing to the talk page is "vandalism" and "reverting without explanation" I would be glad to here it. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As for accusations of political bias. [42] GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If anyone here is "politically biased" it is you RoverTheBendInSussex. GiantSnowman 20:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes - calling the Guardian a left-wing tabloid suggests either complete ignorance of the UK press or bias. I note that he is still calling editors vandals in his edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And I see a box on his talk page saying that he is one of the 400 most active Wikipedians - with 5,148 edits? I don't think so. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

more ill informed ranting on my talk page this morning. I think there may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

see [43] user has added a discussion to the archive! GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

UKIP page

Would appreciate a neutral admin having a look at the group. The talk page has been hijacked by people who are anti-UKIP and have decided that the official Party website "isn't a reliable source" and so the membership figure is outdated. I have reverted edits undoing UKIP's current membership figure as referenced however I have been threatened by not only a member on Wikipedia but also been threatened with banning by an admin after 10 years editing on Wikipedia. Let me just reiterate. Referencing the official website of figures has rather pathetically been deemed unreliable and newspaper Broadsheets have been deemed a more reliable reference. Something I find deeply troubling considering the recent newspaper/media campaign against UKIP. I had referenced a third party source for the membership figure but this was also conveniently tossed out the window in terms of reliability? I have spent the last 2-3 months trying to undo some of the negative editing of UKIP's, Nigel Farage's and Roger Helmer's page. But Wikipedia admins seem to be enabling this negativity and something needs to be done about it. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 02:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Copied this from the latest archive. Although I don't think parties are reliable sources for their own figures, they are usually the only sources we have - part of the problem is infoboxes which IMHO don't deal with even slightly complex information well - people tend to just look at them and don't bother to see how they are sourced or even whether they are sources. I'm happy if the field makes it clear it's the parties estimation of membership, not ours or an official one. I believe I am the Admin who allegedly threatened User:RoverTheBendInSussex with banning, which I didn't do. I simply told him that as he ignored an earlier warning not to call editors or edits vandalism that are simply content disputes, that yet another such edit ignoring my warning would lead to a block (not a ban) - "You ignored my warning at ANI - I'm telling you now to stop calling other editors vandals because you disagree with them. Once more and I'll block you". His response was the above and an angry post on my talk page telling me to remove the 'threat' from his. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that I have woken up to more accusations of vandalism I don't think the user has paid any response to this board after posting the above. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I've been accused of bad faith and bias not vandalism. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

RoverTheBendInSussex, you say you "have spent the last 2-3 months trying to undo some of the negative editing of UKIP's, Nigel Farage's and Roger Helmer's page" but the contribution histories don't show edits by RoverTheBendInSussex to any of those pages or their talk pages earlier than 24 May 2014 (and none at all to Nigel Farage or Talk:Nigel Farage). What account were you using to edit those pages before then? NebY (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent question, I'd really like an answer. And a reason for the userbox saying he's one of the top 400 active Wikipedians. He seems to be using IPs, eg [44] by 86.17.56.162 (talk · contribs) seems to be him given the edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a more honest userbox.

This user is one of the 48,247,473 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

It does, after all, update as per the number of registered accounts - and it always correct! the panda ₯’ 09:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

[45] given the user raised this issue and has completely ignored it afterwards, this edit shows they have no regards for the discussions involving the requirements for WP:RS and this report was simply raised to try and force their point of view. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I suppose, no party membership figures are ever likely to be verifiable; it's not like anyone outside the party ever counts them. Other parties' membership figures seem to be mostly pretty thin; both the Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK) membership figures are sourced to newspaper articles that just directly quote figures supplied by the party; it's not clear to me how that's better than just quoting the party source directly. Is this a case where using a primary source to establish a fact is acceptable? There's all sorts of complexity here; quite apart from political parties in dictatorial nations inflating their membership figures to give the appearance of legitimacy, there are issues like the automatic membership of union members in the Labour party in some countries and swirling allegations of people fraudulently enrolled in others. Should we just be removing membership numbers from party articles as non-verifiable? GoldenRing (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem lies with Info Boxes. In the article we can easily say "Party x claims membership of y", in the infobox there is no place for this. I'd be happy to remove them from the infobox full stop. And it's not just problem with dictatorial countries, inflating membership figures is something we should guard against. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 09:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I think we should restrict the use of infoboxes - see my userpage. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin action required?

It's fair to say User:RoverTheBendInSussex isn't covering himself in glory here. I certainly don't see any evidence of the vandalism or bias that he talks of from the editors he's complained about (although his own edits are a bit suspect as has been pointed out). The big question now is, is admin intervention needed (yet) or can we close this discussion here? WaggersTALK 14:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest keeping this thread open for another 24 hours to see if User:RoverTheBendInSussex ceases and desists from allegations of vandalism. If there are no further allegations of vandalism in what is actually a content dispute, and no further personal attacks, this thread can be closed. If the allegations of vandalism and personal attacks continue, then the proper admin action is a short-term block, and closure of the thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this thread can be closed now? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest at Deepak Chopra

Recently, an article in the Huffington Post (HP) by Sam Slovick alleges that Deepak Chopra's WP BLP may have been attacked by WP editors intent on discrediting him by, among other things, misrepresenting his view on AIDS and that several administrators have expressed concern about the way his article has been treated in WP. I attempted to add mention of the allegation to the article, but I was reverted. I think it's fairly evident that any WP editor who may be among those alleged to have added pejorative information to Chopra's article should not be participating in the discussion on whether the HP material should be included or not for WP:COI reasons. I have formally requested that these editors identify themselves and recuse from the discussion. I request that WP's administration oversee the process and take appropriate action as necessary to ensure that the discussion is fairly conducted, that any inappropriate behavior by WP editors be corrected, and that any BLP, COI, and POV concerns surrounding Chopra's article be resolved in short order. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, but wouldn't WP:BLPN be a better place to take this? It sounds like it needs some combing through on sources and such, which is more editor tools and less admin tools, unless a problem editor crops up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The only editor named in Slovick's piece is SlimVirgin, but I think it would be unfair to exclude her from the discussion solely on those grounds. Slovick also writes: BLP means 'Biography of a Living Person' and used an example of how Deepak's views on AIDS were intentionally misframed to discredit him, but this sentence is constructed in so ungrammatical a fashion as to be more or less incoherent. Which editors do you believe should be restricted? (If it will save you time, my only edit to the article was this one, in which I corrected what I felt was a fairly obvious BLP issue against Chopra). MastCell ^Talk 00:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify that, I am named in the article, but not as someone who is trying to discredit Chopra. I'm named because I posted a defence of SAS81 at AE when someone sought to have him topic banned from the talk page, and it is my post there that the article quoted. I didn't give an interview or know anything about it in advance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could explicitly spell out the conflict of interest that is alleged, and identify the editors to whom you believe it applies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it appears that Cla68 thinks that anybody who has added anything to the Chopra BLP that isn't glowing and obsequious praise for Chopra has a COI that should automatically bar such an editor from participation in editing said page. I've never seen anything so daft. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SUBJECT is relevant to Cla68's "reverted" link. For example, a discussion of Stephen Colbert's call for vandalism of the Elephant article might be appropriate for the article on The Colbert Report, but not for the article on elephants—the incident had nothing to do with the actual animal. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have collapsed the section opened at the article's TP by Cla68 as utter nonsense. This:

• any editor who has added or advocated the adding of any kind of pejorative or prejudicial text to this article needs to recuse from this discussion. If you have advocated or actually added any negative information on Chopra, I formally ask that you list your name below. [46]

is a ridiculous proposition under any circumstance. I expect such a request to have editors self-identify almost as vandals for not adding praise to Chopra's article will not be taken seriously here. Furthermore some fairly strong warning should be issued to Cla68 for even attempting this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 07:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• From what I have observed, SlimVirgin is doing an excellent job at improving the article and helping resolve BLP concerns. If the admins here could please put the article on their watchlists and give her some top cover as she proceeds, that will be very helpful. From what I understand, there has been some problems with revert warring and with abusive and confrontational remarks directed at concerned newcomers on the article's talk page by the article's cadre of dedicated editors. Your attention is appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Cla68 says "for WP:COI reasons". What reasons might those be? --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a most bizarre interpretation of "conflict of interest", based on their description of the problem the panda ₯’ 20:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Someone is going to have to explain to me why we devote so much of the article to his views and so little to the fact that nothing he says has any foundation in reality. Wouldn't the lead sentence read better as "Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/) (born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American author, public speaker and licensed physician, that misuses terms and ideas from quantum physics in treatments that rely on the placebo effect" and then go on from there? There isn't a single reliable source that supports his approach to medicine. This is a classic case of misusing NPOV in order to promote pseudoscience.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  Kww; although, IMO, true, we would need a reliable source for that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  They are already there: I just rearranged the material already in the lead to provide appropriate emphasis, and took advantage of the fact that since all reliable sources agree that his notions are false it's OK to speak in Wikipedia's voice and say that they are false.—Kww(talk) 01:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Support COI claim. Oppose addition I agree that if a press article says Wikipedians have used a page as an attack page, those Wikipedians have a conflict of interest with that particular portion of the article regarding accusations made against them. It's the same COI someone has on an article about themself. However, I am hesitant about whether his complaints about his Wikipedia page really warrant inclusion. CorporateM (Talk) 03:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. To the extent that press coverage states that someone states that Wikipedians have used a page as an attack page, then it is only suitable for use on that persons page, and only if other reliable sources comment on it. (That really does seem to be what we are talking about, as opposed to the way you stated it, but there is still the question of WP:DUE weight.) WP:COI would still have little to do with it, except to the extent that any Wikipedian might have a conflict of interest in removing information critical of Wikipedia. If there were news coverage which states that Wikipedians have used a page as an attack page, and there were independent evidence that it were news (as opposed to commentary), then you might have a point, but it WP:COI would only apply to Wikipedians named in reliable source, or potentially, named by the subject in unreliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Subtle spam attempt at ResearchGate

A subtle spam attempt, trivial rewording and then changing a link below to a spam URL: [47]. I have tried Special:LinkSearch but could not find another such link. What concerns me most is the obvious attempt to disguise this as legitimate edit...

This article needs attention anyway. History shows there was put a lot of effort into finding a balanced article. Recently, some WP:SPAs have repeatedly tried to blank the critizism. I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JNorman704 a few days ago, as this appears to me to be paid editing for new economy companies (more precisely: by The OutCast Agency). I'm concerned todays edit was another attempt to get rid of this reference, by destroying its link. 94.216.207.117 (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Editors have added huge swaths of poorly-sourced criticisms, then criticize the company's alleged paid editors for being non-neutral. I have removed more than half the article, providing detailed edit summaries as to why I was removing blogs, sources that did not support the text, primary sources, promotion and other gunk. I do not have a COI. Exaggerated claims of COI/spam/whitewashing/etc. are often used to protect a certain version of the article per WP:POV RAILROAD. CorporateM (Talk) 01:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever else was going on, replacing an academic document with a link to "research papers to buy.com" is disruptive and unquestionably spam, especially given the innocuous edit summary. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy delete vandal photo?

No admin action needed over here. Thanks to S. Philbrick for resolving this at Commons. De728631 (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Requesting speedy deletion of File:Patrick Sinclair 2014-06-19 18-27.jpg under criterion G6 (I think). Image has no context; was uploaded by a vandal-only account and stuck in a biographical article. I don't work with files really at all and can't figure out how to tag the image myself. If someone would like to enlighten me, please feel free. Ivanvector (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's a Commons file, so can't be dealt with by enwiki admins. I see it's been nominated for deletion there. Black Kite kite (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats against Wikipedians

See Talk:Yank_Barry#Lawsuit_against_Wikipedians - Cwobeel (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

According to a press release from Global Village Champions, Yank Barry has filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court alleging that four editors conspired to manipulate this article by posting "false or misleading information about him and his charity"

See also [48]. Not sure what kind of attention needs to be given to this. Should the WMF be informed? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been developing for weeks. WMF legal staff knows about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Frivolous lawsuits are fun. This will hopefully be a benchmark case to discourage similar future cases. What if random IP's "damage" this person's article? The WMF is responsible? Pathetic. Doc talk 03:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

They are naming several editors by name, and also 1-50 DOEs in the suit. The suit is not against WMF. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's a good dose of Friday morning humour - I almost feel like editing the article just to see if I can be added to the list. Founding a charity=good use of resources. Ridiculous, frivilous, misguided lawsuits=waste of resources that would be better used elsewhere the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was surprised to see that the complaint lists specific statements. I was not surprised to see that most were talk page discussion that are unquestionably (IANAL) opinion rather than allegedly false statements of fact. I also came across a National Post article - a good read - from 2012. But what caught my interest was how everyone speaking in support/defence of Barry in the comments section was an SPA. This is going to be a fun case to watch, I think. Resolute 13:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Also see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Yank Barry, legal threat. Suing for $10,000,000.
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive202#Yank Barry
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive842#I just received a legal threat over the phone about Yank Barry
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#Accurateinfo973 - Yank Barry article, ongoing COI problem.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive836#Yank Barry
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yank Barry

—BarrelProof (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I wish I could find this humorous or fun. I was recently involved in one of those discussions, and I can't imagine how any good could come of this. It's a disturbing turn in the saga, and I hope that I have no involvement in this inanity. However, by the vast number of "Does", it looks like he might be targeting everyone who has ever edited the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • By coincidence I was reading the Supreme Court of California page a few days ago, and the innovative rulings of that jurisdiction do not necessarily bode ill for the community and the movement. ({Fair procedure]] may even have good ramifications to how we run our internal processes.) I know this is a lower court, but I would not be overly perturbed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC).
    

The Foundation's new Terms of Use provision on paid editing

See #RFC on Conflict of Interest guideline above. Looking for closers ahead of time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You requested three closers. I'm willing to act as a non-admin closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sanity check - attack or not an attack?

I reveiwed this article that was submitted as speedy deletion as an attack page: Crime in Adelaide. The article is written in a neutral tone, and the "attack" portions are referenced. I have declined it, but thought it best to have someone double check it in case of any contentious material that might have slipped me by. What are your thoughts? Stephen! ^Coming... 09:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It could do with a lot of fleshing out, but otherwise I wouldn't call it an attack page. Tone is fairly neutral but some of the wording could be dialed back a bit. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is fine, the 40% of it based one a blog post discussing an opinion by one academic, with zero evidence of actual significance of this opinion as demonstrated by widespread coverage in reliable independent sources, was not. So I removed that section. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that this "source" has been removed I don't think the article is inappropriate, although it could do with expansion. Not an appropriate speedy request, given how easy this was to fix. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

'Permission error' trying to create entry Ernir Kristján Snorrason

Hello! I was trying to create an entry for Ernir Kristján Snorrason (you can see the entry in my sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alarichall/sandbox) but when I clicked through to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ern%C2%ADir_Kristj%C3%A1n_Snorra%C2%ADson&action=edit I got the message:

Permission error

You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.

You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email.

Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.

If someone could make this page editable I would be very grateful! Alarichall (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you're trying to create a page name with some invisible characters in it. The name you're actually creating is "Ern<soft hyphen>ir Kristján Snorra<soft hyphen>son". Try clicking this link to create the page: Ernir Kristján Snorrason. --Carnildo (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Carnildo! That sorted it. Alarichall (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup Group A thru’ 2014 FIFA World Cup Group H

Dear Adminstators, I hope someone would review my contributions to the articles mentioned in the title e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_FIFA_World_Cup_Group_A&diff=613748606&oldid=613744810

It is true that I did simplify the code, but I did make sure that everything functioned as they had before, such as sorting, break between lines etc. The code may not have looked the same as before, but the article did.

Whether certain things would look better when centered, is another thing. My personal opinion is that they look better when centered, and I wish one of you might take a stand on this matter.

Furthermore, the table is rather wide as it is, and therefore making it a bit more narrow justifies the abbreviated names of months.

Yours sincerely, Apanuggpak (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why this is an administrative issue. The appropriate venue for this would be the talk page of one of the articles in question or possibly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

CFD backlogged again

We've got unclosed discussions from April. We've got discussions that have had a clear consensus for weeks and are still open. Somebody fix this! pbp 14:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you heard that everyone here is a volunteer?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Though my hands are somewhat tied. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC).

I have closed two discussions, one, however, will require an admin to perform the actual surgery. The remaining open discussion on the same page is a snow delete. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC).

Cut-and-paste move needs fixing

Resolved

 – Done. Graham87 13:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Could an admin please fix the apparent cut-and-paste move from Draft:Adam Burrows to Adam Burrows to preserve attribution? Thanks. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Graham87 13:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

anti-homosexual POV-pushing only account

After reviewing discrimination against conservatives before casting a !vote at its AFD, I found it had been created as a list of people who faced consequences for expressing anti-gay sentiments along with criticisms of those consequences (as "discrimination"). I took a quick look at its page creator's edits and to my dismay saw that virtually every single one of Dr. Bobbie Fox's edits, dating back to 2008, is pushing an anti-homosexuality POV through a variety of often subtle methods. I believe this is the first time I've come to AN about a user without discussing it on their talk page first, but the uniformity of purpose and content of the user's edits does not indicate being here to make an encyclopedia.

Summary of diffs linked below: removing LGBT-related categories from people's pages; adding LGBT-related categories to a page on Adolf Hitler's sexuality and to a Stalin regime official associated with the Great Purge; removing people from lists of LGBT people; extensive additions of weasel words; removing sources that assert people's LGBT status, adding sources that specifically deny the same; inserting the sexuality of source authors along with in-article explanations about gay authors being likely to push pro-homosexual theories. There's more, but that's the gist. As I found myself mesmerized by the singular purpose of these edits, I compiled several diffs and for ease of reading, collapsed them below. Fair warning: there are enough such that my organization and clarity may be poor in some places. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Diffs

Removing people from lists of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, like Nikolai Klyuev (and again), Ione Skye, Leonardo da Vinci (and again and again Changing the lead of one of the lists above, adding "but since it's often extremely difficult to provide definite proof of a historical person's homo/bisexuality, they may be included just due to numerous reliable sources." Removing categories from people's pages identifying them as LGBT, like Ione Skye (followed by removing her from the list above, removing the LGBTProject template on the talk page, removing her name from the WikiProject page itself, and removing mention of her same sex relationship at someone else's article) and Hans Christian Anderson, Sergei Eisenstein, Kay Farncis, Sergei Yesenin, Leonardo da Vinci, Tamara Karsavina (again), Nikolai Klyuev, Leonardo da Vinci, Donatello (and again Nominating Kittredge Cherry, a religious figure and gay rights activist, for deletion. (After removing her from Wikipedia:Requested articles because of "self advertising" Removing LGBT-related links, etc., like at Sexuality of Jesus Tagging statements about people's sexuality with fact/undue/unbalanced templates, like at Sexuality of Jesus (1 2 sexuality of jesus 3 4 5), Isadora Duncan, The Bible and homosexuality, Homosexual readings of Jesus and John, Christianity and homosexuality Edits to Corpus Christi (play) adding a negative review (fair enough), again (along with inserting "a gay man" after the name of someone who gave it a good review) (and again), weasel words and fact tags, change "some" to "all" with no change in sourcing (and again) Adding multiple LGBT-related categories for Nikolai Yezhov, which seemed strange until I saw he's known as a senior actor in Stalin's Great Purge. (also adding the WikiProject to his page) Adding Adolf Hitler to an LGBT category Inserting "it's possible that Leonardo was framed" to the paragraph on a sodomy accusation at Personal life of Leonardo da Vinci (and again using different wording) and arguing to remove the article from the WikiProject At Homosexual readings of Jesus and John a completely unsourced line saying "Another argument against the theory is that almost all the researchers who supported it, were homosexual themselves, which makes their points of view less objective." Whebn someone else added "However, the same can be said with regard to the opposers, most of whom were heterosexual themselves" Dr. Bobbie Fox removed it citing WP:POINT. Later replacing a source with one critical of the original alone with statement about it being "widely criticized" A large number of the edits removing content claim the source is unreliable or remove it because it's dead (dead link "Lists of famous homosexuals" (and again and again) Adding an unsourced weasel sentence to History of human sexuality asserting "some LGBT-supportive researchers stick to the homosexual theories, excluding other possibilities." Defense of Orson Scott Card's stance on gay marriage ("discrimination," "thoughtcrime") weasel words at Francesco Melzi on his relationship with da Vinci followed by changing "in love with" to "in a close relationship with" (and again). weasel words at Leonardo da Vinci. more. more. Removing extensive content about the sexuality of Nikolay Przhevalsky, then when reverted another similar, significant change, then removing key statements suggesting homosexuality, Various edits citing "discrimination against conservatives" in line with the article of that name: Brendan Eich, Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game (film),

PS: I hope AN is a sufficiently appropriate venue. As this doesn't concern the content of one article in particular, a violation of 3RR, or even one incident in particular, it seemed like it made the most sense. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you have reported an editor who made the opposite set of edits - e.g. adding information about supposed homosexuality, tagging people with LGBT categories (even on dubious grounds), etc? I'm not defending these edits, but people who are very adamantly pro-LGBT also can be pro-removal-of-arbitrary-LGBT tags on historical figures. I agree there is general issue here that approaches POV pushing, but we should also be neutral in pursuing POV pushers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked myself the same question, and although it's easy enough to say, I'd like to think I'd have the same problem with anyone whose account was dedicated to a certain POV. I've certainly argued against my own personal opinions/interests in content disputes, afds, etc. a number of times. We constantly run into a people who have particular perspectives on various issues -- and edit accordingly -- but whose edits are productive or at least varied in purpose. I hang around several controversial subject areas and don't think I've ever come to a noticeboard to report incidents other than in regard to specific content disputes or an edit war. This user stood out because of the uniformity of purpose among his/her edits, but also because the edits are almost never improvements (typically marginal at best). In your opinion, what's the best course of action in such a circumstance? I can see where one might be reluctant to block or take some other action since the problem is a history of edits and blocks are generally supposed to be preventative. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all of the diffs, but I'm not sure if this is anti-homosexuality vs "POV-pushing that attempts to limit or downplay descriptions of homosexuality in historical figures" - which seems to be a more accurate description. I think in general the notion of ascribing modern labels around sexuality to historical figures can be considered problematic, but it may be the orthodoxy we have arrived at here nonetheless disagrees with this person's world view. As for a remedy, I'm not sure, I'd say the first thing it so ask them to explain themselves esp the context of their edits and why they seem to have a singular focus on downplaying homosexuality in historical figures.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be one thing to downplay descriptions of homosexuality in historical figures. But he/she added those categories selectively, to Yezhov and Hitler (ah! LGBT history, not LGBT people. my mistake -- still weird that this is the only other edit to add a category, but it doesn't make the same point) . It was seeing those two edits (along with commentary like this) that solidified for me that there's an AN-worthy problem. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised at the number of times the word "removing" appeared in diffs above as "creating and developing articles" is presented in User:Dr. Bobbie Fox. Gregkaye (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Obi-Wan, your attempts to be neutral here are only serving to make you ridiculous. There's nothing constructive in saying, let alone in article text, that we can't trust gay scholars as reliable sources.

Now, this pattern has obviously been going on for quite some time and the user doesn't edit frequently (I looked at the list, went "hey, some of those articles are on my watchlist - what's been going on there recently, again?" and the edits were from 2008) but it's a pattern of edits that are a) destructive and b) inconsistent from a policy-enforcement perspective. If the user only removed LGBT-related content, even then they might still be deemed worthy of sanction (I've seen it happen in the past with users who were, let's say, stopped clocks; they tagged a few weakly sourced articles in a way that might have encouraged users to source them better, but it was part of a large purge of notable LGBT content that made it obvious that sourcing wasn't their concern, as here). But the user's addition of unsourced claims of LGB orientation to notorious figures, other original claims, etc. removes any excuse she might choose to make about selectively enforcing citation policies. The user's primary agenda here is obviously anti-LGBT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I haven't looked at all of the diffs. Adding hitler to LGBT history actually seems like a reasonable edit to me, although I suppose that could be seen in the wrong way. Yes, I do agree re: the point about gay scholars not being RS.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that their additions don't have to be neutral because other parts of the article are sourced to "the pro-LGBT Hufiington Post" are verging on WP:CIR territory, as well as any severe POV problems. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Need some help

I need an admin to weigh in over on ANI, specifically here. Sorry to post a thread both here and there, but I've been putting up with a 6-month harassment campaign from the guy, and now he has posted an extremely long, incomprehensible scree on the ANI thread and put it into TLDR territory. I'm now terrified that people will just ignore the problem again.

Please, please PLEASE could someone wade through his comment help me with this?

126.0.96.220 (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Cut and Paste Move

Just now, I noticed a cut and paste move. Cut here and pasted here, with redirects reversed. Can an admin fix the move ? --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have done a history merge so all attribution is clear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks. :) --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Template editor status

Can I please have this? Given I've coded half of what I will be editing, and am an experienced template editor (for example, I coded the original version of the MOTD on commons), I think I can be trusted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Adam Cuerden please request the right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor. It's easier to keep them all together plus the format there includes all of the links we need to check. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Should've guessed there'd be a page for it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discovery en Español

I want to warn the administrators that the user 198.147.17.5 should be blocked because he keeps adding an advertisment to the aforementioned article. You should also check the user 98.19.32.188 which also looks like a vandal to me. --89.216.56.7 (t) — Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither has edited for at least a month so there is no need to take any action against either of those IPs. There also hasn't been anywhere near enough activity on Discovery en Español to warrant any form of protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... Ok then. However, someone should clean the article from advertisment-like terms. --89.216.56.7 (t) — Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick stab at removing the promotional language. I think this can be closed now. hbent (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(to admins) When reverting someone's contribution is a bad form

Honestly, I've been to wikipedia for a long time, and don't even bother looking up this account's creation date. I have known it a long time, I talked, I read a lot of wiki-related stuff. I noticed that some experienced editors have a bad habit of being in a rush to revert someone's edit, whether he's a newbie or not, really? No, I understand when reverting someone's edit makes sense.

But lemme give you an example, so we'll have a specific case to weigh an opinion upon. As you can see, inclusion of a low-budget movie, due to the limited scope of the footage (you don't need a lot of money when majority of the movie takes place in tiny and closed premises), doesn't mean the movie doesn't deserve to be in the article. As a zombie-movie fan, I'd have liked it, if there was a source that would provide with the list of all zombie movies, with as much info as possible, so as to let me be my own judge regarding the interestingness of a particular zombie movie. But instead, in this case, we see (doesn't really matter who, there are a lot of editors who do the same thing he does anyway) that a typical editor, who sees no wrong in what he's about to do, reverts my contribution (note: not just an edit, but a contribution!) to the article. With a reason that there's only imdb source for it. Since when having imdb isn't enough?

Besides, instead of wasting time on unnecessary reverting, such a typical capricious editor can simply look for it himself and then add it to the entry, thus turning into a productive editor, instead of being a capricious one, whose revert is discouraging the other editor (me) from further contribution to the article. Such reverting puts off a lot of editors from adding new information into articles, because there are such experienced editors who think too high of themselves and bestow upon themselves the right to revert a contribution right away, without realizing that it would be much better for the article to have it, rather than not. Wikipedia is for everyone, so let's ask the majority of potential readers of the said article - fans of zombie movies - would they rather have an article that would NOT skip a single zombie movie (but which would attempt to include information of budget and low general rating) or to have an article which would be overseen by capricious editors who will decide which movies should be added, over-exemplifying wp reliable-source rules, instead of working case on case basis? I personally would prefer the first. I don't care if some experienced editor thinks that this movie was only added with an imdb source, because I'd rather not skip a possible zombie movie I might even slightly enjoy watching.

tl;dr "oh, I'll revert this edit, because it fails X rule, and it's the other editor's problem to make sure he complies with the rules if he wants this movie to be in my article". I hope you guys see through this commentary and understand that simply reverting edits isn't always right, and such "all-knowing" capricious behavior of many experienced editors makes it "sucky" for other editors. It's like when you try to build something off a sand on a private beach, and then the owner comes along and ruins your work before it's even finished because according to the owner you broke one of the rules while building whatever it is you were trying to build. Of course after this you just wanna say: "screw this, I'm washing my hands of this beach, why don't you play yourself in your own sand then, you jerk... and then walk away". inb4 expected replies: "we should follow the rules ... bla-bla, shouldn't be exceptions... bla-bla, it's your responsibility to take care of the aforementioned movie, if you don't take it, then don't expect the movie to be in the article. bla-bla, stop whining and do edits, we don't care how many are put off by such reverts, everyone should be energetic like us, and always put all efforts into trying to add even a minor entry etc etc" yeah yeah I know it all already, don't bother, it's sad that you failed to get my message.

What would have I done if I were in the shoes of that other editor who reverted my edit? Well, firstly, if I saw that the movie isn't bogus or a complete trash, I wouldn't be quick to delete it, but rather would have given it a chance to be in the article. Secondly, before doing an unnecessary revert (I fail to see how inclusion of this movie harmed the article) I'd have talked to the editor who added it, as to tell him find another reliable source, or tell him that otherwise the movie has no place in the article, and if he doesn't agree, then I'd bring it up on the article's talkpage to see other people's opinion regarding the matter. // (I already know what you're gonna say: "experienced editors don't want to put so much effort into trying to save someone's edit, I understand that, but speaking within the current context, such efforts would've made sense")

There's always a time to delete, but if you see, that an instant deletion (revering an edit) isn't necessary, why not let more entries to be in the article? When in doubt, I think it's better to have more movies listed than fewer, in this case at least. Pessimist2006 (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

To summarise this is a dispute over what films are notable enough to be in List of zombie films. Doesn't look like a case for WP:ANI, especially as you've not really attempted to use the WP:TALK page to address the issue. You're also supposed to inform users when you raise issues here. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you've read and remembered what you've read, then you'd know why I didn't inform that other editor who reverted my edit in the example provided. It's not really about him, but rather about a general, bad trend amongst experienced editors. In fact, I'd have preferred if that other editor wasn't invited here. I never even mentioned his name, it was never about him, just leave him out of it. Pessimist2006 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

As the editor in question, I reverted the entry in good faith because it was referenced only by IMDB (see WP:RS/IMDB) and it was a redline, as per the discussion on the talk pages. I'm sorry if that offended you. Please don't take it personally. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is (unfortunately) simple: the only things that should ever exist on a "List of..." article should be links to other Wikipedia articles. We don't do redlinks, off-wiki links, or even unlinked entries on List of... pages. List of... pages are an index to Wikiepdia topics of sorts. If the topic isn't sufficiently notable to have its own article (yet) then it doesn't go onto a List of... index (yet). That's SOP on Wikipedia the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, that's not exactly true. There are three types of list, per WP:CSC. We have lists that are made up of things that are notable (or could be notable) enough to have their own pages, but we also have lists where a majority of the items are unlinked entries completely unlikely to ever have their own articles. (examples can be found Category:Lists of sitcom television characters and the unlikely-to-be-deleted List of Starfleet starships ordered by class or List of Knights Templar. (It is a bit strange as it seems to suggest that if we ever had a list that started as a collection of items without articles, that we should delete it if it ever became half bluelinks, then create it again when it was mostly bluelinks.) And sometimes we do redlinks per Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

But isn't it just sad? I dunno what the correct term would be here, but since this specific article is deemed to attract specific people, like fans of zombie movies. There's bound to be less enthusiastic editors, I mean, it's just a list of movies after all. So, when you have few caring people regarding a certain article, it'll unfortunately be greatly influenced by those few editors. Same thing here, someone decided that only the movies that have their own articles on wiki deserve to be in the article, and now it's a rule of thumb. It's like with public sand beach, it's nobody's, so no one, but few die-hard fans will care what business going on in this sand beach, others will just come and go, if it's not there, they will go other place. No big deal.

You know, I'd have understood, if the few people that enforce their rules in this article, would also care enough to bother with creating articles for films that haven't yet gotten articles. But it's not the case, they just do what is easy and ... actually a bad thing, if instead of enforcing unnecessary rules they'd have focused their energy into adding as many information to as many listed movies as possible, that would've been kind of better.

Besides, the current rule that says that only the movies that have their own articles should be listed in the zombie article is going to deplete potential readers / the article itself from inclusion of good, but limited films. For instance, there's been a well accepted (by general public) tv-series about zombies, it hasn't been released to international scene en masse, but it's a decent, local film (or short tv-series, whatever), which has been mostly watched in the UK. However, since it's made by popular companies and popular names are involved, it's pretty notable. But what if some obscure company made it? Like in the aforementioned case, also a decent movie, according to stats, now that movie has no place in the article because it doesn't have an article? Just what kind of filtering is this. Whom does it please? Would it please majority of potential readers of the zombie article, in this case? Wouldn't majority would rather have this low budget movie listed than not? I don't understand who would agree to have someone else decide what is best for you and what you shouldn't see, based on an obscure rule. In other words, often there are good movies that haven't had much publicity, and it would be a shame if they will be out of picture because they weren't "notable" enough to have their own article. Pessimist2006 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is now created and with refs so that movie is in the list now. :) -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit offended that you're calling me capricious, and ignoring the extensive referencing I've done on the hundreds of entries for that list so that they meet WP:RS. Anyway, the inclusion criteria of whether movies get listed has been discussed on the talk page, and the list of low-budget zombie films has been proposed to merge to the main list, while the short-films and anthologies are split off to the third article. Going forward, if there are plans to develop the new article based on the movie, please say so. We're more than happy to help with that process. You can see on the talk page of ones that we're having a hard time finding to be notable and the queue of films that are notable but just need that article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This is true. AngusWOOF has performed massive work on the list, and I think it's horribly unfair to characterize any of his edits as capricious. I agree that the main article, list of zombie films, should include low-budget, non-mainstream films. Although the merge proposal stalled months ago, both Angus and I have worked hard to include these films in the main article. However, consensus is that the list is to be an index of Wikipedia articles, not an indiscriminate list of interesting films. The issue here is not that any editor is trying to block the addition of a film but that the film temporarily failed the list criteria. Once the article was created and a citation was found, the film was added. Unless there are outstanding issues that I've missed, I think the situation has basically resolved itself. Issues with WP:NFILM should probably be directed to WT:FILM or WT:Notability (films). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Two articles violated the Wikipedia's Guidelines and nominated for deletion

The following two article: M Capital Group and Sílvio Antônio violated the guidelines of Wikipedia therefore it has successfully met the criteria for speedy deletion, I request you to delete those two page immediately for violating the Wikipedia's Guidelines. --PrinceSulaiman (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You do not need to post requests for speedy deletion here, they all come up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and admins regularly review that category and take care of them as appropriate. GB fan 13:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @PrinceSulaiman: There's no need to list articles here. Admins will process all tagged articles in due time. However I have removed the tag from Sílvio Antônio as he seems to meet WP:NFOOTY. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi GB fan, Thanks for heads up, It has been long time now. @NeilN: Sílvio Antônio isn't footballer that user created the article without providing reliable source neither that person is notable footballer. I request you to delete it since it violating the guidelines and already met the criteria for speedy deletion. — PrinceSulaiman (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@PrinceSulaiman: CSD A7 says nothing about sources, only if significance has been credibly asserted. In my opinion the stub has, through the infobox. I've asked the creator for a source but you may tag the article with a {{subst:prod blp}} if you wish. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no timeline when they will be deleted. There is no need to delete these immediately. GB fan 13:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, Hmm that looks much better, I'll add that tag, @GB fan:, Ah alright then, Then it doesn't mean to be speedy deletion? — PrinceSulaiman (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy is relative to the other deletion processes. WP:PROD and WP:AFD are both 7 day processes. Speedy deletion is usually less than 1 day, therefore speedy. GB fan 13:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

GB fan, Thank you for the processing day(s), I'll keep in mind :) — PrinceSulaiman (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll point out that articles that seem to be attack pages are often deleted much faster than others, because there is urgency to delete such pages to prevent actual harm to people. Pages like that show up differently on the admin dashboard (they'll show up in red, and when I'm checking out that page I attend to them first). Others aren't generally so urgent. -- Atama頭 21:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit filter?

Can anything be done to counter the recurring vandalism at Talk:2011 AFL season, ie. an edit filter? It is getting quite tiresome and I don't think indef semi would be appropriate for the talk page. Connormah (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi'd by Fluffernutter for a year. Edit filters work best for issues that arise in a formulaic fashion. Mike V • Talk 00:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete My account and my personal page please

Dears While my work as one of the US agents remains classified, (while I had lots of problems and I had a hard time during writing the articles) so I will confront with some kind of security complaints and threatening problems if my account remain here so I ask you to delete my account and all of what is remained here inside of the encyclopedia please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peyman_Ghasemi

Peyman Ghasemi (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you should exercise your Right to Vanish.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Eaglestorm is correct. We can't delete accounts, but Right to Vanish is the next best thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• • In view of this posting and the blanking of the user page, I have deleted the latter. Favonian (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And I did a courtesy blank of the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Uncontroversial move

Can someone G6 WZTK please? WATZ (AM) just moved to that callsign this week and I'd like the page moved. I'm asking here because every time I tag a G6, it sits untouched for days. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RM (technical moves) also works for this. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Close 4-month RfD Cita_web

The Template:Cita_web is/was a full template to auto-translate Spanish or Italian cite parameters into English {{cite_web}}, but it is being re-reverted into a redirect to re-rehash the old discussion:
• WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_5#Template:Cita_web
As the RfD discussion continues into the 4th month (restarted 3 times), I need an experienced admin to close the "redirect" as no consensus to delete, and I can restore the full template, where any features should be discussed at Template_talk:Cita_web. Some people have been confused by the current redirect, as if the full, functional template does not exist (but it does/did), and the full template is not "hypothetical" but actually works (see: Template:Cita_web/sandbox). Dragging this RfD out for 4 months (from mid-April 2014) is massive disruption to delay improvements. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Second look request

Could an editor review my close at Talk:Yelp#Controversies? (Please see User_talk:NE_Ent#yelp.) I'm currently engaged in something called real life and lack wiki time to respond myself. NE Ent 01:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been long enough that another RfC could be made without too much controversy. If an editor balks at the idea, someone could go in and reset the original close to "no consensus", which seems perfectly legitimate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting review of editor conduct

I'd like a few extra opinions as to the conduct of myself, RGloucester (talk · contribs), and the administrator known as Q5W5 (talk · contribs). Today, at the page 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine, of which I have been a prolific editor, a relatively new user called Stephen B at USDA (talk · contribs) initiated a page move to 2014 pro–Russian unrest in Ukraine with this edit. He did the same at the timeline article, Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. I reverted his page moves with this edit[49], as there is currently an ongoing requested move discussion about the title of these articles at Talk:2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. I shall note, I am a strong advocate of the "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" title, and in fact, my bold page move to restore the article to that title is what initiatde the present requested move discussion. I have no interest in maintaining the present title for various reason that are best left for the move discussion. However, I do not think it is appropriate to overwrite an ongoing requested move discussion, as I'm sure most people agree. Furthermore, Stephen B introduced an orthographical error into the title, moving it to 2014 pro–Russian unrest in Ukraine with a dash, rather than with the appropriate hyphen (2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine). Minutes later, Stephen B once again moved the pages to 2014 pro–Russian unrest in Ukraine. Another editor, Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs), reverted these moves. I only made one revert of Stephen Bs bold page moves.

Minutes later, I received an edit warring template on my talk page[50], placed by the administrator Q5W5, who has been participating in the present move discussion. I immediately requested clarification from the administrator, as I had not participated in any edit war. I made ONE revert of a bold page move during a move discussion. The administrator responded with this edit[51]:

So you are saying that and other substantially identical edits made within the last fifteen minutes were not made by you? You are not exactly giving yourself a good reputation by continuously reverting constructive contributions and then lying that you did not do it. Edit histories do not lie, so we can figure it out fairly quickly. Do you have an answer for these things, RGloucester?

Anyone that actually looked at the edit history would know that I was not reverting any constructive contributions, and that I only made one revert of a bold page move. The aggressive tone of the administrator in question shook me up, as I take allegations of wrongdoing seriously. I replied, explaining to him what actually happened.[52] The administrator replied, saying that he was mistaken with regard to "edit warring", but that my revert was "extreme".[53] I do not consider one revert of a bold page move during a currently ongoing move discussion as "extreme". The administrator in question then attempted to put words in my mouth, saying:[54]

Edits are NOT vandalism if the person is unaware that they are wrong. Despite it being clear that he was acting in good faith, you took it upon yourself to blatantly revert his edit, referring to it as "disruptive", while making absolutely no friendly attempt to educate him about how Wikipedia works. Besides, you said yourself that you support this move. Disagreeing over two equally good titles and reverting a blatantly inaccurate one (as Stephen B at USDA did) are two completely different things. Q5W5 [discussion] 22:06, Today (UTC−4)

I never said the editor in question was a "vandal", and in fact, if one looks at his talk page, one will note that I was having a discussion with him about why the move was inappropriate, and that I was in fact attempting to "educate" him in a civil manner. However, despite explaining this, Q5W5 was not sated. He responded to my continued explanations with the following remarks:[55]

I have said myself on the article's talk page that the title is wrong and so have a slew of other editors. This is not about two good titles in dispute; it is about fixing a blatantly incorrect title. I support Stephen B at USDA's right to change it, especially as a newcomer. If you disagree, you should educate him on why you believe he was wrong, not restoring by restoring incorrect titles, which is borderline vandalism. Q5W5 [discussion] 22:22, Today (UTC−4)

I agree that the title is wrong, as I tried to explain to the administrator here. However, it has been stable at that title for a month, until a bold page move by me triggered the current RM. It was agreed upon by discussion, and did not appear out of thin air. Instead, we have an administrator pushing a POV (one I happened to agree with, by the way) about "accurate" and "inaccurate" titles, and calling ME a VANDAL for my ONE REVERT of a BOLD PAGE MOVE during an ongoing REQUESTED MOVE DISCUSSION. I do not understand why I deserve to be bullied and attacked by an administrator for things I did not do. Please read my talk page, the talk page of Stephen B, and review my edits, and those of the administrator. Please tell me why it was okay for this administrator to functionally bully me for no reason. I was accused of "biting newcomers", but in reality, I'm the one being bitten here, and I can't understand why. Now my talk page is sullied with accusations that are false, and there is nothing I can do about it. I value my integrity, and this is just a bridge too far. If it is found the administrator in question was out-of-line, I request that he rescind his accusations. RGloucester — ☎ 02:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Q5W5 (talk · contribs) isn't an administrator, and their account was only created on the 20th of this month. I think they copied an admin's userpage. I'll have a word with them on that subject. For now I'll assume that this is a new and naive user. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's what I get for "assuming good faith" and taking a person's user page at face value. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You get karma points nonetheless. It's a copy of Bucketsofg's userpage. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the newness of the account, the copied userpage from Bucketsofg and the copied talkpage content from Qwyrixian, and the aggressive and proficient use of policy quotes, I'm guessing this is not a new user, and they set out to create the impression of an established admin account. I'm about to sign off for the evening and have left questions of Q5W5's userpage: additional investigation is warranted here. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been fooled by this too. This is even more shocking now. Q5W5 has been a good contributor though. I guess some people are just that good at being deceitful. That's a bummer.  :-( L'Aquotique (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You might want to consider adding User:Ais523/adminrights to your custom.js. VanIsaac_WS^cont 03:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Navigation Popups Gadget also shows user rights.—Odysseus1479 04:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on the user's admission [56] that they intended to deceive, I've blocked Q5W5 indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I remove the affair from talk page, or would that be inappropriate? I really don't like having personal attacks plastered all over my wall. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as nothing in WP:UP#CMT prevents it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

Q5W5 (talk · contribs) has now issued an unblock request with the following rationale:

What I did was wrong and I should have known better. I have been a useful contributor in the past as an IP, but I let my ego get the best of me and willfully violated multiple policies because things were not going my way. If there is even the tiniest possibility that I could be unblocked, I promise to not even have a user page for a while, stay completely away from the Ukraine articles, and work on another topic of interest. I feel very bad about the way I treated User:RGloucester and want to rebuild my reputation here. If you do not want to let me do this, however, I completely understand and will be accepting of it. I am a very troubled individual anyway, so I do not expect much either way this turns out, since my life is already quite meaningless and damned. My sincere apologies for insulting RGloucester. Thank you for your time.

With WP:AGF and WP:NOPUNISH in mind, I would tentatively support an unblock coupled with implementing the Ukraine topic ban volunteered by the user, but would value a second (and third, fourth,...) opinion. Acroterion and RGloucester's views would be especially welcome. WaggersTALK 12:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll be away in meetings for the rest of the morning and a for good bit of the afternoon, so any admin can implement whatever consensus develops in my absence. As apologies go, it's a pretty good one, acknowledging the sin, apologizing to the victim, and promising reform. However, the offense was egregious: a deliberate attempt to bully users using a fake admin account, going so far as to appropriate pieces of inactive admin's userspace, presumably so it wouldn't be readily noticed. But as noted above, we don't use blocks as punishment, and the unblock request is the sort of request we hope to see in these circumstances (and all too often don't). I'm leaning toward unblocking, with strong restrictions enforceable by immediately reblocking. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on the accounts and proxies that just got blocked, AGF goes out the window. This was an extensive effort involving impersonation of several accounts: I should have picked up a couple of them without CU if it hadn't been so late, i.e. L'Aquotique who commented above and who used the same methods of impersonation. I think we're done here. Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd also support an unblock with the Ukraine topic ban volunteered by the user. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have declined their unblock request because they are socking. I will post my full results shortly. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/L'Aquotique

L'Aquotique (talk · contribs) is the oldest account of the group I turned up so far, but be aware that most of the accounts and IPs I uncovered have been used to participate in the same talk page discussions, deletion discussions, noticeboard discussions and probably more, so some cleanup and striking of !votes will be necessary. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie White as it was sock-initiated and -infested. Fram (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I deleted three more userpages that were copied from those of legitimate editors. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't expect to step on a hornet's nest. That's the most comprehensive deception I've seen in my time here. I'm glad it's being dealt with. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

An admin may want to talk to this user

Currently I'm speaking with FilmFounder onhis talk page . He came to my attention when he posted this on the OTRS board . I posted a note on his talk page, and he's rsponded . He's not ranting or being incivil, but I sense that he doesn't really understand policy on Wikiepdia.

He and I have spoken back and forth on his talk page, and I'm getting a sense of either him wanting to own the article or posting the history of the festival as he sees it . Either case, additional voices on his talk page wouldn't hurt. I will note he's hasn't edited the page in question The Sarasota Film Festival . Feel free to chime in, or you can trout me if you think I'm getting trolled on his page (trout are yummy anyway :) )! Kosh Vorlon    17:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I added a note that should clear up a few things, but reading though, I don't think he is really paying much attention to what you are saying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I rewrote the page and added a bunch of sources. I added it to my watchlist, too. I don't foresee any problems, but I kept {{COI}} on it. I'll remove the tag in a few days if nothing promotional gets added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

IP user 67.222.120.226 seems to be here at Wikipedia for no other reason than to vandalize articles and disrupt. He's been blocked and warned numerous times judging by his userpage and returned from a block here [57] to leave this vile message on my user talk page [58]. Just as a note, I've never come past this IP user before on Wikipedia. I would suggest an indefinite ban of the IP as it's now going on various articles and vandalizing them with people having to warn him. AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like someone blocked him even before I finished my post above. Either that or ya'll can see into the future here at the Admininistrative Noticeboards. lol! AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We knew you were going to say that. GJC 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Whitelist request backlog

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist is heavily backlogged. Please can we have some admin attention there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe if regex wasn't so arcane I would've pitched in. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Reformatting and expanding the List of Presidents of Venezuela

Hello everyone! It would be greatly appreciated if someone can help at Talk:List of Presidents of Venezuela#Reformatting and expanding the article. Also, if you know some users who would be interested to help, please inform them. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)