위키백과:관리자 알림판/아카이브217

위키백과:중재/요청/강제

모래스타인이 일을 처리하지 않는 한, 이 다소 중요한 분야는 현재 다소 인력이 부족한 것으로 보인다는 점을 언급하고자 한다.Loie496 (대화) 17:55, 2010년 9월 24일 (UTC)

조금도 놀랍지 않다. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

이게 뭐야?(현장에 따라 다름)

내용: http://survey.prizesgiveaway.com/w/index.php?f=wikkipedia(내 브라우저에 wikipedia.org을 수동으로 입력할 때 팝업됨)츄우우우히:2010년 9월 25일(UTC) 9월 25일, Az86556 11:41

만약 여러분이 실수를 하지 않았다면, wikipedia.org은 여러분을 본 사이트로 바로 데려다 줄 것이다.사용자 컴퓨터가 브라우저를 다른 URL로 리디렉션하는 바이러스 또는 멀웨어에 감염되었을 수 있음MalwareBytes(malwarebytes.org - 다운로드 사이트인지 확인) 및 Antivirus(http://free.avg.com/gb-en/homepage 또는 http://www.free-av.com/가 안전한지 확인하십시오.Exxolon (대화) 13:13, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

가장 그럴듯한 설명인 것 같다; 전에 브라우저 납치범들을 다뤄본 적이 있는데, 그들은 정말 짜증날 수 있다.또 다른 흔한 것은 납치범이 검색 엔진 히트(구글, 야후, 질문 등)를 자체 광고로 대체하는 것이다.그나저나, 나는 가능하면 다른 컴퓨터에서 바이러스 백신이나 악성 프로그램들을 다운받도록 권하고 싶다. 그것은 알려진 항바이러스제의 URL을 가로채려고 할 수도 있기 때문이다.기프티거Wunsch [TAK] 13:15, 2010년 9월 25일(UTC)

아마 그냥 오타일 거야.방금 브라우저 창에 wikkipedia.org을 입력했는데 경품용 Givaway 사이트로 갔다. --Ron Ritzman (토크) 13:44, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

후후, 레퍼러를 나타내는 URL에 "f=윅키피디아"가 있는 것을 눈치채지 못했다;) 예, 오자였음에 틀림없다.기프티거Wunsch [TAK] 22:40, 2010년 9월 25일(UTC)

타이포그래픽 오류야 마크가 해결됐어Exxolon (대화) 06:16, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

사용자 대화:M12390

사용자 대화:M12390은 MQM, Altaf Hussein, Imran Faroq와 관련된 이슈에 대해 그의 페이지에 반복적으로 경고를 받았다.그가 POV를 밀고 있는 안건이 있는 것 같다.최근에 사망한 사람(임란파루크)을 위해 그에게 소개할 수 있는 페이지에는 2명의 편집자(그 중 한 명은 나)가 소싱된 내용을 삽입했고(미필자로 간주하는 다른 동료와 논의한 후, 우리는 정당한 출처를 찾았다) 그는 "관련성이 없다"고 말하며 삭제한다.그의 편견에 더하여 그는 갔고 WP는 다음과 같이 말했다.다른 편집자 NPAed 사용자 대화:사키브 카윰#왜 당신은 임란파루크의 "무하지르" 배경을 강조하는데 골몰하는가? 그리고 나서 내 페이지에서 사용자 토크:Lihaas#A Lahori는 카라치에 대해 중립적일 수 없다(인신공격에 대해 경고한 후에 나온 말이었다).

나는 여기가 메시지를 올리기에 적당한 장소라고 믿는다. 헬프 데스크는 9월 19일에 나의 질문에 대답하지 않았다.(Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC));

ANI가 더 적절했을지도 모른다고 생각한다. /ƒETECCOMMS/01:35, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

어떤 편견 없는 연구자라도 어떤 이유로든 특히 라호리스와 GT로드(페샤와르 -> 이슬라마바드 -> 라호르)에 있는 도시의 많은 의견수렴자들이 카라치에 대해 편견을 가질 수 없다는 것을 곧 알게 될 것이다.이것 좀 봐.데일리 미러에 따르면 "United National Movement를 의미하는 Muttahida Qaumi 운동의 주도적인 회원인 Faroq 박사의 사망 몇 분 만에 이슬라마바드의 웹사이트들은 그가 자신의 경호원에 의해 암살되거나 살해되었다는 주장으로 넘쳐났다"고 한다.

이 사람들은 스코틀랜드 야드가 단서를 얻기 위해 안간힘을 쓰고 있을 때 살인의 자세한 내용을 어디서 알아냈을까?

또 나와즈 샤리프 전 총리(라호르 소재)의 영국 펀자비 지지자들도 이와 유사한 MQM에 대한 온갖 음모론을 쓰고 있다.^[2] 이 웹사이트는 GT 로드의 또 다른 도시인 라왈핀디에 기반을 두고 있다.M12390 (토크) 23:24, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

이것은 단지 정반대의 관점의 사용자일 뿐, 나는 거기서 편집했고, 명확한 지지 인용문 없이 인종적 표기가 있었다, 사용자 리하스는 파루크를 이민자로 분류하기를 원한다, 파루크는 파키스탄에서 태어났으며, 내가 태어난 곳은 영국에서 태어난 사람으로서, 만약 그의 아버지가 파키스탄에서 태어났다면, 그리고 영화에서는 그렇게 하지 않는다.그의 아버지는 이민자였고...어쨌든 사용자:M12390은 그것에 대해 약간 열을 올렸는데, 내가 보기엔 냉정함을 유지하고 예의 바르게 지내라는 말이 당분간 필요한 전부다.Off2riorob (대화) 05:31, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

너의 친절한 코멘트에 오프투리오롭에게 고마워.나는 확실히 침착함을 유지하려고 노력할 것이다.:) M12390 (대화) 2010년 9월 26일 12:51, (UTC)

오프투리오롭, 우리는 그가 토크 페이지에서 어디에 있는지 보여주는 내용과 인용구에 대해 시민적인 토론을 했다.

M12390의 경우, 여기와 양쪽 대화 페이지에서 모두 그의 공격은 WP:NPA는 어떤 상상력으로도 가능하다.그는 또한 그러한 모든 기사에 대해 과거에 다른 많은 사람들로부터 경고를 받았다.경고가 몇 개 더 있나?내가 처음 그렇게 했을 때 그는 긍정적으로 대답했고, 그리고 나서 다시 가서 내가 (본문 없이) 그에게 편지를 썼고, 그는 바로 공격과 표지로 돌아갔다.(Lihaas (talk) 21:11, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC));

리하스는 편향된 기고자다.그는 나에게 "경고"할 일이 없다.우선 그를 편향되지 않은 기고자로 받아들여서 선의를 보였다.하지만, 그는 빠르게 공격적으로 변했고, 나를 비난하기 시작했고, 나를 위협하기 시작했다.나는 중립적인 관점에 절대 문제가 없다.하지만, 단지 무력화할 수 없는 특정한 것들이 있다.그런 것들에서 우리는 적어도 초기에 그 주제(특히 그것이 취약한 가정을 가진 인간이라면)를 줄 필요가 있다. 강한 중립적인 관점이 시간과 함께 나타날 때까지 의심의 이점이 있다.그것은 단지 인간일 뿐이다.리하스는 처음에는 편파적인 편견을 가지고 있으며, 그가 위의 불평에서 언급하는 다른 사람은 리하스와 마찬가지로 비사이다.많은 라호리스들은 카라치에 대해 편견을 가질 수 없다.왜 그럴까?몰라.나는 카라치 사람들이 라호르에 근거한 어떤 것에 대해 논평을 하는 것을 보지 못한다.그러나 일부 라호리스들은 카라치에 기반을 둔 사람들과 단체들을 쿡쿡 찌르고 악의적으로 굴기 위해 그들의 사업을 한다.무슨 일이 생겼어!!!M12390 (토크) 23:24, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

사용자에 대한 커뮤니티 금지:셔터버그

OgreBot + Commons 이미지

참고:{{subst:ncd}}(즉, 커먼즈) 백로그를 정리하는 과정에 도움이 되는 감독 자동화된 봇을 만들 것을 요청한다.위키피디아에서 승인을 요청한다.봇/승인요청서/OgreBot 2에 대해 여기서 공감대를 얻고 싶었다.여기나 저기서 얼마든지 논평해 주시오.물론 나는 이 봇을 극도로 조심할 것이고, 예기치 못한 문제는 인쇄되어 수작업으로 고쳐야 할 것이다.고마워!오그르 마고그 (토크) 03:44, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

행운을 빈다!만약 그것이 효과가 있다면, 그것은 정말 멋질 것이다.(여기서는 확실치 않지만, 정말, 멋지다. :D) --Moonledgirl 12:31, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)

비작업 404 위키백과 링크

첫째로, 나는 이곳이 일하지 않는 위키백과 기사 링크에 관심을 불러일으킬 수 있는 곳이기를 바란다.

나 구글에서"센카쿠 열도"을 위해 만들어 주고 위키 피디아 결과에 클릭하는 나에게"404NotFound"오류를 주고 있었어요.위키 피디아의 검색 상자에"senkaku 섬"타이핑이 똑같은 실수를 토할 것이다.마찬가지로,disambigiuos 센카쿠 열도 기사 페이지에"senkaku 섬"에 클릭하는 같은 404오류를 보여 준다.이 리디렉션 페이지도 동일하다.사실 그 기사에 접근할 수 있는 유일한 방법은 덜 보편적인 댜오위타이만 찾는 것이다.

이동 일지를 통해 확인한 결과 이 페이지는 최근 중국과 일본의 영토 분쟁 결과여서 상당히 많은 움직임을 보이고 있다. (그것이 내가 이 사건에 대한 더 많은 배경을 찾고 있었기 때문에 원래 기사를 검색하고 있었던 이유였다.)이 움직임에 관한 마지막 논의는 편집자들 사이에 '노 무브먼트' 합의로 귀결되었지만, 이전의 움직임은 위키피디아가 기사와 연결하는 방식을 어떻게든 '파탄'시켰을지도 모른다.

만약 내가 이것을 잘못된 게시판에 보고한다면, 바라건대 누군가가 이 오류를 보고하기 위해 나를 올바른 장소로 다시 안내해 줄 수 있을 것이다.현재 뜨거운 뉴스 주제인 만큼 기사가 많이 나올 것이고 나쁜 연결고리는 하루빨리 고쳐야 한다.미리 고마워!잔차오 (대화) 03:10, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)

음, 나한테는 효과가 있어...티톡스드^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:14, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)

나도 그래; 외부 스팸 사이트로 모든 링크를 전송하는 바이러스가 있거나 일시적으로 어딘가에 문제가 생겼거나.이러한 성격의 질문을 하기에 더 좋은 장소는 WP이다.그건 그렇고, VPT. /ƒETECCOMMS/04:14, 2010년 9월 27일(UTC)

흠, 이상하네. WP로 건너가겠지.VPT가 보고서를 게시할 예정인데, 이 링크 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands을 테스트해 볼 수 있니?나는 문제로 겪는 센카쿠 제도 기사에 그거 정확한 위키 피디아 URL, 고마워!내가 부호 없는 논평 Zhanzhao함으로써 추가된 —Preceding(이야기 • contribs)06:19, 9월 27일 2010년(CoordinatedUniversalTime).

내 끝의 그 링크는 문제 없어.Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:34, 2010년 9월 27일(UTC)

브렛 존 솔즈베리

정확한 장소가 아닐 수도 있으니 용서해줘. 이 삭제 토크 페이지에서 사용자와 상의하고 있어.주요 편집인이자 기사의 작성자인 이 IP는 다른 사용자 계정(두 개의 다른 사용자 이름으로 서명한 두 개의 분리된 게시물, IP 편집자가 동일한 편집에 게시한 게시물 참조)을 빌리는 것으로 보인다.응원 우키인열 (토크) 04:51, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)

추가적으로 살펴본 결과, 아릿클레어의 작성자는 분명히 이 IP와 동일한 사람이다.IP는 나에게 영향을 미치기 위해 토론에서 다른 사용자들을 가장하고 있다.우키인열 (토크) 05:05, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)

AfD에 관한 논의에 관련된 다른 사용자들 중 한 명으로서, IP 사용자의 의도는 악의적으로 보이지 않는다.그러나 IP/사용자(로그인, 서명 게시물 등 기술적인 어려움을 겪고 있는 것이 분명함)는 분명 단서를 사용할 수 있을 것이다.사실, 아마 한 개 이상...기술적인 문제 외에도, 그들의 논쟁 방식은 그들을 함께 일하기 매우 어렵게 만든다.돛비스타 (토크) 15:35, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)

외부 링크(브래킷 포함)?

여기가 이 글을 올리기 위한 적절한 장소인지는 잘 모르겠지만, 나는 새를 위한 시블리 가이드 기사에 링크를 넣는 데 어려움을 겪고 있다.참조에 인용 저널 템플릿을 사용하고 있는데, url에 괄호가 있어서 페이지를 저장하면 링크가 깨진다.링크 단락 장치는 모두 블랙리스트에 올라 있어서 사용할 수 없다.URL은 http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1676/0043-5643(2001)113[0255:OL]2.0.CO;2 입니다.

누구 도와줄 사람 있어?—2010년 9월 27일 22:42, 아웃포커스^of(UTC)

각각%5B와%5D로 변경하면작동해야 한다브래킷을.http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1676/0043-5643(2001)113%5B0255:OL%5D2.0.CO;2 ...테스트 링크 --B (토크) 22:48, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)

고마워! —2010년 9월 27일 23:04, 아웃포커스^of(UTC)

WP:VPT는 "올바른" 장소, btw. / /ETECCOMMS/ 00:41, 2010년 9월 28일(UTC)

사용자:Cuchullain 및 사용자:빌캣

사용자:66.217.112.3

• 66.217.112.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also uses 66.217.112.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and perhaps other IPs) has been told repeatedly information from blogs, Twitter, IMDB and anything else누구나 편집할 수 있는 것은 유효한 출처가 아니다.이 사용자는 계속해서 "팬 투기"를 법질서: 범죄의도와 다른 법질서 기사에 도입하려고 한다. 쇼 취소, 새로운 쇼 등에 관한 기사들.사용자는 반복적으로 경고를 받았지만 경고를 무시하거나 그 대가로 무례하다.9/13 경고를 받았고, 오늘까지 편집을 중단했는데, 그 때 그는 또 다른 "팬 투기" 코너를 게시했고, 법질서(프랜치즈) 기사에서 지원되지 않는 다른 섹션에 대한 참조를 인용했다.Trista(사용자-Triste Tierra - 회사에서 로그인할 수 없음) 24.176.191.234(대화) 22:17, 2010년 9월 28일(UTC)

필터 편집에 대한 질문

관리자가 편집 필터에 의해 차단되었을 때 편집자의 편집 시도 내용을 볼 수 있는가?에버라드 프라우드풋 (토크) 01:19, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

누구나 일반적으로 특수본의 "검토" 또는 "세부사항" 옵션을 사용하여 이를 달성할 수 있다.AcuseLog 및 관련 개정판. Thorncrag 01:21, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

아, 고마워, 난 몰랐어.그다지 읽기 쉬운 것은 아니겠지? :) 하지만 적어도 거기엔 있다.에버라드 프라우드풋 (토크) 01:26, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

AfD는 일반적으로 너무 빨리 닫힌다.

이것은 편집자 한 사람을 겨냥한 것이 아니라 일반적인 불만 사항이기 때문에 여기에 올린다.많은 편집자들, 특히 많은 행정가들은 정당한 이유 없이 (몇 시간 또는 심지어 며칠 일찍) AfD 토론을 일찍(진짜 "눈" 또는 "속한" 폐쇄)한다.토론을 조금만 더 오래 했더라면 결과가 달라질 수 있었을 것이라고 주장하는 것은 아니지만, AFD의 개방을 최소한 7일 이상 허용한 현재의 기준은 상당히 긴 논의 끝에 달성된 것이다.나는 위키피디아에 너무 일찍 하루를 추가했을 때 그 문제의식을 알아차렸다.삭제/구, 그리고 매쓰봇에 대한 조항은 자동으로 전체 7일 만료를 반나절 앞둔 78개 토론 중 16개 토론만 여전히 열려 있다고 명시했다.[2]

실제 통나무를 9월 8일에 한하여 보면, 첫 번째 통나무는 약 16시간 일찍, 두 번째, 세 번째, 네 번째 통나무는 거의 이틀 일찍 닫혔으며, 여섯 번째와 일곱 번째, 그리고 같은 가까운 곳에서 많은 다른 통나무들과 마찬가지로 다른 사람들에 의해서도 닫혔다는 것을 알 수 있다.아, 그리고 이거 아니면 이거.그리고 이건, 4일 반 후에.62개 토론의 대다수는 이미 마감되었으며, 이 토론은 몇 시간에서 며칠로 너무 빨리 마감되었다.

이 실을 가장 일찍 닫는 것으로 3명의 편집자에게 알려 주겠지만, AfD 토론을 끝내는 모든 사람이 7일의 최소 시간을 존중해 줄 수 있을까?프람 (대화) 11:39, 2010년 9월 15일 (UTC)

나는 논란이 되고 있는 AFD가 전체 7일을 운영해야 한다는 것에 동의한다. 하지만 나는 어떻게 "16시간 일찍" 폐쇄가 문제를 일으키는지 보지 못하고 있다.어떤 편집자가 철저한 해부를 하거나 영웅적인 재서기를 하고자 한다면, 마지막 몇 시간까지 기다리는 것은 바람직하지 않아 보인다. / edg ☺ 14:36, 2010년 9월 15일 (UTC)

위키피디아에 나와 있는 것들을 체크한다.삭제/구본에 대한 기사는 해당 페이지에 너무 일찍 나열되는 것에 문제가 있다는 것을 깨닫지 못했다.누군가가 앞으로 참고할 수 있도록 그 페이지를 고쳐야 한다.:) -- Cirt (대화) 14:48, 2010년 9월 15일 (UTC)

음, 그건 문제가 안 될 것 같은데, 8일에 로그에서 많은 페이지를 줄였으니까, 아직 거기에 나열되지 않은.프람 (대화) 2010년 9월 15일 14:49 (UTC)

아, 그 중 일부는 이미 재등록되어 있었기 때문에 7일 이상 AFD에 있었을지도 모른다. -- Cirt (대화) 14:55, 2010년 9월 15일 (UTC)

사용자로부터만 닫음:Excirial/Dashboard.목록의 성격이 알려줬어야 했지만, 리스트에 그들보다 더 이른 것들이 포함되어 있다는 것을 나는 깨닫지 못했다. (사실 이 페이지 상단에 "이 페이지는 그들의 토론 기간을 마쳤으며 삭제 과정에 따라 종결될 자격이 있는 삭제 토론을 위한 조항들을 포함하고 있다"고 적혀 있다.)지금 날짜뿐만 아니라 시대도 지켜보다NativeForeigner^Talk/_Contribs15:02, 2010년 9월 15일(UTC)

페이지 상단에 있는 텍스트를 [3] NativeForeigner _Contribs/ 15:06, 2010년 9월 15일(UTC)에 반영하여 과감하게 변경

나는 이 변경사항을 실제 정책을 반영하여 수정했다: 페이지 목록에는 닫힌 후 24시간 이내에 토론이 나열되지만, 168시간 동안 열린 토론만 닫을 수 있다는 것이다.우리가 그것을 다시 써서 닫을 수 있는 것들을 나열할 수 있다면 더 좋을 것이다. WP:PROD는 만료된 프로드를 나타낸다. DGG (토크 ) 15:36, 2010년 9월 15일 (UTC)

다시 한 번 말하지만, 왜 모두 Afd/old 페이지에서 이것을 잘못 골랐는가?이 목록에는 7일(168시간) 제한을 모두 통과한 페이지만 나열된다.그것은 토론 시간을 23시간 일찍 나열하지 않고, 가장 최근의 토론이 적어도 168시간이나 된 날만 열거한다.잘못된 변경 내용을 AfD/Old 페이지의 텍스트로 되돌렸다.이러한 내용을 확인한 후 해당 내용을 진술하십시오.Fram (대화) 08:26, 2010년 9월 16일 (UTC)

• 위의 예들 중 몇 가지가 나의 폐점이라는 것을 인정해야 하는 것이 유감스럽다.내가 닫았을 때 닫지 말았어야 했어.내가 그렇게 한 이유는 지시 소름끼치는 효과와 다른 모든 사람이 하는 일을 보는 효과 때문이다. 실제로 나는 대부분의 기사가 이미 닫힌 페이지의 영역을 살피고, 근처에 있는 다른 기사들을 닫아 그들의 예를 따르고 있었던 것 같다.나는 이전에도 이것과 싸우려고 노력해왔고, 오히려 개인들에게 격렬하게 항의했지만, 그들의 방식을 바꾸기를 거부한 일반 클로저의 한두 사람의 고집으로 볼 때, 나는 무의식적으로 그들과 함께 하기로 결심한 것 같다--이 중 일부는 이해는 되지만 내 몫을 차지하려고 하는 좋은 동기가 아니었을지도 모른다.협력이 가능하도록 고안된 규칙을 따르는 것을 거부하는 사람들에 의해 이 지역에 압류되기 보다는.

그러나 나는 위 목록에서 내 것이든 다른 것이든 오류를 막기 위해 다시 열 필요가 있는 것은 아무것도 보지 못하지만, 나는 누구든지 그렇게 할 수 있다고 생각한다.

스노우 클로즈가 특별한 경우에 적절하고 정당화될 수 없는 한, 이것을 엄격하게 시행하자고 제안한다.스노우(SNOW)의 정당성은 IAR과 같다. 반대하려는 선의의 편집자는 아니다.또 다른 특별한 경우가 하나 있을 수 있는데, 그것은 계속되는 토론이 해로운 BLP이다.

나는 그 규칙의 이유를 다시 한번 강조하고 싶다: 7일은 매우 쉽게 6일로 줄어들 수 있다. 위의 누군가가 16시간은 너무 이르지 않다고 말한 것 같지만, 그것은 하루의 2/3 시간이다.만약 누군가가 만장일치 AFD와 왜 그것이 중요한가라고 주장한다면, 그것은 아무리 빨라도 두세 사람이 말을 한 후에 왜 중요한가 하는 것이 곧 될 것이다.우리는 그것이 끝까지 만장일치라고 말할 수 없다.그리고 합리적인 범위의 관점을 얻기 위해서는, 우리는 토론의 많은 사람들이 하는 것처럼 매일 기여하지 않는 사람들을 수용할 필요가 있다.나는 많은 AfD들이 마지막 시간에 한 기여에 의해 바뀌거나 뒤바뀌는 것을 보아왔다.

나는 우리가 재등록을 7일 더 해야 한다는 것을 나타내기 위해 재등록을 명확히 해야 한다고 생각한다.한 사람이 더 말을 한 후에 닫히는 예는 너무 많다.만약 우리가 더 많은 시간이 필요한 메시지를 보내야 한다면, 그것은 같은 시간 동안 가장 단순하고 공평한 것이다.이미 7일 이상 기다릴 필요가 있다면, 7일 더 이상 해를 입히지 않는다. DGG (토크 ) 15:49, 2010년 9월 15일 (UTC)

나는 네가 군중을 따라다니며 몇몇 아프디스를 일찍 닫는 것을 부끄러워할 필요는 없다고 생각한다.조금도그러나 당신이 묘사한 것은 내가 전에 했던 말을 확실히 확인시켜준다: 만약 AfDs를 일찍 닫지 않는 규칙이 있다면, 그러나 그것이 지켜지지 않는다면, 그것은 내가 보고 싶지 않은 종류의 편견을 만들어낸다.규칙을 엄격하게 따르는 것이 그렇게 중요하지 않다고 스스로 결정하는 관리자들은 규칙을 열심히 고수하는 관리자들보다 AfDs에 더 많은 영향을 미친다.한스 아들러 15:58, 2010년 9월 15일 (UTC)

DGG, 나는 그 감정에 동의하지만, 당신이 다시 언급하는 것에 대한 당신의 생각은 아니다.7일 동안 재회할 필요는 없으며, 많은 경우 재회할 필요가 없다.만약 한 표의 추가 투표가 결과를 검증한다면, 마무리가 적절하다.만약 토론이 진행 중이고 진전이 있다면, 그렇다, 토론은 계속되어야 한다.내 경험에 따르면, 재결합에 대한 엄격하고 빠른 규칙은 필요하지 않다.Jclemens (대화) 18:37, 2010년 9월 15일 (UTC)

여기도 마찬가지야.만약 누군가가 정말로 기사에 대해 그렇게 신경을 썼다면, 그들은 첫 주에 의견을 냈어야 했다. -- ♥의 왕 ♠ 07:18, 2010년 9월 17일 (UTC)

{{Proposed deletion} 템플릿에는 하드 코딩된 타임스탬프가 포함되어 있는데, 적절한 시간이 경과하면 템플릿 자체가 가시 텍스트를 변경하여 "이 글은 추가 통지 없이 삭제될 수 있다"고 강조한다.Arbcom 선거와 관련된 템플릿에 유사한 기능(예를 들어, 정확한 순간에 투표하도록 페이지 변경)을 사용했었습니다.AFD 템플릿이 페이지가 얼마나 존재했는지를 표시하도록 수정될 수 있는가?지명을 사용하여 AFD를 만들 경우, 템플릿은 현재 시간이 첫 번째 타임스탬프 이후 정확히 7일이 될 때까지 "조기 닫지 마십시오" 플래그를 추가할 수 있다.더 좋은 것은, {{afd2}}개의 템플릿이 대체되어, 토론을 포맷한다.거기에 타임스탬프를 추가해서 공천이 타임스탬프되도록 하는 겁니다.그 다음, 일반적으로 보이지 않는 이 AfD} 템플릿을 닫을 때 {{REMOVE TEMPLATE TEMPLATE TEMPLATE AfD} 템플릿은 경과 시간이 7일 미만이면 제목 아래 표기법 또는 경과 시간이 7일을 지나면 다른 "이 토론은 7일 동안 열렸으며 잠시 닫힐 수 있다"라는 다른 표기법을 표시할 수 있다.어느 쪽이든 우리는 매우 유용한 WP를 유지할 수 있다.조기 폐쇄를 피하면서 AFD/OLED 목록을 작성한다.생각?UltraExactZZ ~ 2010년 9월 15일 20:28, 실행(UTC)

나는 많은 사람들이 제기한 우려에 동의하고 또한 이 문제를 알아차렸다.대부분의 행정관이 7일 규정을 따르지만 소수의 행정관이 따르지 않는다면, 그 소수의 행정관은 대다수의 AfDs를 폐쇄할 것이다.이것은 바람직하지 않다.부분적인 해결책으로, 나는 위키피디아 토크에서 다음과 같이 제안했다.삭제 정책#삭제 정책에 다음 사항을 추가하기 위해 "7일 전체" 정책을 준수하도록 유인: "관리자는 토론 없이 7일이 경과하기 전에 발생하는 삭제 토론의 폐기를 취소할 수 있다."정책 토크 페이지에서는 코멘트를 환영한다.또한 나는 Ultraexactzz의 제안에 따른 템플리트 타임스탬프 솔루션을 지원한다. Sandstein 20:57, 2010년 9월 15일 (UTC)

응, 일주일 정도 기다리는 줄 알았는데 아니었어.그것은 정리할 필요가 있지만, 위의 제안은 타당하다.NativeForeigner _Contribs/ 22:21, 2010년 9월 15일 (UTC)

이것은 좋은 해결책이지만, 관리자가 폐쇄가 필요한 모든 AfDs를 찾을 수 있는 장소가 있고, 그런 AfDs만 있다면 더욱 좋을 것이다.그러면 그 문제는 자동으로 사라지고 우리는 관리자들 사이에 긴장이 쌓이는 것을 막을 수 있을 것이다.HansAdler 22:52, 2010년 9월 15일(UTC)

AFD가 시작된 지 정확히 7일 후에 AFD를 카테고리에 추가하는 것은 개방형 AFD에 템플릿을 만드는 것이 가능할 것이다.Ucucha 23:13, 2010년 9월 15일 (UTC)

나는 목록보다는 카테고리를 사용하는 것이 좋다.그것은 목적에 적합해 보인다.HansAdler 08:35, 2010년 9월 16일 (UTC)

AFD2 템플릿이 타임스탬프를 추가하는 경우, 이 AfD를 닫을 때 이 템플릿 제거는 CURRENTIME=TIMestamp+7일 경우 카테고리를 추가할 수 있다.REFET 템플릿은 이미 준비되어 있다(CAT에 토론이 추가됨:AFD) 따라서 폐쇄 시 제거해야 하는 보이지 않는 다른 템플릿을 추가할 필요가 없다.UltraExactZZ ~ 2010년 9월 16일 12:09 실행(UTC)

2부

얼핏 보면 이 보도는 이런 조기 종영에 가장 책임이 있는 편집자들이 이 (고마워!)를 숨겨놓고 다른 사람들에 의해서만 대체되는 효과를 가져왔다.이 토론이 시작된 후에 닫혔으니...14시간 일찍, 16시간 일찍, 13시간 일찍, 12시간 일찍, (그리고 같은 편집자에 의해, 내가 통지할 많은 것) 5시간 일찍, 14시간 일찍, 14시간 일찍, 8시간 일찍, 8시간 일찍, 8시간 일찍, 그리고 이 편집자에 의해 더 많은 것들도 또한 이 편집자에 의해 이루어진다.기본적으로, 이 토론은 3명의 편집자를 대체했고, 다른 3명의 편집자도 같은 일을 했다...Fram (토크) 06:42, 2010년 9월 17일 (UTC)

좋아, 더 조심해서 7일 내내 기다릴게. -- ♥의 왕 ♠ 06:50, 2010년 9월 17일 (UTC)

(추가) 여기서 인정하자: AfDs를 닫는 것은 재미있다.그것은 당신이 연속해서 10개의 삭제!보트를 가지고 있을 때 왁자지껄한 것과 같거나 혹은 논란이 많은 AfD와 함께 판사석에 앉아 있는 것과 같다; 둘 다 꽤 재미있었다.하루 일지에 대한 일반적인 AfD 주기는 25%가 6일 훨씬 전에 8-12일 후에 닫히거나, 스노우 닫기, 철회 또는 닫기입니다.다음으로는 처음 두 시간 동안 25%를 차지하는 왁아 몰이들이 있다.하루 종일 천천히 몇몇 속임수인 AfDs가 문을 닫는다. (Again 25%).(이곳은, 인정하건대, 내 대부분의 일을 하는 곳인데, 이미 다른 사람에게 두더지가 맞은 후) 15%는 재등록된다.마지막으로, 10%는 실제로 -8 로그에 포함시키는 불쾌한 부분이다: 짜증나는 긴 시간 또는 5개의 상이한 !보테(재연하기에는 너무 많고 합의라고 하기에는 너무 적은 회색 영역)이다.-- 킹 오브 ♥ ♥ 07:29, 2010년 9월 17일 (UTC)

오늘 오후에 코딩 작업을 진행하려고 하는데, (희망스럽게도) 토론이 열렸을 때 시간 스탬프를 찍어 "끝날 예정"(TIMestamp+7일)로 나열한 다음 - 그 시간이 지나면 - "이 토론은 종결될 자격이 있다"로 나열하는 템플릿 추가 기능을 가지고 있다.일단 토론이 A)가 CAT에 더 이상 포함되지 않은 A:범주에 포함된 AFD 또는 B):삭제 토론이 다시 시작되면 타임스탬프가 제거된다.위와 같은 합의는 확실히 재판을 하기에 충분하다.UltraExactZZ ~ 2010년 9월 17일 12:25 실행(UTC)

7일이 아니라 6일, X시간에 문을 닫는 이번 사건에서 나는 분명히 유죄인 당사자다.일반적으로, 우리 모두는 UTC에서 우리가 어디에 서 있는지 알아야 할 것 같아. 내 경우, 나는 5시간이나 늦어서 오늘 저녁 7시에 위키피디아에서 토요일이야.만약 내가 캘리포니아에 있었다면, 오후 4시 1분에 지역내에서는 0001시간 UTC가 되었을 것이다.나는 이것에 대해 더 조심할 것을 맹세한다.맨스포드 12:48, 2010년 9월 17일(UTC)

나를 유죄선고를 받은 리스트에 추가해라 그리고 지금 이것에 대해 몇 가지 실마리가 있다는 것을 고려하면 이것이 최근 나의 RFA에서 매수되지 않았다는 것이 놀랍다.내 경우는 7일 근무 일지에서 마감하고 있었기 때문이었다.그것이 내가 하는 로그인데, 거기 있는 동안 분명하고 모호하지 않은 보관물도 닫는 것이 타당했다.나중에 더 많은 경험을 쌓을수록 나는 그것이 게시된 시간뿐만 아니라 그것이 어떤 로그에 올려져 있는가에 더 신경을 쓰게 되었다.하지만, 나는 여전히 관리자들이 그러한 경우에 최선의 판단을 할 수 있어야 한다고 생각한다.만약 토론이 가깝거나 여전히 의견을 받는다면 168개 전체를 체크하는 것으로 남겨져야 하지만, "경계 설" AFD를 남기는 것이 말이 되느냐? 단지 과정을 위해서 3일 동안 아무도 아무것도 열지 않았다. --Ron Ritzman (대화) 12:54, 2010년 9월 22일 (UTC)

AFD2 템플릿의 타임스탬프에 대한 일치 사항

{{afd2} 템플릿에 대한 타임스탬프 함수를 코딩했는데, 코드는 User:Ultraexactz/Afdtimestamptest 및 사용자:Ultraexactz/afd 테스트.afd2 템플릿은 삭제 토론을 실제로 포맷하는 템플릿이다.코드는 토론 형식 지정 시 타임스탬프(+7일)를 사용하고, 이 시간은 후보 지명 시간이 되며 +7일은 토론 종료 시간을 정한다.그런 다음 현재 시간을 해당 타임스탬프와 비교한다.현재 시간이 타임스탬프 시간 이전인 경우, 작은 통지가 예정된 마감 시간을 제공한다("이 토론은 2010년 9월 24일(UTC) 15:06으로 종료 예정"). 현재 시간이 그 시간 스탬프 이후인 경우, 통지는 표준 폰트 대담한 "이 토론은 7일 동안 열렸으며, 이제 관리자에 의해 종료될 수 있다." 또는." 나는 카테고리를 추가하지 않았다. 비록 이것이 적절한 것으로 포함될 수 있지만 (그리고 토론이 종결될 준비가 되어 있는 카테고리를 만들기로 합의된 경우.카테고리:인 경우 통지를 제거하는 방법도 확실하지 않다.다시 시작된 AfD 토론이 있다. 이 파서함수를 없애는 것이 현재 재등록의 단계가 될 수도 있다.WT의 공지 사항:AFD는 이 페이지에 대한 토론을 지적한다; 우리도 거기서 요청을 해야 하는가, 아니면 그냥 내가 질문을 하고 있다는 것을 주목해야 하는가?고마워요.UltraExactZZ ~ 2010년 9월 17일 15:05 실행(UTC)

관리자 파트별 빼기 :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 2010년 9월 19일 (UTC)

그 생각을 지지하지만, 이 구현에 대해서는, 토론이 종결된 후 자동적으로 "폐쇄될 수 있는" 노트가 제거되도록 {{REMOVE TEMPLATE WHE CLOSING 이 AfD}}}이(가) 더 좋은 장소라고 생각한다. -- ♥♥ 16:11, 2010년 9월 17일 (UTC)

대체로 동의한다.아마도 우리는 둘 다 할 것이다; 우리는 AFD2 템플릿을 사용하여 매개변수(현재 타임스탬프 +7일)를 REMOVE TEMPLATE 템플릿에 입력한 다음 "Debate to close attemplate" 또는 "이 토론은 이제 종료될 수 있다"를 표시할 것인지 결정할 때 이 매개변수를 호출한다.이것은 토론이 항상 범주로 이동되기 때문에 REVE THE TEMPLATE 템플릿의 교체를 요구하지 않는 장점이 있다. 토론은 "아직 분류되지 않음"으로 분류되는 나쁜 입력 또는 사용자 정의 범주를 많이 받고, 그 다음 누군가가 올바른 범주를 반영하도록 템플릿을 변경한다.예를 들어,UltraExactZZ ~ 2010년 9월 18일 01시 40분(UTC) 완료

기존 스크립트는 템플릿을 업데이트하고 타임스탬프 또는 다시 시작 매개 변수를 변경하거나 둘 다 변경해야 한다.페이지가 카테고리에 있는지 여부를 알려주는 AFAIK라는 파서 기능은 없다.T. 캐넌스 (대화) 02:22, 2010년 9월 19일 (UTC)

나는 재개된 토론이 그만큼 문제가 되는지 확신할 수 없다.내가 이해할 수 있는 바로는, 리사이스트는, 재등록 당시, 명확한 컨센서스가 없었다는 것을 의미한다. 3일 후에 명확한 컨센서스가 있다면, 나는 그것을 닫지 않을 이유가 없다고 본다 - 그것은 168시간이나 걸렸으며, 결과는 분명하다.עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

만장일치 의견 일치 사례

아래 예를 들어 다음과 같은 질문을 던질 것이다.

1. 어떤 것이 AFD에 지명되었다.
2. 삭제에는 이의가 없다.
3. 아무도 공신력을 입증하기 위해 어떤 것도 하지 않았다.
4. AFD는 Delete와 함께 의견을 개진한 모든 개인들로부터 만장일치의 의견을 가지고 있다.
5. 지명 시점부터 AFD의 기간은 6일, 23시간이다.

그러한 경우, 위와 같은 논의는 관리자들이 명백한 WP 하에서도 그러한 AFD를 조기에 폐쇄하는 것을 금지한다고 명시하고 있다.스노우 조항, 만장일치인 경우? -- Cirt (대화) 15:06, 2010년 9월 24일 (UTC)

나는 이런 경우에 행정관이 최선의 판단을 할 수 있어야 한다고 주장하고 싶다.우리 둘 다 7일 "지연 가능한" 일지를 처리하는데, 슬램덩크 보관과 삭제를 계속하는 것이 말이 된다. --Ron Ritzman (토크) 00:40, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

네, 동의합니다만 -- Cirt (대화) 00:42, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

하지만 여기 문제가 있다: 6일 23시간 ... 6일 22시간 .... 6일 12시간 .... 6일 1시간 ....6일 5분....이는 깨끗한 컷오프 규정이 필요한 시점 중 하나이다. DGG (토크 ) 03:31, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

의 경우: Delete에 찬성하는 만장일치 의견 10개, 삭제 반대 의견 없음, 의견 유지, 기사 출처 없음, 기사는 완전히 참조되지 않은 BLP 페이지인데, 6일 1시간이나 지났을까? -- Cirt (대화) 03:34, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

관리자들은 현행 정책("최소 7일")에 의해 그러한 AFD조차 조기에 폐쇄하는 것이 금지되어 있다.미끄러운 비탈길 문제는 제쳐두고, 그것은 누군가가 남은 23시간 동안 여전히 공급원을 제공할 수 있기 때문이다.7일 규칙에 대해 가능한 유일한 예외는 AFAIK, WP:CSD 또는 WP이다.IAR(즉, 7일간의 규칙을 따르는 것이 위키백과나 일반 대중에게 확실히 해로울 수 있는 상황)이것은 비협조적이고 잠재적으로 명예훼손적인 BLP를 포함하지만, 다른 것은 많지 않다. 샌드스타인 12:24, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

무슨 말인지 알겠어.아마도 이 문제에 대한 나의 견해는 최근까지, 나는 "지키기"만을 종결할 수 있었고, 슬램덩크(또는 거의 그렇다는) 사례만 종결할 수 있었다는 사실 때문에 흐려진 것 같다.삭제는 더 영구적이고 되돌리기가 더 어렵고 마지막 순간에 누군가가 출처를 가지고 나타날 가능성이 더 높으며 그 다음 그것은 경계선에 있는 눈 위에 있는 반박에 대한 11시간 동안 있을 가능성이 더 높다.다만, 이번과 같은 삭제부서에 명확한 컷 케이스가 있다.(경계 G3) 그것은 아마도 4일째에 마감되었을 것이다. --Ron Ritzman (토크) 12:45, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

개인적으로, 나는 AFD를 조금 일찍 닫는 것이 해롭다고 생각하지 않는다.Sandstein이 말했듯이, "어떤 사람들은 남은 23시간 동안에도 소스를 제공할 수 있다." 그러나 만약 편집자가 기사를 삭제한 후 7일 1시간 후에 소스를 제공한다면 어떨까?그렇다면 그 차이는 똑같다.잘 합리화된 유지 투표는 토론이 활발하거나 3개월 동안 폐회된 경우에도 기사의 포함과 동일한 관계를 가져야 한다.닫는 관리자가 이를 인식하는 한 삭제는 훨씬 영구적이지 않게 된다.나는 확실히 AFD가 (매주 하루 동안 토론을 허용하기 위해) 6일 전에 문을 닫아야 한다고 생각하지 않지만, 그 시간 이후의 유연한 마감 기간은 괜찮아 보인다.어쨌든 168시간(24×7)의 목록 작성 기간은 상당히 임의적이다. - 금성에 AfD를 나열하는 기간은 얼마인가?위키백과?:)임의0^(talk) 21:55, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

우리는 이미 당신이 묘사하는 것을 가지고 있다: 강경 노선의 최소 지속 기간과 유연한 폐쇄 기간.유일한 차이점은 당신이 제안하는 6일이 아니라 커뮤니티 토론에 합의된 대로 현재 7일로 강경노선이 설정되어 있다는 점이다.이 실의 요점은 사람들이 하드라인 최소치를 준수하도록 하는 것이다(물론 임의적이지만 어딘가에 맞춰야 한다). 샌드스타인 06:21, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

그래서 (적어도 내게는) 혼란의 요점은 현재의 강경 기간을 세심하게 검토하지 않고서는 이론상으로는 8일 이전에 AfD를 닫아야 하는 7일에 AfD를 닫을 수 있다고 가정할 수도 있다는 것이다.이것은 17세기가 1601년에서 1700년까지 지속되는 것과 비슷하다.따라서 위키백과는 다음과 같다.삭제/마감 조항은 예를 들어 하루 전의 논의를 가리켜야 한다.임의0^(talk) 13:22, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

그래, 그리고 내가 그걸 바꿨어.고마워, 샌드스타인 14:47, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

빠른 삭제 기준을 충족하지 못하는 기사가 위키피디아에 23시간 더 머무르는 것도 큰 문제는 아니다.비임의 데드라인을 갖는 것의 장점은 불확실성, 혼란, 불필요한 토론을 줄인다는 것이다. (이 논의의 일부 주장들은 편집자들이 24x7로 그들의 워치리스트를 체크하고 있다고 가정하는 것 같지만, 많은 편집자들은 일주일에 한 번 또는 심지어 더 적은 빈도로 활동한다.) Cs32en Talk to me 00:41, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

토론에 열려 있는 시간을 단축하는 것뿐만 아니라(특히 위키백과 접속이 주간 사이클에 있는 경우가 많기 때문에 특별히 7일을 선택했다), 삭제를 서두르는 것은 특정 관리자들이 결국 모든 토론을 끝내는 것을 의미하기도 한다.그것이 내가 AfDs 폐쇄를 포기한 이유 중 일부다: 다른 관리자들은 일찍 문을 닫음으로써 '채팅'을 하고 있었고, 하지 말라는 나의 요구를 무시했다.7일은 밝은 선(CSD와 노골적인 IAR 이슈 제외)이어야 하며 이를 어기는 자는 제재해야 한다.펜스&윈도우즈 11:20, 2010년 9월 26일(UTC)

확실히 하기 위해 WP도 고려해보시겠습니까?노골적인 IAR 사건?예를 들어, 4-5일, 9일은 정책에 대한 강력한 근거를 가지고 유지하며, 다른 하나는 정책에 근거하지 않거나 좋은 반론(반론)을 참조하십시오.기프티거Wunsch [TAKE] 12:35, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

IAR은 규칙을 따르는 것이 위키피디아에 해로울 경우에만 실행되어야 한다.당신이 묘사하는 경우, AfD를 닫기 위해 7일이 경과할 때까지 기다림으로써 어떠한 위해도 일어나지 않을 것이며, 따라서 AfD를 조기에 닫아서는 안 된다. Sandstein 14:49, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

WP:IAR은 실제로 "해악을 예방할 필요가 있다"고 말하는 것이 아니라 단순히 위키백과의 개선이나 유지를 방해하는 규칙을 무시한다고 말한다.그리고 눈덩이처럼 불어나는 AfD를 눈덩이처럼 불어나게 하는 것은 지역사회의 시간을 낭비하는 것이다. 왜 그것을 닫지 않는가?WP의 존재:스노우와 많은 AfD가 WP처럼 폐쇄된다는 사실:NOW는 적어도 WP에 대한 적절한 해석이라는 부분적인 합의가 있음을 나타내는 것 같다.IAR, 그리고 나는 이것이 WP: 여부에 대한 합의를 도출할 수 있는 정확한 장소는 아니라고 생각한다.스노우는 AfDs를 일찍 닫는 데 납득할 만한 이유다.기프티거Wunsch [TAK] 14:53, 2010년 9월 26일(UTC)

스노우/IAR 사례에 대해서는 반대할 수 있지만, 어느 범주에도 속하지 않는 AfD가 조기 마감되는 경우가 많다.나는 이것이 여기서 가장 큰 문제라고 생각한다. 샌드스타인 15:00, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

이에 동의한다. 관리자들은 WP에 어느 정도 융통성을 가지고 있다.WP로 인한 눈:IAR (다른 사람이 AfD에 동의하지 않는 경우 관리자/DRV와 항상 논의가 있으며, WP:NOW 마감은 일반적으로 도전해야 하지만, 종료 관리자의 재량권은 무한하지 않다; 지지 없이 지명 철회 및 WP:IAR이 정말로 일찍 닫아야 하는 유일한 이유가 되어야 한다; 위에서 논의한 바와 같이, 7일 기간은 좋은 이유로 정해져 있다.기프티거Wunsch [TAK] 15:05, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

내 생각에 여기 템플릿 마법에 대한 여지는 있을 것 같은데, 7일 내내 시간이 걸리겠지만, 이 편집을 통해 대부분의 문제를 해결할 수 있을 겁니다.토론회는 7일이 지난 후에야 "인 클로징"에 등재될 것이다.UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ 2010년 9월 28일 12시 38분 (UTC)

WP를 사용한 건 나뿐인 줄 알았는데CAFD; 아니겠지!:) AfD 클로저를 모두 같은 페이지에 올려놓는 데는 다소 시간이 걸릴 수 있지만(의도하지 않은 퐁당) 그때까지 제재까지는 관대할 수 있다.임의0 15:55, 2010년 9월 28일 (UTC)

왜 스노우 사건도 7일 전에 끝내야 하는지 이해가 안 가.비록 많은 편집자들이 투표용지, 그리고 투표용지, 그리고 투표용지를 삭제하지 않는다 하더라도, 나는 전체 7일 동안 AfD 토론을 떠나는 것에 아무런 해가 없다고 본다.(기프티거 룬슈가 몇 개의 게시물을 올려 지적했듯이) 위해를 방지하지 않더라도 IAR을 할 수 있다는 것은 이해하지만, 이 경우 진짜 요점은 무엇인가?지루한 토론은 피해야겠지만, 만약 AfD가 눈이 온다면, 많은 사용자들이 투표할 필요조차 느끼지 못할 것 같다.나는 개인적으로 모든 경우에 7일을 기다리는 것과 같은 이것에 대한 절충적인 정책을 갖는 것에 찬성한다.— 고릴라워페어 04:06, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

주제 금지 제거 요청

고위 관리자에 의한 절대 남용(사용자:Varlaam) - 심각한 조치 필요

주제 금지 제안

위키백과의 RfC 입력당:의견/Rorschach Test(2010)에 대한 요청, RfC에서 다수의 편집자를 대표하여 다음과 같은 주제 금지를 제정할 것을 제안한다.

Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC) "대략적으로 해석된 공공 영역 Rorschach Test 영상의 디스플레이 제거 또는 축소를 제안하기 위해 당링 진단(talk · concides)은 커뮤니티 입력 프로세스를 이용하는 것이 금지된다.

자발적인 사용자로서, 나는 Rorschach Test 영상을 주제로 한 Dangling 진단(토크 · 기여)에 대한 무기한 주제 금지에 대한 커뮤니티의 합의가 있다고 믿는다.따라서 매달림진단(Dangling Diagnostics)은 어떤 식으로든 Rorschach Test를 묘사하는 영상의 표시, 그리고 이러한 목적을 달성하기 위해 커뮤니티 입력 과정을 시작하거나 참여하는 것이 금지된다. -- ♥ ♦ ♠ 18:48, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)

프로세스 토론

• ps, J클레멘스, 당링진단에게 알렸어야지.나는 그렇게 했다.공정성을 위해 RfC에 의견을 개진한 모든 사람에게 통보하는 것도 좋은 생각일 수 있다.→LOX 0 06:55, 2010년 9월 26일(UTC)

  미안, 잘 잡았다.나는 다른 사람들이 관심을 보이는 주제와 페이지에 워치리스트를 사용하는 것에 의존하는 경향이 있다.Jclemens (대화) 07:46, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

• 내가 제안한 기간이 왜 더 길지 않은지에 대해서는, 공감대가 바뀔 수 있는 것이 사실이고, 나는 선의로 주제를 꺼내는 어떤 사용자에게도 무기한 금지를 제안하는 것을 정말로 주저하고 있다.여기서 제안된 제한사항을 작성할 때, 나는 WP 대 WP 대 본질적으로 변경되지 않은 반복적인 제거 요청의 교란성 균형을 맞추려고 노력했다.CCC 원칙.결국 이 제안을 종결하는 자발적인 행정관의 판단대로 공동체가 더 긴 주제 금지가 적절하다고 믿는다면, 나는 반대하지 않을 것이다.Jclemens (대화) 07:46, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)
  • 그것이 변경되면, 다른 사람이 그것을 제기하거나 사용자가 그 금지에 대해 이의를 제기할 수 있다. 만약 합의가 바뀌면, 그들은 금지를 해제하는 데 문제가 없어야 한다.T. 캐넌스 (대화) 07:55, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)
  • 그곳에서 가장 중요한 두 단어인 Jclemens는 '선의'이다.당글링 진단은 그 제안을 선의로 가져오지도 않았고, 선의로 주장하지도 않았다.그 대신, 그는 자신의 사건을 심리하기 위해 수사적인 속임수(어쨌든 '검열'을 '정보 공개'로 규정하는 것 같은)를 사용하는 것을 선호하면서, 거듭 직접적인 질문에 대한 대답을 회피했다.그는 이 사례에서 그리고 앞의 사례에서 실제 논리나 정책 이해에 면역이 있음을 증명했고 WP의 포스터 아동이다.IDHT. → ROX ₪ 08:44, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)
• 내가 알기로는 DD는 확실히 선의로 행동했고, 기사의 개선을 위해 노력했다.그는 위의 다른 사람들이 주장하는 것처럼 이미지를 제거해야 한다는 개념에 완전히 얽매이지 않는 것 같았고, 그를 위해 RfC가 제출되었을 때, 기사를 개선하기 위해 RfC가 어떤 내용을 담고 있을 수 있는지에 대한 의견을 묻는 등 다른 편집자들과의 대화도 진행 중이었다.그것은 그가 제시한 폐쇄적인 사상가의 행동이 아니다.위의 루스는 IDHT를 꺼내고 있지만, 결국 그것들은 논의에 대한 총체적인 관심 부족에서 증명되었듯이, 들리지 않는 DD의 주장이었다.Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC) (죄송합니다, ROX, 내 진술을 편집하려고 할 때 당신과의 갈등이 편집됨)
  • 정확히 지난 번과 마찬가지로, 그는 그 기사의 토크 페이지에 있는 의견 일치를 중심으로 종료를 시도하고 있었다.지난 번에 그는 감광성 간질에 대한 걱정도 언급하면서 그것이 '자발적인 건강상의 결과'라는 우산 아래 있는 것처럼 가장했는데, 그는 자신의 애완동물 소변에만 집중하기 위해 그것을 가볍게 무시하기 시작했다.매우 고의적이고 구체적으로 그렇게 한 것은 문제의 기사의 토크페이지에서 현존하는 합의를 우회하려는 시도였다.그것은 선의로 행동하는 것이 아니다.이번에는 다른 일련의 수사적인 속임수를 통해 정확히 같은 결과를 얻으려고 했다.그는 정보를 공개하는 것은 검열이지만 그러한 공개를 막는 것은 검열이 아니라고 진지하게 주장하려고 시도하고 있었다.그것은 선의로 행동하는 것이 아니다.당신은 그가 그러한 RfC가 무엇을 포함해야 하는지 알아내기 위해 대화에 참여했다고 말하는가?물론 그는 그랬다.그리고 "이것을 가져올 필요는 없고, 공감대가 여기서 바뀌지 않았다."라고 말하는 모든 사람들을 의도적으로 무시하는 것이다. DD는, 그리고 내가 덧붙이자면, 당신과 의견이 다른 어떤 것도 듣지 않는 것에 집중하는 것은 또한 선의로 행동하지 않는 것이다.→ ROX₪ 00:28, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)
    • 다시 말하지만 DD는 이 RfC를 제출하지 않았다.사람들은 이걸 가져갈 필요가 없다고 말했어...너무 좋아. 그는 그러지 않았어.그는 새롭고 더 나은 합의점을 찾기 위해 가져올 수 있는 무언가를 찾으려고 노력하면서, 도달할 수 있는 타협점이 있는지 알아보기 위해 노력하고 있었다.어쩌면 어차피 RfC를 가지고 왔을지도 모르지만, 지금까지는 의견의 일치가 뒷받침된다면 '가져오기' 위해 가능한 것으로만 연구하고 있을 뿐이었다.활성 RfC가 된 후에도 질문을 개선하기 위해 Xeno(IERC)와 대화를 나누고 있었다는 점에 유의하십시오.Crcarlin (대화) 00:36, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)
      • 그리고 다시 말하지만, 여기서 중요한 점을 놓치고 있는 것 같군. 그 합의는 지금 몇 년 동안 분명히 밝혀져 왔는데, 그것은 바로 그 이미지들이 그대로 남아 있다는 것이다.마침표.이야기의 끝.그는 지난번 이 일을 하려고 했을 때 이 말을 듣고, 그때 그가 합의를 회피하려 한다는 말을 들었다.여기서도 똑같은 일이 벌어졌다.그리고 그것이 그가 시간이 얼마가 걸리든 간에, 다시 그것을 하는 것을 금지할 수 있는 이유다.그는 그가 어떤 수사적인 속임수를 쓰고 반대 의견을 무시하더라도, 아주 다양한 이유로 그가 원하는 것은 단지 여기서 일어나지 않을 것이라는 것을 받아들일 수 없다는 것을 보여주었다.→ ROX₪ 00:41, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)
        • 그리고 다시 말하지만 DD가 제거를 제안하지 않았고 제거와 관련이 없는 합의사항 구축에 열려 있는 것처럼 보였기 때문에 그것은 중요한 포인트가 아니다.그러니까 합의안이 철거에 반대한다고 주장하는 것은 전혀 무관한 일이고...여전히 메스꺼움을 반복하고 있다.넌 어떤 남자가 말하지 않은 말을 해서 금지시켰어.크칼린 (대화) 2010년 9월 29일 15:50 (UTC)
• 루스는 완전히 옳다.컨센서스는 오랫동안 명확했다; 이 최근의 RfC는 파괴적이고 자신의 견해를 알리려고 노력했는데, 이는 명백히 컨센서스에 반하는 것이다.이전에 이 같은 주제에 대해 여러 차례 논의가 있었고, 그 중 어느 것도 그에게 유리하지 않았다는 점에서 그가 타협점을 찾으려 한다는 증거는 보이지 않는다.그는 계속해서 노력하며, 최종 결정을 받아들이려 하지 않는다.이런 종류의 고집은 그 프로젝트에 해롭고 짜증만 낼 뿐이다.이런 어처구니없는 행동을 중단시킬 수 있는 것은 무기한 주제 금지뿐이다. /1910년 9월 27일(UTC)
• 토의를 살펴본 후 그에 따라 종결했다. -- 킹 오브 ♦ 18:48, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)
  • 네가 여기서 너무 빨리 한 것 같아.매달린 진단에 응할 기회가 주어졌어야 했다.→ ROX ₪ 18:55, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)

묻힌 역사

작년부터 Talk의 기록 보관소는 다음과 같다.기계에 대한 분노가 대화로 옮겨졌다.기계에 대한 분노 1.그것이 존재하지 않는 페이지의 화두여서, 6번이나 삭제되었다.관리자가 삭제된 수정사항을 검토하여 올바른 보관 페이지(Talk:Rage After the Machine/Archive 4)와 병합하여 적절한 전체 보관소를 확보할 수 있는가? — Train2104(Talk • 기여 • 카운트) 22:57, 2010년 9월 27일(UTC)

글쎄, 나는 며칠 전에 Levelbot이 토크 페이지에 올려놓은 글을 삭제했어.나는 봇이 잘못된 페이지에 텍스트를 배치하도록 하는 문제를 수정했다고 생각한다. 그래서 우리는 하루쯤 후에 무슨 일이 일어났는지 볼 수 있을 것이다.케빈 러더포드 (대화) 2010년 9월 27일 23:44 (UTC)

내가 이미 문제를 해결했으니, LevelBot은 더 추가하면 안 돼.하지만, 우리는 삭제된 역사에서 뭔가를 찾아내야 한다. — Train2104 (대화 • 기여 • 카운트) 23:58, 2010년 9월 27일 (UTC)

고정된 것 같아.예외적으로 페이지 어디에 어떤 스레드가 있어야 하는지 잘 모르겠다. /ƒETCOMMS/ 00:40, 2010년 9월 28일(UTC)

그래, 누군가는 다시 조사해서 그 안에 다시 넣어야 해.케빈 러더포드 (대화) 2010년 9월 29일 16시 30분 (UTC)

폭탄 이란

Bomb 이란(파라디곡)을 Bomb 이란으로 옮겨줄 수 있는 사람?내가 직접 하고 싶지만 Bomb 이란은 보호받고 있다. 접미사는 필요 없다.2010년 9월 29일(UTC) 16:08, 16:08(UTC)

광동 Viadule에서 필요한 단기 관리자 조정

나는 관리인이 지난 주에 걸쳐 광동 비아독도의 편집 이력을 검토했으면 한다.편집할 때마다 사용자:돈크람이 되돌린다.다른 기사에서 우리 사이에 불신 교류가 있었던 과거 이력이 있는 만큼, 가능하다면 더 이상의 에스컬레이션을 막고 싶다.단기간의 비공식적인 중재가 도움이 될 것이다.내가 이 요청을 했다고 돈크람에게 알리겠다.블루보어(토크) 18:48, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

이런, 이건 불필요할 거야.하지만, 음, 만약 블루보어가 그것을 요구한다면, 그것은 무언가가 필요하다는 증거다.기본적으로 이것은 유저 토크에서 그에게 부탁한 나의 요청과 관련된다.블루보아르 #캔턴 비아덕트 그가 새로운 편집자, 집중력 있는 편집자치고는 너무 강하지 않다는 것을 알게 되었다.나는 실제로 블루보어가 내가 해야 할 말을 들을 수 있고 다소 뒤로 물러설 수 있다는 것을 고무받았다(Talk에서 다작 기사와 Talk 페이지 편집의 패턴과 관련).내가 상호작용을 한 주요 장소 중 하나인 미소닉 빌딩 목록).이것은 논의되고 있으며, 다음과 같은 wp가 있다.BRD 유형 프로세스 진행 중.블루보어의 토크 페이지에서 다른 편집자들의 의견을 듣는 것이 도움이 될지는 모르지만, 나는 이것이 ANI와 관련이 있다고 보지 않는다.하지만 ANI 조치가 취해진다면 블루보아르가 냉정을 되찾을 수 있도록 강력한 지침이 되기를 바란다.위키피디아 토크에 새로운 ANI 토론에 대한 공지사항을 게시할 것이다.위키프로젝트 프리메이슨리#행동 이슈는 블루보어의 행동에 대한 다른 토론이 일어났으며, 관련 편집에서 다른 위키프로젝트 프리메이슨리 편집자들로부터 어느 정도 도움을 받는 것 같다.나는 지금 더 논의할 시간은 없지만 나중에 다시 돌아올 거야.광동 비아덕터 기사에는 급한 문제가 없고, 대신 얼마 동안 천천히 논의할 수 없는 급한 다른 문제는 없다. --doncram (대화) 19:11, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

또한 나는 블루보아르와 나의 입장에서 나쁜 믿음의 상호작용을 한 역사가 있거나, 적어도 그것이 다르다면 정당하지 않은 나쁜 믿음은 없다는 것을 받아들이지 않는다.블루보아르가 내가 개발한 메소닉 템플 등 일부 불화 페이지에 초점을 맞춘 이후, 나는 그를 주제별로 다루어야만 했고, 나는 여러 번 격렬하게 동의하지 않았다.나는 그때 결정이 내려졌던 모든 혹은 거의 모든 경우를 믿는다. 나의 입장은 편집자들의 합의에 의해 지지를 받았다. 즉, 블루보어의 많은 관련 AFD들이 거절당했다.어느 순간 블루보어는 모든 의견 차이 때문에 분명히 나쁜 믿음이 있다고 주장하기 시작했지만 그것은 오해의 소지가 있는 추론이다.나는 때때로 잘 정당화된 분노를 표출했다.그리고 또 시작이네. --doncram (토크) 19:38, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

Doncram, 당신의 마지막 복귀에서, 당신은 블루보어의 논쟁을 지지하는 참조를 제거했고, 비소싱된 텍스트를 복원하는 동안, 나는 BB가 어떻게 약간 좌절하고 있는지 알 수 있다.--SerkOfVulcan (대화) 19:43, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

이번이 처음은 아니다.돈크람, 내가 편집한 모든 내용을 우리 둘 다 작업하고 싶은 기사에 기꺼이 되돌릴 수 있을 것 같은데...(내가 당신의 편집 내용 중 하나를 되돌릴 경우 강력하게 이의를 제기하는 동안).답답하다.이번엔 전쟁을 편집하는 대신...나는 행정관이 개입할 것을 요구하고 있다.블루보어 (토크) 20:13, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

명확히 하기 위해, 나는 관리자가 아닌 관련 편집자로 일하고 있다.--SerkOfVulcan (대화) 20:28, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

빠른 삭제를 위해 태그가 지정된 엄청난 이미지 백로그

안녕

빠른 속도로 삭제해야 하는 파일들이 많이 밀려 있어서 관리자의 주의가 필요하다.다음 파일은 카테고리에 나열되어 있다.Wikimedia Commons 및 Category에 다른 이름을 가진 위키백과 파일:위키미디어 커먼스에 같은 이름의 위키백과 파일.

함대 사령부(대화) 13:00, 2010년 9월 24일(UTC)

파일 삭제 여부에 실질적인 차이가 없기 때문에 이 파일들을 처리하는데 있어서 긴급한 것은 없다.문제가 된 파일을 검토할 수 있는 기회를 주니까 서두르면 안 돼.여기와 하원에서 삭제를 원하는 중요한 숫자가 있다.

우리가 처리할 수 있는 정말 확실한 프로세스가 없는 하원과 관련된 유일한 백로그는 이름 충돌이다: 여기의 이미지가 하원에서 다른 이미지와 동일한 이름을 갖는 경우.이들 중 일부는 카테고리에 있다.Wikimedia Commons에서 동일한 이름으로 다른 이미지를 가진 이미지. 그러나 이 카테고리는 수동 태그 지정으로 채워지기 때문에 극히 일부만.

아마도 툴 서버 쿼리가 모든 이미지의 목록을 생성하는 것으로 추측되지만, 나는 확실히 그것을 작동시킬 수 없었고 어떤 경우에도 당신이 보고 싶을 때마다 쿼리를 다시 실행하는 것은 좋지 않은 생각이다.우리는 아마도 여기 enwp에 있는 한 페이지에 주기적인 보고서를 작성해야 할 것이다.아마 반의 단서를 가진 사람이 쉽게 그렇게 할 수 있을 것이다.멋진 가상 상품들이 기다리고 있다!Angus McLellan(토크) 13:17, 2010년 9월 24일(UTC)

이 밀린 일은 오래전부터 있어 왔다.긴급한 것은 아니지만, 관리자들은 시간이 있을 때 한 가지 하위 카테고리를 삭제하도록 노력해야 한다.나는 약 10분 혹은 그 이하가 걸린다. /ƒETECCOMMS/15:14, 2010년 9월 24일 (UTC)

나는 기한이 지난 범주를 삭감하는 작업을 해 왔는데, 진전이 있는지는 모르겠지만, 해칠 수는 없다.Nyttend (대화) 22:13, 2010년 9월 24일 (UTC)

음… "10분 걸려" "진행하고 있는지 모르겠다"는 등 혼란스러움이 남는다.내가 도울 수 있으면 좋겠는데...아아. 함대 사령부 (대화) 09:52, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

하위 범주를 정리하는 데 10분이 걸려또한 새로운 하위 카테고리가 채워지는 데 10분이 소요된다:/ /ƒETECCOMMS/ 00:41, 2010년 9월 27일(UTC)

나는 비록 내가 연구해왔지만, 관련된 하원의 범주가 거의 2.5년 뒤처져 있는 이곳에서 몇 달씩 밀리는 범주에 대해 걱정하지 않을 것이다.Rodhullandemu 15:20, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

내가 도울 수 있다는 것.나는 이 범주가 고갈될 때까지 하루에 세 개의 파일을 검토할 것이다.귀사 관리자는 큰 부담 없이 앞서 언급한 백로그를 없앨 수 있다.매일, 각 관리자는 이 두 범주 중 하나에서 하나의 파일을 삭제한다.그것은 어떻게 된 셈인가?; 저것은 어떻습니까?함대 사령부(대화) 06:58, 2010년 9월 27일(UTC)

파일들은 확실히 삭제할 필요가 없고, 단지 봇이 잘 움직였는지 확인하기 위해 검토만 하면 된다.이론적으로, 기사에 있는 이미지를 사용하고 싶은 사람은 정보가 괜찮은지, 아무것도 흐리멍덩한 것이 없는지 확인하고 태그를 제거하면 된다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 2010년 9월 28일 (UTC) 12:56

"파일을 삭제할 필요가 없다"고 하면, 문맥이 틀렸다는 뜻이다.카테고리의 파일:Wikimedia Commons 및 Category에 다른 이름을 가진 위키백과 파일:위키미디어 커먼스에 있는 같은 이름의 위키백과 파일들은 빨리 삭제되어야 한다.관리자가 매일 이들 중 하나를 삭제하면, 곧 이러한 범주는 고갈될 것이다.그 동안 세 개의 파일을 공통으로 검토하겠다.범주:파일이 en에서 이동됨.위키백과에서 검토를 필요로 하는 공용어로.함대 사령부 (대화) 2010년 9월 29일 14:20 (UTC)

나는 당신이 스레드를 시작했던 카테고리보다는 당신과 로드홀이 언급했던 카테고리에서 파일들을 삭제하라는 관리자를 의미한다고 생각했다.하지만 나는 너의 접근 방식이 마음에 든다. 모든 사람들이 한 가지 혹은 두 가지 규칙적으로 하는 것이 아니라, '나는 3주 동안 앉아서 이렇게 해야 한다'고 생각하는 것이다..' 나는 로그온할 때마다 복습하도록 노력할 거야.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC) 23:51, 2:51)

위키백과:데이터베이스 보고서/최근에 참조되지 않은 살아있는 사람들의 전기 작성

모두 안녕. 위의 데이터베이스 보고서에는 BLP Prod 프로세스를 통해 소싱되거나 삭제될 수 있는 많은 BLP가 포함되어 있어.그것은 약간의 주의를 요할 수 있다; 누군가 그것을 보고 그것을 감시하는 것을 고려하기를 원하는가?NW (토크) 00:41, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

나는 현재 목록에 있는 항목의 수가 극히 적어서 조금 어리둥절하다.우리는 실제로 매우 효율적으로 순찰하고 수정하거나 삭제하거나 또는 BLP 기사의 출처를 알려주는 데 성공했다.내가 직접 CSD를 순찰한 결과, 두번째는 그렇지 않다고 생각한다. DGG (토크 ) 01:13, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

나는 봇이 단지 모든 것을 다 잡지는 못한다고 생각한다.그래도 보통은 매일 두어 편의 기사다.NW(Talk) 01:25, 2010년 9월 30일(UTC)

내 경험상, 카테고리에 속하는 대부분의 새로운 기사 창작물:살아있는 사람들은 그것을 가지고 창조되지 않고, 거의 항상 결국 그것을 얻지만 즉시 그것을 추가하지 않는다.보고서가 범주를 기준으로 삼았다면 이것만으로도 기사가 누락될 수 있다.— 가비아 임머 (대화) 01:37, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

티미 폴로

URL이 다르면 페이지가 다름

여보세요

동일한 URL에 액세스하려고 하지만 다른 경우 다른 페이지로 리디렉션되는 경우그것은 이상적인 행동이 아니다.

웹에서 인간은 웹 주소를 수동으로 입력하지만(때로는) 그 경우를 기억하지 못한다.이러한 시나리오에서는 URL을 입력하는 데 사용되는 사례(상단/하단)를 구분하지 않고 오른쪽 페이지로 리디렉션해야 한다.

동일한 내용을 확인하려면 아래에 제공된 URL을 열어 보십시오. 그러면 완전히 다른 페이지로 리디렉션됩니다.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComponentOne [올바른 URL] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Componentone [잘못된 URL]

당신이 사이트를 개선하는 데 도움이 되기를 바란다.

Ankur.nigam (대화) 05:04, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

위키피디아는 대소문자를 구분한다. 왜냐하면 다른 주제에 대한 다른 기사들은 다른 편지 케이스에 있을 수 있기 때문이다.위키피디아는 많은 기사를 가지고 있고, 우리는 우리의 제목이 가능한 한 정확하기를 원한다.앞으로 이와 같은 기술적 성격에 대한 질문이 있다면, 더 좋은 장소는 위키백과 어느 쪽이든 될 것이다.헬프 데스크 또는 위키백과:마을 펌프(기술). --Jayron32 05:09, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

디토. 하지만 컴포넌트원이 아주 오래된 삭제라는 점을 감안하여 나는 이 구체적인 문제를 해결하기 위해 새로운 리디렉션을 만들었다.쿠르셀레스 05:10, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

나는 매달린 채 합리적인 대응을 위해 재설치되었다.

Hearfourmewesique (토크 · 기여)는 사소한 것을 덧붙이고 싶어하며, 그는 케이티 쿠릭 BLP 기사에 모욕적인 내용을 담고 싶어한다.그의 시도는 몇몇 편집자에 의해 뒤집혔다.여기서의 토크 페이지 토론에서, 대다수의 편집자들은 제안된 내용이 사소한, 과도한 가중치이며 NPOV 정책에 반하는 것을 거절했다.그래서 Hearfourmewesique는 여기서 NPOV 알림 게시판을 시도했는데, 여기서 한 명의 편집자를 제외한 모든 편집자가 제안된 내용을 사소한, 과도한 가중치 및 NPOV 정책에 반대하는 것으로 거부했다.그래서 Hearfourmewesique는 여기서 WikiQuette Noticeboard를 사용해 보았다. 그곳에서 그는 다시 그의 제안된 내용이 사소한 것, 과도한 무게, 타블로이드판 같은 것이라는 것을 알게 되었다.이제 그는 수많은 편집자들의 합의된 의견을 "모브(mob)"라고 부르며 일축하고 있으며(이 편집 요약 참조), 대신 전쟁을 편집하기로 선택했다.편집 요약을 쓴 그의 논평은, (...나는 그 설명을 반복하지 않을 것이다. 그것을 찾아라.)와 (토론은 끝났고, 나의 마지막 진술에 이의를 제기하는 사람은 한 달이 넘도록 아무도 없었다.) 토론을 통해 분쟁을 해결하는 것을 주저함을 나타낸다.이 문제를 해결하는 데 조금이나마 도움이 된다면 고맙겠다.외국인 정신분열증 (대화) 11:32, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

• 사용자:Hearfourmewesique는 그와 관련된 ANI 토론을 통보했다.

자, 이걸 비례적으로 표현해 봅시다.

• 사소한 것 – 이 단어가 원숭이 배설물처럼 날뛰고 있는데, 실제 확실한 증거가 없다.
• Defamatory – 그것은 제3세계 타블로이드판 신문에서 드러난 그녀의 젖가슴 사진이 아니라 여러 믿을 만한 소식통이 보도한 대로 쿠릭이 페일린 가족을 놀리는 모습을 그린 비디오다.
• 대다수의 사람들 – 이 기사는 팬클럽이다; 이 기사가 전적으로 구성하는 그녀의 성격과 작품에 대한 끊임없는 평가에 대항하는 단 한 개의 항목도 없다.
• Mob – WP에 위키 링크 제공:위키피디아는 다시 팬클럽 문제로 민주주의가 아니다.
• 부당함 – 우리는 Couric씨에게 전적으로 편향되어 있고 앞에서 언급했던 "모프"가 집요하게 지켜주는 기사 내에서 다소 부정적인 보고서의 한 문장에 대해 이야기하고 있다.이것은 위키피디아에서 잘 발전된 것처럼 보이는 기술이다: 충분한 지지자를 확보하고, 어떤 것이든 합의를 핑계로 성취될 수 있다.다행히 사용자:Drrll (Xenalmantic이 언급한 "하나를 제외한 모든"의 한 사람)은 내 요점을 이해하기에 충분한 상식을 가지고 있는데, 이는 광산과 Drrll's의 수 많은 논평에 의해 "혼잡"된 다른 편집자와는 대조적이다.
• 내 코멘트 - 내 요점의 타당성에 대한 광범위한 설명에 대해 진땀을 흘린 후, 내가 그 지점에 도달할 때까지 계속 반복되어진 두 개의 마지막 코멘트(이러한 기술로 나를 지치게 하지 말고 단순히 Xen의 정신분열증에 대해 내 말을 듣도록 지시하는 것)이다.Hearfourmewesique (토크) 2010년 9월 25일 17:00 (UTC)

토크 페이지에는 그녀의 인생 이야기에서 실질적인 가치가 없는 내용이라는 강한 지지와 사용자 Hearfourmewesique가 듣고 있지 않고 어쨌든 덧셈을 대체해 오고 있다는 점이 기사를 잠그는 결과를 낳았다.이용자에 대한 공감대가 형성돼 있고 그는 그 목소리에 귀를 기울여야 하며, 만약 그가 다시 동의에 반하여 기사를 읽게 된다면 그것은 편집에 지장을 줄 것이다.Off2riorob (대화) 17:09, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

Hear4의 기고 목록을 살펴보면, 그가 정치 기사에 몰두할 때 그는 특정한 방식으로 특정 사람들을 그리려고 하고 있으며, 위의 그의 "팬 클럽" 논평은 BLP 규정을 위반하고 싶어하는 편집자에 관한 코스와 동등하다는 것을 보여준다.← 베이스볼 버그스카르당^{What's up, Doc?}→ 17:39, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

...그리고 우리는 지금 정치권에 있다. 당신은 어떤 대가를 치르더라도 나를 나쁘게 보이게 하기 위해 노력할 수 있는 모든 것을 찾는다.당신의 "모양"은 내가 그 단락을 추가하기 전에 다루지 않았던 문제에 대해 여러 신뢰할 수 있는 출처를 포함하여 후자의 기사에 간결하고 중립적인 단락으로 요약될 수 있다.내가 의도적으로 BLP를 위반하고 싶어한다는 것을 증명할 수 없다면, 나는 이것을 인신공격으로 해석할 것이다.Hearfourmewesique (토크) 17:51, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

그렇다면 마이클 무어가 그라운드 제로에 있는 모스크의 아이디어를 어떻게 지지하고 있는지에 대한 장황한 설명을 덧붙인 이유는 무엇일까?그의 글도 팬클럽처럼 읽혀질까?『야구 벅스 당근→ 17:54, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

어림잡아?와우, 난 네가 더 현명할 거라고 생각하지만, 여기선 베테랑으로서 말이야.출처를 읽어보면, 그는 자신의 웹사이트에서 자랑스럽게 "해결"하고 있답니다!그런 말을 했으니, 그리고 그 문제는 여러 신뢰할 수 있는 이차적 출처들에 의해 다루어졌으니, 그것은 그의 바이오에 있어야 한다.Hearfourmewesique (토크) 18:02, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

그렇다면 무어 기사는 팬클럽 기사처럼 읽힐까?난 그렇게 생각 안 해.그리고 오라일리나 핸니티와 같은 전문가들처럼, 그는 논쟁에서 번창한다.한편, 쿠릭-팔린 몰힐로 산을 만들려는 당신의 지속적인 시도는 문제를 왜곡시킨다.그 동영상은 선거가 끝난 지 한참이 지나서야 나왔고, 당시에도 공개석상에서 페일린을 놀린 사람들의 끝이 없기 때문에, 그녀가 사석에서 그렇게 했다는 사실은 전혀 특이한 것이 아니며 기사에 과도한 비중을 두고 있다."인신공격"으로 말하자면... 글쎄, 난 단지 네가 전에 쓴 글을 읽었을 뿐이고, "베테랑"으로서, 여기서 본 많은 편집자들이 부정적인 사소한 것들을 기사에 싣지 못하게 되어 있을 때 불평하는 패턴에 부합하는 것을 보았다. 예를 들어 2008년 가을 팔린 기사의 포섭과 같은 것 말이다.방어하기 위해base베이스볼 버그 당근→18:11, 2010년 9월 25일(UTC)

원하는 것을 추가할 수 있다는 당신의 입장은 당신이 가지고 있는 문제에 대한 인용문을 찾을 수 있다.우리는 살아 있는 사람들의 인생 이야기를 쓰고 있고, 만약 여러분이 추가하고 싶은 내용이 가치 있고 주목할 만한 것이라는 것을 소수에서 발견한다면, 여러분의 생각에 동의하지 않는 모든 사람들을 제안할 때가 아니라, 듣기 시작할 때라는 것을 알게 된다면, 그들의 삶에 가치가 있는 것에 관하여 편집적 판단을 사용해야 한다.sention은 기사 제목 팬클럽의 회원이다.오프2리오롭(토크)

빙고. ← 베이스볼 벅스 당근→18:17, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

(ec)대세계획에서 훨씬 더 중요한 것은 모든 초기의 과장 광고에도 불구하고, 쿠릭과 CBS 뉴스는 그들의 시청률 적자를 아직 깎아내리지 못했다는 점이다.팬클럽 기사가 그런 사실을 언급할 가능성이 있을까.base베이스볼 버그 당근→18:17, 2010년 9월 25일(UTC)

'길쭉한 블러브'는 짧은 네 줄의 단락이다(무어 사상을 막 끝내는 것).쿠릭에 대해서는...이것은 사소해 보일지 모르지만, 여러분 중 누구도 그녀가 페일린에 편향되어 있다는 것을 보여주는 것이라고 생각하지 않을 것이다. 그것은 인터뷰에 영향을 미쳤고, 페일린의 지지자들은 그것을 가장 부정적인 관점에서 바라보도록 만들었다.시청률 하락은 그것에 비하면 아무것도 아니다.코릭의 개인적인 의제는 기사에서 어디에도 언급되지 않았다.그녀는 중립적인 기자가 아니며 이것은 매일 수백만 명의 사람들이 보는 그녀의 일에 분명한 영향을 끼친다.기사에서 언급된 것 중 어떤 것이라도, 여러 출처의 지원을 받고 있는 것이 있는가?아니, 그러니까...응, 팬클럽인데, 가엾은 쿠릭씨와 그녀가 올릴 수 없는 시청률 하락을 언급했어...킁킁거리고 슬픈 강아지들.

P.S. 단지 공식적으로, 나는 페일린 문제에 대한 그녀의 의견에 동의한다; 나는 페일린이 몇 년 동안 미국이 보아온 가장 무능한 정치 후보 중 한 명이라고 믿는다.반면에, 나는 TV 리포터가 아니고 내 표현에 근거하여 많은 사람들에게 영향을 주지 않는다.다시 한 번 말하지만, 내가 원하는 것은 그 기사가 좀 더 균형잡히기를 바라는 것이다.Hearfourmewesique (토크) 18:28, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

우리는 큰 잘못을 바로잡기 위해 여기에 있는 것이 아니다.만약 당신이 그것을 이해하지 못하거나 당신의 편집이 그 품질에 어떤 영향을 미쳤는지 이해할 수 없다면, 당신은 지금 기사를 편집하지 말아야 한다.이 경고를 중단 및 해제에 대한 권한 없는 관리자의 최종 경고로 간주하십시오.NW (토크) 18:44, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

상관없다.WP:GREATWRONGS는 "신뢰할 수 있는 2차 소스에서 검증 가능한 것만 보고하라"는 구체적인 지침이다.나는 일곱 개를 공급했고, 드렐은 한 개를 더 공급하여 여덟 개를 만들었다.최종 경고?우리가 처음으로 대화하는 거야, 친구 진정해

WP에 따라 BaskBugs에게:OSE, 그 당시 다른 많은 사람들이 페일린을 놀리고 있었다는 사실이 쿠릭이 그렇게 한 것을 좋게 만들거나 사소한 것으로 만들지는 않는다.게다가 그녀는 사석에서 한 것이 아니라, 카메라를 겨누고 스탠드에서 대본을 읽고 있었다. 그녀는 카메라가 꺼져 있다고만 생각했다.Hearfourmewesique (토크) 18:48, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

페일린이 쿠릭에 대해 무슨 말을 해야 하는지도 흥미롭겠지만 그렇다고 그것이 페일린 기사에 속한다는 뜻은 아닐 것이다.또한, 검증가능하다는 것은 기사에 포함되기 위한 티켓이 아니라, 특히 BLP에서 포함을 고려하기 전에 충족되어야 하는 최소한의 표준에 지나지 않는다. bl베이스볼 버그스카르틱스^{What's up, Doc?}→ 19:47, 2010년 9월 25일(UTC)

문제의 일부는 Hearfourmewesique가 "카메라가 꺼진 것으로 생각했다"는 그의 잘못된 주장에서 증명되었듯이, Hearfourmewesique가 실제로 그가 여기에 약간의 "gotcha" 내용을 가지고 있다고 믿는다는 것이다.사실, 쿠릭은 그 비디오의 첫 24초 동안 그들이 촬영하고 있다고 말하고 심지어 그녀의 리딩-스루로 들어가기 전에 관례적인 3.. 2.. 1.. 사운드 체크 카운트다운을 하고 있는데, 그녀는 "도대체 어디서 이런 이름을 얻었는가?"라는 탄성을 지르며 즉시 이를 방해한다.사실 그 비디오 영상에 대해 모욕적인 것은 아무것도 없으며, 쿠릭은 Trig and Track과 같은 이름을 가진 사람들에 대해 처음으로 배운 것 외에는 아무것도 하지 않았다. 그들은 무스버거를 먹고 순록 사냥을 하며, 90%의 미국인들이 집단 머리를 긁적이며 질문한다.

타협을 위한 노력으로 사소한 내용을 기사에 남기고, 쿠릭이 놀리고 있는 것을 묘사하기 위해 조금 확대했을 때, 허포도 그 편집들을 되돌렸다.독자에게 너무 많은 정보가 쏟아지면서 그가 추진하려던 '우린 케이티(Katie)가 뭔가를 하는 것을 잡았다'는 아우라가 깨지고, 그것을 사소한 것으로 보여준다.외국인 정신분열증 (대화) 23:21, 2010년 9월 25일 (UTC)

산골짜기 같은 거.많은 미국인들이 같은 것에 대해 궁금해했다.아마도 그녀는 인터뷰 중에 그 질문에 대해 좀 더 부드러운 대답을 할 수 있었을 것이다.제이 레노가 프랭크 자파에게 왜 아들의 이름을 "드웨질"이라고 지었냐고 물었을 때처럼 말이다.프랭크의 대답은 "하고 싶었기 때문"이었고, 그것으로 그 논의는 끝이 났다.『야구 벅스 당근→ 02:52, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

참고로 나는 Hear가 만든 요점에 대해 회신하고 싶다.그는 이 사건이 쿠릭의 편견을 보여주고 그 뒤에 나온 악명 높은 페일린 인터뷰의 맥락을 제공한다고 주장하고 있는 것으로 보인다.정보원은 이것을 지지하지 않는다. 그들은 이미 언급된 사소한 세부사항에 대해서만 언급할 뿐이다.그 이상의 것은 원한을 품은 페일린 지지자들로부터이다. -프르베콘 (대화) 19:17, 2010년 9월 26일 (UTC)

좋아, 그럼 페일린 지지자들은 믿을 수 없다고 주장하는 거야? 그들이 페일린 지지자라서?왜 그들은 쿠릭의 페일린 묘사에 나오는 무언가가 다 고지식하지 않은 한 화를 내려고까지 했을까?페일린 지지자들은 모두 만장일치로 쿠릭을 희생양으로 삼기로 결심한 것일까?너의 논리는 새벽 5시에 베이글 공장보다 더 많은 구멍을 가지고 있다.이 소식통들은 대부분 동영상이 촬영된 직후 인터뷰가 이어졌고 일부에서는 광범위한 비방 캠페인으로 비쳐졌다는 점을 지적하고 있다.하지만 나는 몇몇 언론매체에 의해 보도되는 것을 언급하고 있기 때문에 음해 시도로 고발당한 사람이다… 어?Hearfourmewesique (토크) 03:31, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

포스트 ANI

Hearfourmewesique는 지금 기사를 공격하고 있다: [15] 그의 편집 요약본은 전투적이고 전투적인 사고방식을 보여준다.여기서 확실한 조치를 취하고, 그가 자신의 행동을 바꾸기를 원하지 않는 것처럼 보이므로 이것을 중지할 수 있을까? --Jayron32 03:52, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

위키백과에서 이것을 옮기는 것은 말할 것도 없다.관리자 게시판/AnsidentArchive640 to AN 상주 인류학자(대화) 03:55, 2010년 9월 29일(UTC)

@Hear: 그래, 친팔린, 반쿠르적 정서("확대적 비방 캠페인")는 (특히 BLP의 경우) 미덥지 못한 우익 블로그에서 비롯된 것으로 보인다.당신은 쿠릭 기사에서 균형을 위해 일하고 있다고 말하는데, 그 외에 어떤 비판들을 토의 페이지에서 논의하거나 기사에 추가하셨습니까?확실히, 예를 들어, 그녀가 뉴스 앵커 자리를 인수했을 때, 그녀의 저널리즘적 자격에 대한 더 실질적이고 객관적인 언론 보도가 있다. -PrBeacon (대화) 05:18, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

(리마크: PrBeacon이 위에 자신의 답변을 추가하기 전에 다음과 같은 코멘트가 나왔다.네가 원하는 대로 불러라.기사가 편파적이어서 나는 이 게임이 지겨워.유튜브 문제를 원상복구하려는 게 아니라, 그 기사는 여전히 중립적이지 않은 시각에서 쓰여 있고, 내 최소한의 권리는 그렇게 태그하는 것이다.

PrBeacon에게:내가 찾길 원하는 건 뭐든 찾아보고 싶지만 마이클 무어 문제처럼 그 합의가 날 산 채로 잡아먹지는 않을 거란 걸 알아야겠어Hearfourmewesique (토크) 04:07, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

위키피디아는 당신의 권리를 행사하는 장소가 아니다.당신은 이것을 개인적인 개혁으로 받아들이고 있는 것 같은데, 마치 당신의 개인적인 권리가 이 일에 관한 것인 것처럼 말이다.절대 아닙니다.이것은 백과사전을 만드는 것에 관한 것이다. --Jayron32 04:10, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

내 생각에 나는 여기에 관여하지 않은 것 같아.'다양한' 내용이나 태깅에 관한 기사에 대한 편집 전쟁이 더 이상 있다면 기사를 다시 보호해 주고, 편집자가 누구라도 합의에 맞서 싸우는 것을 차단하겠다.나는 그 합의가 어느 쪽으로 가든지 상관없다. 누가 그것에 대항하는 전쟁을 편집하든 막히게 될 것이다.관련된 모든 당사자에 대한 유일한 경고로 간주한다. /1910년 9월 29일(UTC)

Jayron32(토크·논문) – 편집자가 아닌 콘텐츠에 대한 코멘트.개인적으로는 십자군원정은 없지만, 마치 한 사람의 지배를 받는 기분이다.실제 백과사전 항목으로 만들 수 있는 이 기사의 비긍정적 논평 및/또는 보고서를 보여 주십시요.Hearfourmewesique (토크) 04:19, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

잠깐, 뭐라고?당신의 요청을 이해 할 수 있을지 모르겠는데, 그것을 구문 분석해 주시겠습니까? --Jayron32 05:09, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

내가 쓴 그대로야. 잔액이 어디에 있는지 보여줘.내가 그 기사에서 보는 것은 긍정적인 평가, 긍정적인 비판과 긍정적인 업적, 그리고 상을 비롯한 긍정적인 전망을 다룰 수 있는 모든 것들이다.그것과 상반되는 것을 보여줘.오, 글쎄...나중에 댓글로 판단하건대 기사만 손대지 않으면 내가 막히거나 비켜주길 바라는 거겠지그건 너를 위한 위키백과야.Hearfourmewesique (토크) 08:01, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

왜 이것이 논의되고 있는가?Hear4가 편집 전쟁으로 차단되기 전에 얼마나 많은 정보를 들어야 하는가?에버라드 프라우드풋 (토크) 05:19, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

나는 마음이 비슷하다.나는 최근에 그를 역전시켰다. 그래서 나는 빠졌지만, 이 시점에서 그는 WP를 통해 달리고 있다.TE는 그것이 할 일 목록인 것을 좋아한다.무슨 일이 있어도 반대하지 않겠다. --Jayron32 05:24, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

그는 최근 ANI에서 이 실이 시작된 후 차단되었다. - (아카이브 640) 콘텐츠 분쟁이 확대되면서...그가 돌아오자, 위에 보이는 새로운 제목과 함께 여기에 복사하여, "나는 교수형을 당하고, 합리적인 대응을 위해 재설치되었다"고 하고, 케이티 쿠릭 기사 [16][17]를 POV로 태그하여, 제이론이 위에서 언급한 (여기 AN에서 어디에 이어졌는지를 보여주기 위해 휴식기를 삽입했다.) -PrBeacon (토크) 06:40, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

요청된 rev-del 검토

나는 방금 레브 딜레이를 했다.파우스트(토크)는 어느 순간 사용자 이름을 바꾸었는데, 그들의 옛 사용자 이름은 실명이었다.최근 오프위키 사건들은 그들에게 실생활 보안에 대한 걱정을 안겨주었고 그들은 나에게 실명과 현재의 사용자 이름 사이의 연관성을 제거하기 위해 어떤 조치를 취하라고 요구했다.그 결과 나는 그들의 토크 페이지, 다른 편집자의 토크 페이지, 그리고 다른 편집자의 토크 페이지 아카이브에 대한 많은 편집을 삭제했다.

이것은 사용자의 보안과 관련이 있기 때문에 나는 먼저 행동하고 나중에 용서를 구하는 것이 가장 좋다고 생각했다.미안하다.분명히, 내가 부적절한 행동을 했다는 것이 밝혀지면 나는 내 행동이 뒤바뀌는 것에 아무런 문제가 없다.

어쨌든: 수정기호 삭제는 내 삭제 로그에서 사용 가능: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=TFOWR

분명한 이유로 나는 AN에서 이 문제의 특정 측면에 대해 논의하고 싶지 않지만, 이메일로 어떤 것도 토론할 수 있어 기쁘다.

고마워. TFOWR 09:05, 2010년 9월 29일 (UTC)

필요하다면 이런 편집도 감시할 수 있지 않을까?나는 이 편집에 불만이 없다.나이튼드 (대화) 2010년 9월 29일 11시 11분 (UTC)

나는 그렇게 믿는다.내 관심사는 내가 수정한 수정사항의 수이다. 수정한 수정사항과 수정한 수정사항 사이에 어느 정도 시간이 있었다.그 말은 10-20개의 편집본을 연속해서 삭제해야 한다는 뜻이야, 경우에 따라서는.TFOWR 11:40, 2010년 9월 29일(UTC)

나는 "이 삭제에 대한 불만 없음"을 의미했다. 혼란스러워서 미안하다.넌 여기서 가능한 한 최선을 다한 것 같아.나이튼드 (대화) 2010년 9월 29일 14시 20분 (UTC)

나는 너의 의견을 불평으로 여기지 않았지만, 해명해줘서 고마워!TFOWR 13:14, 2010년 9월 30일(UTC)

이름 바꾸기 로그 엔트리를 제거했는데, 아마 이름 바꾸기 링크가 가장 분명했을 것이다. /ƒETECCOMMS/ 02:51, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

정말 고마워, Fetchoms.나는 파우스트와 그것에 대해 논의했지만, 여기서 (WP:콩) 이 모든 것이 얼마나 받아들여질 수 있는지 알기 전까지는 말이다.나는 이 시점에서 파우스트의 모든 우려가 해결되었다고 생각한다.TFOWR 13:14, 2010년 9월 30일(UTC)

이 계정 차단 요청 및 사용자 페이지 삭제

자동 잠금 없이 이 계정을 무기한 차단하고 내 사용자 페이지와 대화 페이지를 삭제해 주시겠습니까?미리 고맙다. -- 안드레아스베버 (대화) 22:38, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell이 해냈으니 이유를 묻기에는 너무 늦은 것 같다. / /ETCOMMS/22:42, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

나는 네가 그의 토크페이지에서 그에게 물어보거나 이메일을 보내도 된다고 생각하지만, 나는 그 요청을 거절할 이유가 없다고 본다.HJ MitchellPenny, 네 생각은 어때? 22:46, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

방금 전에 이 SUL-계정 구식이 생각났는데 지금은 좀 비활성화된 상태라 잊어버릴 수 있어.만약 그것을 완전히 삭제할 수 있었다면 나는 그것을 했을 것이다.드웨키에서는 계정을 비활성화하기 위해 계정을 차단하도록 요청하는 것이 보통이다.다시 한번 감사드리며 -- 85.176.135.99 (대화) 22:50, 2010년 9월 30일 (UTC)

위키백과:잘못된 버전

양말?유용자

1. RomDolce(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) 마지막 편집은 2010년 9월 2일 08:57, 08:57이었다.
   
2. Kumpayada(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) 첫 편집은 2010년 8월 22일 13:51, 22분이었다.
   
3. Kumpayada !(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 차단 사용자 · 블록 로그) (등록된 사용자 이름이 아님)
   
4. Kumpayada My User(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 차단 사용자 · 블록 로그) (등록된 사용자 이름이 아님)
   
5. Society01(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그) (등록된 사용자 이름이 아님)
   

• 모든 관리자 및 오용 필터에게 안녕!질문이 하나 있는데, 문제가 있을 수 있는 사용자가 계정을 1개 이상 만드는 것에 대해 어떻게 생각하십니까?지금은 두 개의 주요 활동계정(1개)의 기부이력을 조사해 이해한다.롬돌체 & 2.Kumpayada), 사용자:롬돌스는 자신의 비밀번호를 잊어버렸다고 주장해 새로운 계정(금파야다)을 만들었지만, 어찌된 일인지 나중에 성명에서 (미등록 계정명 User:쿰파야다!) 롬돌체로서 다시 로그인할 수 있게 된다.또한, 그가 아직 전문적인 수준의 영어를 가지고 있다고 주장하지만, 영어에 대한 이해도가 그리 높지 않다는 점을 감안할 때, 그의 편집 전부는 아니더라도 대부분의 경우 꽤 문제가 있다.생각? --Dave 06:05, 2010년 10월 1일 (UTC)

• 다수의 계정이 남용되고 있는가?당신은 사용자가 그들 사이의 연결을 공개적으로 알고 있다고 말했다; 기존 계정 외에 무엇을 하고 있는가, 그것이 문제인가?여러 계정을 사용하는 것이 정밀 조사나 규칙 위반을 피하지 않는 한, 복수의 계정을 운영하는 것은 허용된다.뭔가 해서는 안 된다는 말은 아니고, 다만 양말을 남용한 증거를 더 봐야 한다는 것이다.--Jayron32 06:10, 2010년 10월 1일 (UTC)

• 내가 보기에는 3, 4, 5는 존재하지 않는 사용자인 것 같지만(CSD U2의 경우 세 가지 모두 속도 조절만 했을 뿐) 그의 편집은 때때로 상당히 걱정스럽다.존재하지 않는 사용자들의 페이지를 만드는 그의 허튼 소리를 그만둘 수 있도록 누군가 그에게 조언을 해줄 수 있는 쪽지를 남겨줄 수 있을까? --Dave 06:16, 2010년 10월 1일 (UTC)

(비관리자 설명):Kumpayada는 그것이 남용되고 있는 것처럼 보이지 않지만, RomDolce의 편집은 분명히 문제가 있다. - 중성적인 호머 • 토크 • 06:22, 2010년 10월 1일 (UTC)

• 호머, 내 생각은 다른데, 왜냐하면 당신이 Kumpayada의 기여 이력을 자세히 들여다보면, 당신은 지금 유사한 추세가 전개되고 있다는 것을 알게 될 것이기 때문이다, 왜냐하면 당신은 호출할 때 편집 요약을 제공하지 않고, 논란이 되는 행동을 할 때 다른 사람들과 의논하지 않는 것과 같은 똥을.내가 보기에 그의 행동은 WP에서 자신이 상상하는 것을 하는 어린 소년의 행동인 것 같다. 도움이 되거나 개선하려는 성숙한 어른보다, 내가 틀렸으면 고쳐라. --Dave 06:30, 2010년 10월 1일 (UTC)

"신뢰할 수 있는 정보를 가지고 있어서 복사해서 붙이지 말아야 한다." - 아무 종도 울리지 않는가?

위의 문구가 포함된 반달 편집본을 방금 되돌렸으며, 최근에 다른 편집자들의 반달리즘에서도 나는 그것을 본 적이 있을 것이다.누구랑 종이라도 치시겠습니까?던컨힐 (대화) 17:51, 2010년 10월 1일 (UTC)

위키피디아의 평판을 떨어뜨리려는 사람들의 비교적 흔한 반달리즘에 가까운 것 같다.Thing // Talk // 기여 19:06, 2010년 10월 1일(UTC)

헤럴드리

몇 시간 전까지만 해도 시어도어 루즈벨트의 팔에 대한 의문이 생겼다.그것은 정확히 행정적인 문제는 아니지만, 무기에 관한 독창적인 연구와 그렇지 않은 것에 관한 것이다.토론에서 좀 더 많은 관심을 가져주시고, 이와 같은 공지사항을 게시할 수 있는 적절한 장소에 대한 제안도 해주시면 감사하겠다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 05:12, 2010년 10월 2일 (UTC)

BTW, 나는 WP에 공지사항을 게시했다.ORN과 프로젝트 헤럴드리의 토크 페이지.기사토크 페이지에서 토론이 집중되어야 한다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 06:07, 2010년 10월 2일 (UTC)

WP에서의 백로그:AIV

WP에는 상당한 규모의 백로그가 있다.AIV. 고마워! — SpikeToronto 06:10, 2010년 10월 2일(UTC)

지금 따라잡히고 있어.고마워! — SpikeToronto 06:30, 2010년 10월 2일(UTC)

반달리즘 내가 우연히 만났지만 어떻게 고쳐야 할지 모르겠어

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Li_Kung-lin_001.jpg의 페이지는 반쪽 아래쪽에 있는 다른 사용자에 대한 공격을 포함하고 있기 때문에 공공 기물 파손 문제가 있는 것 같다.아, 그리고 보아하니 "표현 오류"가 있는 것 같네.나는 위키피디아를 너무 드물게 하고 있어서 이것을 어떻게 고치는지 배우면서 많은 이익을 얻을 수 있을지 의심스럽다(정상적인 페이지, 나는 실수를 해서 원하지 않는 텍스트를 지우거나 이전 편집으로 페이지를 되돌리는 것) 하지만, 나는 이것이 고쳐져야 한다고 생각했고, 그래서 나는 여기서 더 나은 카파블럼이 될 수 있는 사람들의 주의를 끌려고 한다.이 문제의 e.—97.120.252.56 (대화) 08:29, 2010년 10월 2일 (UTC)에 의해 서명되지 않은 의견 추가 준비

표현 오류도 없고 공격도 안 보이나?→ ROX₪ 08:32, 2010년 10월 2일 (UTC)

그래, 안 보여.나는 또한 페이지, 커먼스 페이지, 또는 그 페이지들이 옮겨놓은 어떤 기사들의 최근 편집도 볼 수 없다.내가 생각할 수 있는 유일한 것은 어디선가 템플릿이 파손되어 그때부터 고쳐졌다는 것이다.—Soap—2010년 10월 2일 (UTC)

공통점일 수 있음:템플릿:도시, 파괴되어 보호되고 있는 것 같아.Ucucha 12:34, 2010년 10월 2일 (UTC)

공용:템플릿:ISO years도.숙청하기 전에 (특히 고약한) 반달리즘을 몇 페이지에 걸쳐서 아직도 볼 수 있었다.Ucucha 12:39, 2010년 10월 2일 (UTC)

그리고 개정판이 다시 삭제된 것으로 보인다. --Alpha Quadrant 01:06, 2010년 10월 3일(UTC)

더 필요한 정보:위키피디아 토크:지푸라기 여론조사의 삭제/재개정

개업한지 한 달이 넘었는데 참여가 점점 줄어서 마감은 순서가 맞는 것 같다.내가 참여자였다면 내가 직접 했을 것이다.재미있게 보내!비블브록스 (대화) 01:24, 2010년 10월 2일 (UTC)

내가 한번 보고 대신 참여하기로 결정했다 :) T. 카넨스 (대화) 05:13, 2010년 10월 3일 (UTC)

대화 페이지를 만들 수 없음

Talk에 Wiki Project 태그를 추가하려고 했는데:Nguyễn_Thai_Dưng가 승인되지 않은 메시지를 받아 작성하려는 페이지 제목이나 편집은 현재 관리자로 제한되어 있다. 반달리즘을 막기 위해 주로 사용되는 국내 또는 글로벌 블랙리스트의 항목과 일치한다.

왜? 응우옌타이 두옹은 어제 응우옌타이 쯔엉으로 리디렉션된 것 같은데, 토크 페이지를 이동/재연결하지 못했다.누가 연결 해제 좀 고쳐줄래?고마워, The-Pope (토크) 02:34, 2010년 10월 3일 (UTC)

됐어. 그 제목 블랙리스트 규칙이 얼마나 많은 잘못된 긍정을 내렸는지 궁금하네.Ucucha 02:42, 2010년 10월 3일 (UTC)

봇 플랫폼

내가 봇플랫폼을 개발하고 있다는 것을 아는 사람들이 있고 나는 그 프로젝트가 계속되기 전에 폭넓은 지원을 받았는지 확인하고 싶어. 도! 12:14, 2010년 9월 23일 (UTC)

위키백과:관리자 주의를 기울일 사용자 이름 백업

Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that bad now. There are 2 user reported, both of which are marked as {{uaa b}} ( Not a blatant violation of the username policy.); there are 5 bot reported - 2 {{uaa m}} ( Keep monitoring the user, until their username is more clear.); 1 {{uaa b}} ( Not a blatant violation of the username policy.); one {{uaa wait}} ( Wait until the user edits.) which appears to be a Star Wars reference; and one uncommented. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The backlog is pretty much clear now; I've moved the ones which suggest waiting until the user edits or worth keeping an eye on to the holding pen, and marked a couple as non-vios / removed a couple which others marked as non-vios. The only thing left are the two I've marked as non-vios, pending confirmation by a second opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff

Dilma Rousseff A clear example of admin abuse. --Ftsw (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you've posted to both WP:ANI and here? Shubinator (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Increase in the edit count? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThomasK - after he uploaded a possibly copyvio joke image of Obama. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barackobama.jpg. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Zarapastroso

User:Gavin.collins. Stonewalling, intimidation, misrepresentation of policies

The conduct of Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is currently being discussed at RFC. The conduct issues alleged are "persistent, tenacious editing and other unhelpful discussion behavior in policy/guideline discussions about notability and other topics." Gavin has refused to respond to the RFC, citing the non-disclosure of the draft RFC before it was posted [24]. A read through the evidence on the RFC/U will give a fairly clear picture of the past history.

Unfortunately, the conduct which brought about the RFC has not improved, and I feel that it has gotten worse. Gavin has over the past weeks made several hundred edits to Wikipedia talk:Notability, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, where he has persisted in advocating views which are at odds with the community consensus, and refused to accept that community consensus is against him. Moreover, some of the positions he has advocated are so absurd and out of line with well-established practice, that I am questioning whether he is sincerely arguing for them in good faith, or whether this is an attempt to achieve a relatively more moderate position in an Overton window fashion.

Among the things he has advocated recently is that current policy prohibits editors from sourcing lists with multiple sources. Gavin goes further than this, he says that current policy prohibits editors from updating lists until the entirety of the updated list has been published elsewhere. For example, adding Barack Obama to List of United States presidents is a "bastardisation" of the list, and an act which "would be sackable offence in any accademic institution" [25]. Nobody has supported Gavin's view that current policy prohibits us from keeping lists updated, yet Gavin has insisted that "its policy" and that "there is strong evidence that it is supported" [26]. (Note that this is not "Policy ought to disallow..." but "Current policy disallows...". The former is disagreeing with policy, the latter is misrepresenting policy.)

It is difficult for other editors to back off from discussing with Gavin, because Gavin has a history of editing policies and guidelines to fit his view when the discussion has died down. See for example this edit to Wikipedia:Article titles in June.

I find that Gavin has violated a number of policies here:

• civility violations by openly mocking the people who hold different views than him on inclusion policies [27], and casting spurious aspersions of WP:MADEUP violations [28]. Comparing the update of a list with "plagiarism" and a "sackable offense" is also intimidatory and incivil.
• Gaming the system. At WP:GAME#Examples, I think #4, #5, #6, and #7 are especially relevant. Also, a editor who "resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." is explicitly listed as a sign of a disruptive editor.
• Failure to respect consensus.

The current situation has become intolerable. The two notability discussions have the potential to affect thousands of articles and need thorough, sincere, and open discussion. Instead, editors are being sidetracked into having to rebut the positions by Gavin, again and again and again. Several hours have been wasted on responding to each of Gavin's 200+ posts which more or less are a reiteration of his unyielding position which the community has rejected.

Gavin has previously been warned that his actions are disruptive, and that AN notification may become necessary [29], since that warning only yesterday, Gavin has made 16 more edits on WT:N continuing to insist on that point. Gavin's refusal to respond to the RFC and moderate his conduct has also led to discussion here where there is a general agreement that firmer measures need to be taken, the disagreement being whether it should go to ArbCom or here to AN. At this point binding intervention is needed to put an end to this, and I am sorry to say that that means sanctions. My opinion is that banning Gavin.collins from the Wikipedia and Wikipedia_talk namespaces is an appropriate course of action. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I must differ with the opinion expressed above. The community has not rejected Gavin Collins' position. A small segment of the community would like to circumvent fundamental Wikipedia sourcing policy. Doing so is deleterious to Wikipedia. Gavin Collins has correctly represented the primacy of sourcing requirements at Wikipedia. The small group of editors wishing to skirt fundamental policy are the problem. The loosening of sourcing requirements only allows for flabbier articles, turning Wikipedia more into a discussion forum than an information resource. Wikipedia's fundamental role is the compiling of sourced material—not the creating of new content. Gavin Collins has represented the conservative approach to what Wikipedia is, opposing the erosion of principles that the small group of editors arrayed against him represent. Bus stop (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin argued today that "a "List of 95 notable theses about X" taken from source 1 through to 95 [...] would be a made up list topic", which is not al atll what WP:MADEUP is about. Similarly, he claimed that an article like List of bus transit systems in the United States should be deleted "as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research", and continues that it violates WP:CONPOL and again WP:MADEUP. Such statements demonstrate an "understanding" of our policies that is so far removed from the general view of them, that it is indeed true that the community has rejected his views. Some of his points have been supported by some people, but even those (excepting, apparently, you) have stayed far from his more extreme statements. According to Gavin, we are not allowed to have a list of all winners of event X, based on a published list that goes e.g. four years back, combined with newspaper articles for the last three or four winners. This would be madeup, a bastardization, a homebrew, and so on and so forth: this would be subjective original research. If you believe that this is correct according to "fundamental sourcing policy", and that the majority of the editors would agree with you, then good luck to you, but you are wrong. Fram (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I replied to Gavin after I posted that warning, I didn't feel it correct to start this thread myself at that time. However, I totally agree that a namespace ban from Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk is necessary. As the RfCs and his conduct since indicate, Gavin is unwilling or incapable of acknowledging that his point of view is a very clear minority viewpoint on anything, and he continues to beat a dead horse over and over again, to the exasperation of nearly everyone else involved, filling talk pages with endless pointless discussions. Having a minority viewpoint is not a problem. making suggestions based on them, and arguing for them, is also not a suggestion. Making virtually the same arguments over and over again, even when it has become abundantly clear that they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting adopted, is disruptive though. I think the current RfC says it all, really... Fram (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what is conservative about his statement "I agree that this section does not reflect the consensus of the RFC, but I disagree with the view that no one agrees with this viewpoint, for these ideas have only articulated in the last few days, and it will be a long time before they are even understood, let alone accepted or rejected.". Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to stress: those of us from Gavin's RFC are not seeking to have Gavin banned from WP-space because he has an incompatible viewpoint - everyone is free to have an opinion however extreme to the consensus is may be. This issue is strictly about Gavin's behavior and tactics of late, highly emphasized in this whole list/notability discussion. He's used these tactics before but in discussions on somewhat envelop-pushing ideas that weren't terribly far from consensus (read: reasonable ideas that may have been accepted under the right circumstances), as not to really call attention to this behavior (see the Kender mediation, for one). But now from several areas of late (climate change, article titles, and notability and lists), the more extreme and departed his ideas, albeit potentially good ones if we were a different type of work, are from consensus, the more and more his SOP of behavior is seen and how problematic it is.

Again: tl;dr: this is not because Gavin holds a contrary position; that would be censoring. This is because Gavin does not know how to consensus-build when his contrary position has been flatly rejected, to the determent of others due to time spent defusing that. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin.collins has already been the subject of two previous RFCs and temp bans. Neither of these caused him to change his behavior significantly, only the pages that he edited and the Wikipedians that he fought with. Now there's a third RFC, which he has announced that he will ignore.

Having lost several disputes with others over the application of WP Rules and Guidlines he is now engaged in a war to change those rules. Once he's finally succeeded in winning by Stonewalling and Beating a Dead Horse he will then be able to go back and reopen those disputes using the version of the WP rules that he has personally rewritten. I believe this is an example of WP ownership, only instead of feeling ownership over any particular page/subject he seems to be applying this toward the whole of Wikipedia, or at the very least any page that he chooses to edit.

It is therefore my belief that a complete and long-term ban for Gavin.collins from the whole of Wikipedia is absolutely necessary. Since he refuses to be civil to his fellow Wikipedians and adhere to the rules then what other choice do we have? A topic ban simply won't work. He's shown many times already that he has no problems changing topics and continuing with the same behavior. Perhaps when his ban has expired he will decide to come back to Wikipedia and play nice with others. - Seanr451 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For anyone wanting to hear about this from Gavin Collins: he is not planning to join this discussion[30]. Any specific questions (or remarks, encouragements, whatever) you have for him can probably best be posted directly to his talk page. Fram (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the contention that Gavin has been uncivil. He may have a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but I find no evidence of incivility. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, in general - it's borderline incivility that wouldn't merit individual review and certainly alone would not merit any block. When added to the big picture, it is something Gavin should be aware of that, for example, sarcasm in the middle of a long protracted discussion due to his insistence is not helpful to building consensus. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus that Gavin has been a disruptive editor but we need to be 100% clear that the problem is very specific. It's important to focus on WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IDHT, WP:GAME (namely the "stonewalling" provision), and perhaps WP:OWN applied to policies and RFCs. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is allowed to dissent. But when WP:CONSENSUS is the primary goal of any discussion, repeating the same dissent over and over becomes disruptive to Wikipedia. It causes good editors to burn out, withdraw from the process, and even exit Wikipedia in frustration. It also prevents policies from adapting to new circumstances, which means that long-standing problems prevail (at best. Sometimes they even get worse!) By no means am I saying that people should be forced to give into the majority like some kind of twisted thought police. But EVERY participant is obligated to show SOME kind of movement during a discussion for the sake of building a WP:consensus. An unwillingness to negotiate is troubling. But an unwillingness to negotiate, stated repeatedly and forcefully, does real and noticeable damage to the sense of community. What should we do? I think a topic ban would be extreme, but I would prefer it to nothing. I sincerely think that a warning from an uninvolved administrator could have a powerful effect. It would establish that the community does not condone his tactics. Once that is established, I'm willing to assume good faith that he will improve voluntarily, and we would have a warning on record if he does not. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this on the theory that since all the previous warnings, e.g., this one, have been so obviously successful that we should keep doing the same thing over and over?

Personally, at this stage -- after all these years, three RfCs, and a long string of individual complaints -- I think that that rational people should quit expecting voluntary improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As noted on the RfC by BOZ and I, Gavin tried twice to get a highly valued editor with over 100000 edits banned on AN/I for not following Gavin's twisted understanding of policy and consensus. He subsequently went into full-on IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode on his talk page when asked to stop his attacks on the unfortunate editor in question. He has driven numerous editors off this site, as noted on the RfC. He now refuses to participate here because the issues were not discussed with him on his talk page, on his terms. This is classic Gavin - my way or the highway. Enough already. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here you will find the ban proposal and subsequent discussion with multiple administrators on his talk page, as well as the second ban proposal a month later which resulted in that subheader on the above referenced talk page thread. BOZ (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say it's just gotten ridiculous. Taking a position that can be called consistent with consensus only as a joke in poor taste, then trying to use unflagging tendentiousness to ram it through at the policy level and thereby enact sweeping top-down changes to Wikipedia practice... once is too many times, and this editor is way past once. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think doing an end run around the RFC is a great idea. And as much as I hate to play this game, it took a hell of a lot more to talk about banning/topic-banning certain notable individuals on the other end of the spectrum than what Gavin has done. I'm generally of the opinion that Gavin has kinda worn bare his welcome on notability topics writ large, but that is a nuanced problem that needs a nuanced solution. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Protonk in this case. In Gavin's second RFC, I recall one of the concerns being "If we limit him this way, then he will just go somewhere else and become someone else's problem." And, well, that's exactly what happened. Banning him from notability discussions will just send the problem somewhere else, so like Protonk says we need a more nuanced solution. BOZ (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Protonk here too. Gavin has a very specific problem and is not beyond becoming a productive contributor, unlike some other editors. The situations calls for a more nuanced solution than a topic ban, and I think BOZ has come up with one that is fair and focused. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal 1

Given the level of disruption, I think that a topic ban is appropriate. Here's my current thinking on how to word it:

"Except for comments made on his user talk page, Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or discussing any page or section of a page related to notability), broadly construed, for one year. Gavin.collins is additionally prohibited from nominating any list or article for deletion through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process during that time."

This would stop the endless, time-wasting "discussions" at WT:N and other pages, and would prevent him from carrying on his campaign by filing a long string of spurious AFDs. What do you think? Do you think that this is enough to stop the disruption? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see any claim that user:Gavin.collins has done anything wrong regarding WP:N. He does seem to be on some sort of bender on other pages, so why is this the preferred solution? Abductive (reasoning) 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Frankly, you should look harder. The barest tip of the iceberg on what he's done wrong at WP:N is edit warring on a policy page. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  What policy? WP:N is a guideline. If user:Gavin.collins is causing problems vis-a-vis Lists, why not topic ban him from Lists, broadly construed, and see if his behavior doesn't improve? Abductive (reasoning) 18:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  God. I looked at my comment after I wrote it, went, "oh, lovely, I referred to WP:N as a policy, not a guideline", and knew this was the sort of wikilawyering response I was going to get. Well done. Hey, turns out, edit warring on guidelines is not really spectacularly better than edit warring on policies! Whoda thunk it? Anyway, I suggest you look at the RFC; the current charlie-foxtrot in context of lists is far from the whole story. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Abductive, I'm not finding your name at WT:N, where Gavin has posted more than 1,100 comments over the past two years. I'm also not seeing any signs of your participation at WP:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, where Gavin has edited the main page 100+ times and the talk page 200+ times just in the last month or so. Could it be that you aren't seeing how disruptive this endless repetition of his demands that we re-write notability standards to meet his highly unusual standards, simply because you aren't watching the pages he's disrupting? Disruption that's off your personal radar screen is still disruption, I believe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Back on May 12, I discussed the notability of small settlements with user:Gavin.collins. I have also argued with him on WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/TRANSWIKI and here I'm trying to figure out what he is talking about at WT:Article titles. Abductive (reasoning) 07:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal 2

I disagree with most of the wording -- it's too loose in places, too restrictive in others. My preference would be:

"Gavin.collins (talk · contribs) is prohibited from topics relating to notability, broadly construed, including the notability of individual articles, for one year. Violations of this ban may be enforced by standard escalating blocks."

If he can come up with other valid reasons to delete articles, there's no reason to ban him from AfD nominations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I (really) like the simplicity, but I'm not sure I understand it. So if Gavin nominates an article at AfD and claims a reason other than notability, it's okay? For example, if he nominated just any of the 50,000+ "List of..." articles, and said that WP:NOT prohibited lists he didn't approve of, then that would be okay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure the concept of "other valid reasons to delete articles" makes sense, given the definition of notability as what "determines whether a topic merits its own article". Given that, it seems like any participation in AfD whatsoever falls under "notability, broadly construed". —chaos5023 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of the CSD criteria are safe, for example. "We formed this band and we're really cool" should not be grounds for blocking, for example. However, "Who cares if he's a 15-time winner of the X Award, it's just a genre fan award" would be under the above wording, in my opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense for it being fine for him to do speedy noms. Initiating or participating in an AfD, even if CSD criteria are involved, still seems like participating in something that's mainly about notability, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I prefer this.Second choice if the copyvio stuff is sorted out. It's simple so he can't lawyer his way around it. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Weakest possible support: don't feel we need to use the "b" word yet. But I agree there's a problem and this action is preferable than watching the problem continue. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Hum ho. Whilst there's clearly an issue here, Gavin gets a ban whilst those who spam AfD discussions (which is clearly the cutting edge) are allowed to continue? *Sigh* Black Kite (t)(c) 18:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  I don't disagree, but isn't that kinda WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Spamming AfD is not okay, is disruption and should be stopped; this is a separate topic from Gavin's disruption. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  I unfortunately agree with you Black Kite. I tried to propose something a little more lenient. Something that would be a model that we could use for other editors who have a similar problem. (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and should be treated the same.) Shooterwalker (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would prefer that user:Gavin.collins get back to the useful work of nominating pages on non-notable topics, which he seems to have been neglecting lately. I find it remarkable that he is to be banned from AfDs when he is not accused of abusing that system. Perhaps he could be topic-banned from Lists for a while, but maybe the fear is that that would make him more effective. Abductive (reasoning) 18:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I do not believe this will be sufficient and that eventually a complete ban will be required. However, I readily admit that I cannot foresee the future and thus could be wrong. This proposal still allows for a block but only in response to his continued bad behavior, and does give him the option to voluntarily change said behavior. Seanr451 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Is Gavin a pain to deal with? Absolutely. Has he gotten entrenched in a dispute with people that refuse to acknowledge the triviality of their goals? Certainly. Was he right to request a block of AlbertHerring? Possibly ... the mass creation of stubs by bots is a horrible thing to do, and I'm amazed that the community tolerates it. Blocking Gavin basically gives the win to the people that are in the wrong, and I can't condone it.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We have to be clear: this is not if Gavin's interpretation (or anyone's interpretation) of policy is correct or not. It is sitting there pounding the floor expecting people to come to your stance when everyone else has agreed to move on with a completely different consensus, even when people try to reach out and get him involved. That is DEADHORSE and TE. I am very aware of a ban being seen as a form of censoring an unpopular viewpoint, which is why I'm not thrilled with this option either. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm just not certain that punishing tenacity is necessarily a good thing. I stay away from a lot of areas where Gavin charges in just because I'm older and can't take it any more. He tends to be spot on in analyzing the effect of policies and guidelines on articles, and his opponents generally don't bother to refute him: it's more a chant of "I don't like the effects of applying the guideline to my area of personal interest, so I'm going to act like it says something that it doesn't actually say". He doesn't move on to the purported "consensus" because he correctly recognizes that a consensus that defies policies and guidelines doesn't reflect project-wide consensus.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I have to disagree with Kww when tenacity is excessive it should be forcibly ended. Unfortunately in Wiki no response is the equivalent to agreement. This has the effect of never letting argument die as long as there is one oppose. No matter how overwhelming the consensus is ,bas soon as no one opposes they will claim that consensus has changed and make their changes. There comes a time to allow editors to walk away without fear of someone claiming a false consensus just because no one jumped up to force him back down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  I believe "tenacious" was accidentally used in some of the originating documents here when "tendentious" was meant. It's tendentiousness that's meant to be deterred, not tenacity. People refute Gavin effectively all the time; I have only seen him respond to this by a handwaved argument, possibly throwing around some debate or formal logic terms, amounting to a bald assertion of his own correctness, followed by continuing to reiterate the refuted point. This is certainly tendentious editing. (I think my favorite, though, was when he breezed past my own citing of long-standing Wikipedia practice by calling that practice excessively vicarious. There's an argument you don't hear in debate club every day.) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  I know the difference. I see Gavin as 95% tenacious, with the occasional lapse towards tendentiousness.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yea, yea, that's my fault :-P Anyway. I respect that Gavin is concerned with the problem of walled gardens and close groups of editors attempting to define consensus themselves - a concern that I agree is critical and certainly not an issue. The Kender mediation, in part, is a result of this. What is an issue is when the group of editors is a lot more diverse as at climate change, article titles, and the list RFC - very far from a walled garden group. Regardless of how "right" you believe you are, trying to continually push your point against a diverse agreement of consensus is purposely disruptive. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  There are better ways to deal with walled gardens too. It's a perfect chance for a wider RFC. Much more disruptive to insist you're right against 70-80% who say you're wrong. There's no right and wrong on Wikipedia. Only verifiability and consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Most of my interaction with Gavin was at WP:FICT. That "wider RFC" is probably one of the reasons that Gavin has such a bad taste in his mouth. Dealing with people that believe that only verifiability and momentary consensus matter and all of the existing guidelines and policies can be ignored gets incredibly frustrating. Once you have notability, verifiability becomes trivial, and without notability, verifiability becomes a tangled mess of original research, opinion, and easily impeachable sources. It doesn't surprise me that he's a bit burnt out.—Kww(talk) 04:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Fair enough. But burnout is a reason to take a wikibreak, not to get disruptive. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  You might be onto something with this bad RFC experience. These long painful discussions actually teach us bad behavior. That filibustering is effective. That you can exhaust the opposition rather than work with them. That you can canvass a few people from a walled garden to build enough of a coalition to disrupt any effort to find a consensus. I wouldn't be surprised if Gavin picked up some bad habits there and I can't exactly blame him. But that's part of why I've been trying to push for a remedy that encourages Gavin to engage in better behavior, rather than just trying to pull him out of the situation entirely. If this remedy works, it's something we can use for future troublemakers at other RFCs. I would really like to see RFC behavior get better across the board, and finding a way to push people to work together would help that. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose without having taken other steps to temper the problem. I've suggested on the RFC/U an idea like the one below for independent admins to review his actions, increasing blocks when Gavin's overstepped TE, and eventually leading to a ban after 3 strikes. But that would a ban in general, not of specific areas, as that's almost akin to censoring; it would have to be all or nothing. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. What Abductive and Kww said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems to me that we need to pursue some other options before moving to the level of a ban. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Per Masem and Nuujinn, I think this ban discussion is premature. I'd rather let the RfC/U process run its course first, and I note that there is not, yet, consensus there for this proposal here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• This is close to what I proposed in the initial AN thread, but given BOZ's proposal below, I will call this second choice in case BOZ's proposal fails or does not work out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: work towards consensus or leave

The problem is that Gavin is not acting in good faith to build WP:CONSENSUS. He is willing to argue the same point for (literally) years until he gets his way, or scares people off from the discussion. He is otherwise basically WP:CIVIL and the closest thing to a personal attack he gets into is accusing people of trying to silence his viewpoint, which is usually an unfair characterization of people. I'd really like to see Gavin continue to participate, but in a more conciliatory way. So I propose:

An uninvolved administrator affirms that Gavin is not in line with Wikipedia policy on conduct, and gives Gavin a clear warning to stop anything resembling filibustering, stonewalling, or using argument ad nauseum to cause a negotiation to fall apart. The next time he finds his viewpoint challenged as being outside the consensus, he cannot continue to participate until he takes a straw poll on his viewpoint. If his view gains a consensus, the issue is resolved. If his view is not the consensus, he is expected to moderate his viewpoint to build a consensus or leave the discussion entirely. If he continues to argue the same point after it has been discredited, we will revisit this problem at WP:AN/I. If he refuses to put his viewpoint to a straw poll, we will revisit this problem at WP:AN/I. (Which will probably require a stronger action such as a topic ban.)

I believe this is the lightest possible way to resolve this issue. But I do insist on some kind of resolution. Action is preferred to no action. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the straw poll action; not that those aren't helpful, but it really should depend on the situation. What if he takes what he considers two different viewpoints (as presently occurring in the list RFC, claiming his Sept 24 contribution is a "new idea") even though everyone else sees them as separate? I would not have a problem with the admin stating "Gavin, I think you need to take a straw poll..." on a case-by-case basis. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think most people would be able to see through a new presentation or new argument for an old idea. A warning would put Gavin in the hot seat. He knows that if he doesn't REALLY work towards consensus, he'll end up back here. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't we been there, and done that, enough times already? Saying "I'll overlook the previous thirty-six rounds, but if you beat that dead horse for a thirty-seventh time, then I'm really going to do something" sounds like it should be spelled e-m-p-t-y t-h-r-e-a-t to me -- especially since we've said the thing, only with slightly smaller numbers, several dozen times now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Can someone produce an incident that resulted in Gavin being unequivocally warned against wasting everybody's time by overwhelming every talk page discussion he takes part in? I'm sure we haven't. Every other instance to fix the issue has failed because someone invariably calls for his head, a few editors show up to say that's totally out of line and unfair (which it usually is), and we go onward with no solution at all. We've tried the "off with his head" approach. How about we try drawing a CLEAR line that everyone in the community can agree with, and asking Gavin not to cross it? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean something like a section on his talk page that is titled "Some serious advice and warning" and includes language like "your mindset should be apologetic for wasting editor time and also for disrupting the actual encyclopaedic content" and "Personally, I am quite prepared to block you for disruptive wikidrama"?

I've already provided you with a link to that warning, and other people have provided links to similar warnings from other admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I know you're trying to help. But sadly, Wikipedia has become so polarized that an administrator message on a talk page doesn't do much if that editor has established themselves in the community. Take a lesson from what we're trying to teach Gavin here: that consensus sometimes means settling for less in order to achieve something, rather than asking for everything and making the issue last another 6 months. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm concerned that this would wind up just giving Gavin another go-round to do the same thing for another N months or years before his intransigence is again unambiguous enough to get yet another laborious process of intervention started. I would support this proposal if it seemed less vulnerable to that outcome. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• There's also the risk that we do nothing, because he hasn't reached the level of obvious policy breach that usually warrants a topic ban, and there isn't a consensus for it. Then he'd DEFINITELY have another go around to do the same thing, and we'd also say that there was no finding of wrongdoing last time because there was no topic ban. This is the motivation behind this proposal. To find a very soft but unambiguous way to put Gavin on notice. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Gavin arguing that adding Barack Obama to a list of US presidents is against policy shows that he's gone beyond obstruction to plain trolling. No reasonable editor could argue that position. A total ban from all discussion of policies and guidelines is needed to restore some semblance of sanity to these discussions. Fences&Windows 22:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

for anyone not following all of this, the link for the Obama discussion is [31] DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I, having too much time on my hands, have read this thread. Compared to other stonewallers around here, this guy deserves an award or something. Basically, "consensus" seems to be all about repeating your argument until those disagreeing drop dead. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

{NOTE: The details of how this proposal should be implemented need to be worked out if this gains consensus. While this could be used as written, I'm sure it is not perfect in this form. It looks like people are willing to support in spirit, but the details may need work. BOZ (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

Here is a modified and simplified proposal of what Shootwalker was proposing, mixed with some of Masem's ideas:

When a dispute arises between Gavin and other users on any discussion page (including user talk pages, policy talk pages, article talk pages, requests for comment), an uninvolved administrator will judge the situation and determine whether consensus has been reached, and if so close that portion of the debate. Gavin may not attempt to continue the debate, by reopening the closed discussion, moving the discussion to another forum or location, or restarting it on the same page.

If consensus is not reached, and Gavin is judged by a neutral, uninvolved administrator to be engaging in stonewalling, filibustering, or continually repeating his points, he must stop.

Edit warring from Gavin will not be tolerated, ever.

If Gavin is found to be in violation of any of the above, he will be warned on a first instance, blocked on a second instance, and banned from that venue on a third. BOZ (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support not as terse as my version, but much more likely to have good results.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support, this seems to be a reasonable approach as it does not censor Gavin Collins, but creates a framework in which his tendency to overwhelm other editors may be controllable. Also, it provides a sanity check for other editors engaged in the discussion by providing an outside view of the situation. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Again. Let's make the line in the sand crystal clear and remind Gavin not to cross it. His defenders believe he can at least do that, don't they? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think this might make him less tendentious, and we can all continue editing happily. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Support as a good first step, even if more steps prove necessary. postdlf (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support I like it. Seems likely to be effective, and is a less extreme step than a ban. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Grants extreme power to these "uninvolved administrators". I can't waltz into a discussion, declare consensus, and "close a section of the debate", and I don't think any other admins should be empowered to do so.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have suggested a mentor, someone who is uninvolved *now* and thus would be a single go-to person that would become familiar in such areas. And I'm will to make that list really really hard to cross to avoid anyone gaming the system against Gavin. I'd also argue that this would be tracked as an editing restriction such that if this ban were to occur, the mentor would have to reapproach AN and says "ok, see all this, and I've warned and etc. and nothing's happening, I am suggesting a ban now" in order to get consensus on that final trigger. I would also say there probably needs to be counter-action. We cannot goad Gavin into tripping this without repercussions and that's again something the dedicated mentor could offer. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If Gavin gets a mentor(s), then I'd say that could replace the "uninvolved administrator" bit above. BOZ (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur, that would be fine. Also, if a single person would have too much control, perhaps a troika would suffice. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Kww, the admin won't be looking for consensus to wield power over the whole discussion. The admin will ask a simple question: is there a consensus for Gavin's view? If so, there is no problem, and the discussion SHOULD be closed. If not, then Gavin has to continue to work in good faith to build a consensus. Which means that if he engages in filibustering then he will be back here for a more severe measure. It allows Gavin to voice his viewpoint, but puts a greater onus on him to build bridges with other editors when he is clearly in the minority. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Better than the other proposals above. But will Gavin be getting a mentor? Is he open for mentorship? Bejinhan talks 06:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. Fairly mild, but if it works, it is a reasonable way of allowing Gavin to contribute without disrupting and stonewalling. If it doesn't work, there are stronger remedies available. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support with either a mentor (if he agrees to one or three of those) or one or more uninvolved admins (note: I am not uninvolved). Fram (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Request clarification As edit-warring is not permitted, can we officially declare a 1RR restriction on all articles? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would necessary, at least at this time. It seems that most of the problems folks have with Gavin's behavior are centered on talk pages, rather than article pages. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1RR on established policy/guideline pages (interpreted broadly, and NOT their talk pages) may be helpful. Gavin does sometimes engage in slow edit wars. However, this is mostly a side problem, not the key one. --MASEM (t) 12:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

...though, I suppose edit-warring can technically occur even if an editor is subject to 1RR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support (considering cleanup as mentioned). Definitely better than an immediate ban but addresses the issue at hand. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Consensus Can Change is policy here. Restricting him from challenging consensus is not the same thing as restricting him from being disruptive, and restricting him from being disruptive wouldn't preclude him from challenging consensus. These proposals need to be thought out better because as it stands now there about 6 of them and it's one giant clusterfuck. -- ۩ Mask 13:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support in that I think it would be very worthwhile to have uninvolved editors/adminstrators judge consensus rather than those int he midst of the discussions. However, Consensus Can Change, so I'd put a time frame on how long until Gavin can protest. 6 months? Concurrence from another X number of editors (3?)? Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support As first choice if the copyvio stuff is sorted out. I have no intentions of kicking someone who is now firmly on the ground but we can't have a guy who drives people away from discussions in which they are participating in good faith. That's just not how it works, regardless of how much or little support Gavin's views actually have. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support In case the whole copyvio mess get eventually cleared. He must wait 6 months before "re-initiating & putting on the table again" a reform proposal that has been previous rejected by consensus. --KrebMarkt (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support This at least has the potential to reduce some of Gavin's problematic behavior. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 2

First, an apology: I always got upset when people refused to see how disruptive A Nobody or Pixelface had been simply because they agreed with him, and I'm having the same problem in reverse. Still, I'd like to narrow the focus, and not wind up giving "uninvolved admins" extraordinary powers. I aso strongly dislike the idea of simply muzzling him on discussion pages: fighting for a losing cause (especially when that losing cause is the heretical notion that people should actually follow guidelines) isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, edit warring is generally unacceptable, and edit warring on policy pages is probably the worst form. Editing policy pages is also very rarely necessary. I'd like to simply restrict Gavin from editing policy pages. I'll act as a proxy for him: if requested, I will make any change to a policy page that he requests if I judge that there is reasonable consensus for his change. —Kww(talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

His interaciton on policy/guideline pages (not their talk pages) is not a issue, it's a symptom. As I've outlined in the RFC/U, Gavin has done this several times:

1. (possibly) Gavin makes a policy change (which is bold and fine)
2. Say "this needs to be changed for these reasons" (which is fine)
3. Long heated discussion ensues, Gavin's change is found to be the minority and not desirable. If Gavin changed the page, that change is reverted (fine). There may be a very slow edit war here (like 1RR across 3-4 days), but that's not disruptive or admin-needed action
4. Discussion dies down and lays stagnent for 7-8 days, usually as no one has anything else to say to Gavin's idea (that's SOP for any proposal...)
5. Gavin then and goes changes the policy again because "obviously" no one has disagreed with him so it much be consensus. That is the problem step, and that's behavioral problem, not edit warring.

I know exactly how Pixel and ANobody behaved on the extreme inclusionist side and I see Gavin doing exactly the same on the extreme deletionist side. Mind you, all three used different approaches, and in AN's case, clearly afoul of expected behavior. Gavin (short of the possible CCI problems below) hasn't done that but he has pushed his involvement in wide discussions beyond a reasonable point. I cannot disagree with the statement "fighting for a losing cause (especially when that losing cause is the heretical notion that people should actually follow guidelines) isn't necessarily a bad thing", but the problem that we have come to discover is that Gavin's interpretation of guidelines seems out of sync with the larger consensus. If you're trying to alphabetize a list and someone is blocking your attempts saying that C comes before B, you can't let that person block the progress going forward. Now, of course guidelines are interpretive and the like and not hard and fast rules like the order of the alphabet. What has been revealed in all of the latest issues with Gavin is that he has a vastly different view of what original research is as applied to source, article titles, notability, and so forth than the common point of consensus. That it, he is fighting to prevent OR introduction into WP (always a good thing) but using an OR definition that is more extreme than accepted (not good). And he's been told this and several examples have been fought through to show that his OR definition is extreme and inconsistent with consensus at the wide scale (not a walled garden). We cannot punish Gavin for holding that personal definition, or even trying to suggest we move towards that, but we need to do something when he endlessly debates about it with refusal to acknowledge his view is neither the current consensus nor gaining consensus. That is disruptive, and that's the goal of this community action, just to know when to say "I see my idea is not being considered, so I'll drop it and/or work towards consensus". Otherwise everyone's wasting volunteer hours to deal with Gavin. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Masem's probably right that this isn't the highest level of disruption, but it is unacceptably behaviour nonetheless. Further, if Gavin is prevented from readding his position to the guideline, and can find no one else willing to proxy (and thus affirm that his position is consensus), then that may stop the endless streams of disussion. Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal but not by itself. The problem isn't edit warring but discussion tactics. Okay... we want Gavin and others to challenge consensus. But we don't want him to challenge consensus in the exact same way 3 times a day 7 days a week. We don't want him to back off for a few days and watch a consensus emerge among everyone else only to come back in with the same arguments. I know Gavin is not the first editor to do this. (Pixelface looks to have retired and A Nobody was surely banned for escalating further than Gavin did.) That's why I sincerely hope that we can try a remedy that works and can be applied to similar tendentious editors/debaters. I !voted for a remedy that I thought was less than fully effective because I thought it was better to find a WP:CONSENSUS than revisit the exact same issue 6 months from now. That's the kind of attitude I wish everyone had on those big policy issues and it's the kind of attitude I'd like to encourage in Gavin. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As with Shooterwalker, I support this but not alone. The WP:DEADHORSE issue needs to be addressed in some fashion, and I think the idea that being unable to directly modify policy pages will make Gavin unmotivated to filibuster and stonewall in discussions is too much to hope for. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

My longest tie-up with Gavin was no where near policy, but on an article talk page where Gavin's near-unique interpretation of policy was endlessly debated. It is incorrect to see this as an issue related to WP: space in some way. Rather it is an issue about Talk pages, regardless of the space, that flows into both article and policy pages when there is insufficient will amongst the editors to stick up for the commonly perceived interpretation of policy. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Many copyvios as well

Now that he finally gets back to article editing, his first edits are introducing a copyright violation into an article: this is a near-straight copy from this, with one line completely unchanged and the rest slightly reordered (including the use of the exact same comparison that article made). Looking back at previous edits, the last one that added some text was here, and again it is a copyright violation, using the exact text from here (12Mb, don't open unless you need to...). He both times acknowledges his source, but straight or near-straight copying (not quoting!) is a copyright violation no matter if you acknowledge your source or not. Gavin types: "Owing to its uniqueness in terms of the intrinsic properties such as the proximity, relatively low visual extinction, extreme compactness and brightness, NGC 3603 is one of the best examples of a starburst region and since its discovery more than a century ago, NGC 3603 has been intensively studied" The source has "Owing to its uniqueness in terms of the intrinsic properties such as the proximity, relatively low visual extinction of only AV = 4 􀀀 5 mag, and the extreme compactnessand brightness, NGC 3603 is one of the most suitable Galactic templates of starburst phenomena in distant galaxies. Therefore, since its discovery more than a century ago,NGC 3603 has been intensively studied in many groups". Gavin edited the same article extensively, adding lots of data early in September, e.g. here. Sadly, this as well is a copyright violation, taken from here. Again, the source is acknowledged, but these are all copyrighted sources...

Considering that on checking three source-adding edits he made this month, all three are copyright violations, I fear that we have a serious problem at our hands, which may take a lot of cleanup... Fram (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, if this is that significant, this needs to be handled separately from the above. (and probably takes priority as that is disruptive). --MASEM (t) 13:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

[32] is a copyvio from [33]. Any objections if I open up a CCI on this user? MER-C 13:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So the same happened at least a year ago as well... I don't think we have much choice but to open a CCI here, indeed. Fram (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to see more open CCIs, please do. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't gotten a chance to look at this, but assuming what you say is true (especially the part about this happening last year too), I think that nothing less than an indefinite block would be appropriate. NW (Talk) 13:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this definitely caught me by surprise; I was not expecting to see a thing like this. But then when I think about it, I guess this is not that surprising... during the working phase of the Kender meditation as I recall, in order to avoid as much as possible any re-interpretation of the source material, it seemed like Gavin damn near just wanted to rewrite the article using only quotes and lines taken directly from the source material and, I had to challenge that and insist that we not do this. My memory may be faulty, but given this new evidence it seems to fit into a pattern. BOZ (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BOZ. Gavin's interpretation of WP:OR is so extreme that it seems to prohibit summarizing multiple sources on the same subject. I wouldn't be surprised if he's using direct quotes from a single source because he believes anything else would be WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And WP:SYN, yes. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments like this, when the CCI-possibility was pointed out, is rather scary. At least with Darius (you know, the one affecting about 23,000 pages) , he at least attempted to clean (though far too little too late). --MASEM (t) 15:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if this isn't the appropriate place to post this, but the possible copy violations are pretty severe:

• this is a copyvio of the source
• this is pretty much directly lifted from the cited source
• this is, IMO, a particularly egregious example lifted from a thesis

This is a mess. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20101001 MER-C 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have taken two of the articles listed by MER-C, History of science in the Renaissance[34] and Al-Baqara[35] both contained copyvios, with only very small changes in the text from the source material. Per BOZ and Shooterwalker, I think that a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OR and ignorance of WP:C is the culprit here. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A bit saddened as well, because I thought contributing decent content now and then to articles was one of Gavin's stronger attributes. I would like to take Fram for taking notice of this. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, ironically enough, since he seldom edits articles, the number of articles that will have to be cleaned up is relatively small. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Gavin has responded to these allegations on his talkpage [36]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed - although he blames Sjakkalle for this investigation, clearly others have shown just as much concern over this issue. BOZ (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear that I am on a personal, bad faith, mudslinging vendetta against him to exact revenge on his delete vote on the Ellen Hambro article, where I supposedly have serious ownership issues. For the record, I have made two edits to the Ellen Hambro article, only one of which is substantial, and I haven't edited that article for nearly two years. (Nor do I have much interest in Hambro in particular, or Norwegian environmental agencies in general.) I have referenced the AFD several times, because it is one of the very few examples of a staunch delete vote on an article whose subject covered in a paper encyclopedia. The entire posting looks like an attempt to divert attention away from himself. Sjakkalle(Check!) 12:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting that Gavin has removed the statement, and apologised for it. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of his contributions seem to consist of failed AfD noms and prods. He also, once again, insists on deciding what the venue and terms should be before he wants to engage in any meaningful discussion about his actions. He is also engaging in blatant wikilawyering (again). Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And adding various templates here and there. It's a shame that it looks like most of the rest of his contributions are invalid. BOZ (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

His follow up reasons are extremely unsettling; ignoring the copyright complaint for the moment, it is "my way or the highway" attitude that has persisted through all aspects of the RFC/U and AN and now the CCI charge that are(seems?) intolerable by the wider community. Gavin can wikilawyer all day that he is not doing anything wrong as there is likely nothing but essays to point out his behavior is at fault,. But, and the reason to be AN to get community consensus, is to show that, particularly when charged with violating a core contribution principle (copyvios), "my way or the highway" is not acceptable behavior if one expected to be a contributor to WP. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked (and unblocked)

I have indefinitely blocked Gavin.collins for copyright violations. I have offered to unblock if he recognizes what he has done wrong and offers to help clean up the copyvios. Of course, other sanctions (independent from the copyright violations) can still be applied in that case. Ucucha 12:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That was almost certainly going to happen. I've been considering it after seeing the discussion on his talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Having just about decimated the Accountancy article, I was just coming to ask someone to do that.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block. His attitude towards the copyright policy and contempt for those cleaning up his mess is unacceptable. MER-C 13:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask a devil's advocate question for those more familiar with how CCI is handled than myself: it seems to me that most of what Gavin has been shown to copy are direct (within a word or two) segments of articles, with attribution but without the necessary quote marks to make it stand out as a quoted section. I recognize that the examples I spot-checked that just adding the quotes doesn't fix the problem as there's prose form and word flow and all that would have to be dealt with, but the base question is: are we going overboard just because he didn't use quote marks? Again, I don't know CCI procedure that well, so if this is accepted as a problem, ok, great. The few CCI cases I've had a chance to look into is where there usually wasn't attribution and thus a more serious charge. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue, certainly from Accountancy is that he wrote no original text whatsoever. What he did was take two sentences from source Foo, and tweak a couple of words. Then a sentence from source Bar. Then a paragraph from Foo. Then two sentences from Thud...and so on. I deleted an entire five paragraph section that was entirely made up of copyvios from four or five sources, and another four paragraph section copied from three sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Up until the block he was claiming his interpretation was correct. Here is what he says now:

"Having re-read the Wikipedia:Non-free content, it does appear that I have "misunderstood" policy as Sjakkalle has pointed out to me in relation to the correct notation that is need to avoid copyright violations, and I appologise to Sjakkalle for biting his head off and shall strike my in appropriate comments from the record[5]. WP:Plagiarism sums up the Non-free content policy as follows:

"If the external work is under standard copyright, then duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation, unless duplication is limited and clearly indicated in the article by quotation marks, or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations).

I appologise for this oversight. I am committed to rewriting offending citations where this is an issue, and I think most of these problems can be rectified with direct attribution where need be. --Gavin Collins (talk contribs)13:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been told that before, but it's taken a block to convince him. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And...it's not going to help (mho) if he's doing things like [37] which is a straight lift of an entire paragraph from its own source. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he provides the source for the plagiarized material seems to indicate he just doesn't (didn't) understand the concept of plagiarism. Doug, you say he's been informed about it before? –xeno^talk 14:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He's discussed it before at Talk:Enron scandal#Recent changes. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In the block notice, Ucuchna said "I will unblock you (and authorize any other admin to do the same) if you recognize the problem and commit to helping to clean up the mess in Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20101001." Since Gavin's statement is such a recognition and commitment, I have acted on Ucuchna's authority and unblocked Gavin now. One might accusing Gavin on being late in recognizing this, but better late than never. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock at this point, but I point out Xeno's question to Doug; if this is Gavin's second warning on CCI, that's a larger issue. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm biased, but why is this even remotely a redeemable offense? It's mindboggling that someone who spent as much time arguing about policy as he did would not understand the basics of copyright and the most basic concepts of how Wikipedia works. Or is this unblock just tentative pending a further judgment as the copyright investigation proceeds? postdlf (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a case of chalking up the plagiarism to ignorance, rather than malice. –xeno^talk 15:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, we are talking about a few scores of articles with copyright issues, not several hundred, and so cleaning this up is a smaller scale operation than the one last month. (The vast majority of the articles listed in Gavin's CCI are results of the mass taggings in 2007-08, not copyvios.) Gavin reading and quoting the WP:PLAGIARISM page indicates that he understands what he did was wrong. I have a strong hunch that BOZ's analysis is correct: Gavin was so entrenched in his views of what WP:NOR implied that he thought that big changes of the text in the source would be a violation of that policy. I don't think he was acting in bad faith when he added those paragraphs, but acting on the erroneous belief that what he was doing was OK since copying small snippets of the source wouldn't harm the copyright holder. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That would be more plausible if he were a newbie rather than someone who's been around for three and a half years who has spent most of his time on here mired in WP policy. I don't doubt he thinks he's entitled to get away with it, but I can't believe anyone with his span of experience here could honestly think copyright law, or WP policy, permit it unless they had an infant's level of reading comprehension. At any rate, I think this is new grounds for a complete ban from policy discussions if (assuming the best) he has demonstrably no understanding of policy yet continues to spam discussions with his opinions of how it should be. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from (and to be honest, I've felt there was a reading comprehension problem at issue before, as with this), but I would object to pushing that line of thinking too hard. It's a bit mind-boggling and a fine refutation of the vocal minority who hail Gavin as the keeper of the one, true Wikipedia Way, but really, people are allowed to participate in policy discussion without fully understanding policy, and they kinda have to be. The sticking point needs to be the tendentious return to a position that has been shown to be not validated by consensus. Some of said positions being demonstrably illegal does bring the moral authority into question, but it's not being wrong, as such, that calls for intervention. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think the problem is that he's been so hooked on discussing meta issues rather than putting his ideas to the test on actual articles. If he had done that he would have realized that it's impossible to write an article in accordance with his understanding of policy and guidelines. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There's an easy way to settle this. Get Gavin to write up his viewpoint on WP:OR, and do an RFC at the WP:OR talk page. If the community accepts it, maybe the joke's on the rest of us. But if the community rejects it, we can ask Gavin to kindly WP:GETTHEPOINT and work within the community consensus. At that point, ignorance will no longer be a defense. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The last thing we should want is to give Gavin another forum to spam the community with his demonstrably wrong interpretations. Its sickening enough that he has wasted so much of everyone's time, with ideas that at first just appeared to be more conservative interpretations of notability guidelines, but ultimately proved to be incoherent and nonsensical views dependent upon copyright infringement. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

@Masem, I checked the archives of his talk page and didn't really find anything. Maybe I missed it. –xeno^talk 15:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See above, it was at Talk:Enron scandal#Recent changes, not a warning. I note that another editor has said " Much of the text is neither brief nor properly attributed (i.e., quoted), and so needs to be removed and/or rewritten." -- see [38]. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - thanks for that. Now the question becomes: did he continue with his near-verbatim insertion without rewording or quoting subsequent to that discussion? –xeno^talk 16:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Enron scandal#Recent changes is very enlightening on how his thought process got to this point. It didn't help that the person responding to the 3O request found in his favor that it was not plaigarism. BOZ (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BOZ again. I think there are quite a few policy misinterpretations in the 3O. Sjakkalle(Check!) 16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, they did say "some sentences have been taken directly from the source and should be re-written or made into quotations to make the attribution obvious". –xeno^talk 17:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this thread from September might be informative about Gavin's views/understanding of copyright; he seemed to be saying that all lists (no matter how unoriginal and factual) are creative and thus copyrighted, but further implying that this is why we must attribute our lists to a source ("As regrads effort and copyright, all lists are creative, and all take effort to create, which is why they should be attributable to reliable source."). I responded that attribution is to show verifiability, that it can't cure copyright infringement if that's what copying a list would be; he made no comment on that. postdlf (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Kender/Trim#Life_cycle and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Kender/Trim#Touching_base is informative as well. Gavin advances the theory that anything that is not sourced is OR, is disabused of this view, then advances the view that anything that is not sourced to a single source is OR. Disabused of that, he then argues for using nothing but verbatim quotation as a means of avoiding plagiarism. This problem with copyright violation is all tied up in his view of OR, rather than being an attempt to boost edit count, as is usually the case. I would ideally like Gavin to discuss how he would rework some of the deleted stuff, for example on Accountancy, so we can be sure he's got it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about in the above section. Thanks for not being as lazy as me, and actually going back to read that. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's typically the next step in such a situations? I haven't dealt with any copyvios personally for several years now (and then, only with newbies copying and pasting whole websites) so I'm unfamiliar with the current process. I would hope at the very least he would be put on some kind of probation, with some kind of prior review of his future contributions to articles, and I would hope a very short leash on policy talk page spamming of his now-demonstrably false (and illegal) interpretations, not to mention some "re-education" of his policy understanding. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, my "alternate proposal" above seems to have legs, so that will probably stick (in some form). Additionally, he has agreed to take on Kww as a mentor, to help him avoid this kind of trouble in the future. If either of those things fail, then things are probably looking bad for him. Otherwise, there's nothing else to do and he's free to go - at least, that's how I'm interpreting it. Now, if the people who manage copywright issues decide that more needs to be done, then that is up to them. BOZ (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: future issues with other editors

Something that frequently comes up in these AN/Is is that other editors have done similar damage to the encyclopedia (or worse). If we do find a remedy, I would like to add something to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors about how to deal with this specific problem. Namely, editors who cross the line between challenging a consensus one time versus filibustering, stonewalling, and argument ad nauseum. We haven't known how to deal with these problems in the past and I think we may have just found something worth emulating. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Gavin has accepted my mentorship regarding copyright and policy issues: [39]. I think everyone should let this proceed for a while, and we can see if more formal restrictions are necessary later. Feel free to notify me of anything he does that warrants special attention.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for being cynical in public, but I hope that you have noticed that most of the problems are on "guidelines" rather than just pages designated as "policies"? Since hairsplitting is one of the long-standing complaints, I'm afraid that I don't see an agreement to seek help for "policy articles" as solving the problems at pages like WP:Notability or the list RfC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's helpful in combination with BOZ's proposal. Remember that much of the problem stems from discussion tactics and an unwillingness to engage in consensus building. As someone who cares a lot about WP:N and third-party sources I want Gavin there to provide sanity and balance. But Wikipedia is disrupted when editors resort to endless grandstanding and stonewalling that prevents us from resolving any issues. Either way thanks for taking on the mentorship role. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think having Kww coaching Gavin on copyright and policy issues is a good thing; Gavin seems to trust him, and I think that will go a long way. However, I share the concern whether having Kww in a mentor role is sufficient to address the concerns brought up about Gavin in the first place; Given that Kww has expressed his disagreement with the basis of the latest RFC (and thus, the majority of the complaint against Gavin), and was only one of two who opposed my proposal above (which has 15 people supporting, if you include me), and that I believe Kww is at minumum sympathetic towards most Gavin's views, this may affect substantially his impartiality in dealing with situations regarding talk page disputes. Therefore, I think we still need the ability to be able to seek out neutral, uninvolved admins in those situations, for the warn/block/ban. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good route out of this mess. For what its worth, I've offered to advise if asked by either. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note here - while I believe Gavin now understands Wikipedia copyright policy 'intellectually' (if you like), he seems to be struggling to work out how he can ever add content to articles operating under these rules. Perhaps if a couple of other users could contribute to the talkpage discussion....?Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven DYK ban proposal

Closed. Further discussion may take place with DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs), and if necessary, users may file Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#.22Real-world_context.22. Ban proposal: DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) is welcome to participate in reviews at T:TDYK or to post error reports about articles in queue for discussion at WT:DYK, but not to edit the queues, prep pages, or main template T:DYK directly. Support, as proposed (wording as recommended [40] by Rjanag). -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Obvious oppose, to the extent that my opinion matters. I've already conceded one point regarding appropriateness, and I refuse to concede the other point because it involves a matter of factual accuracy. DS (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Also, Cirt - I sincerely apologize for having accused you of violating WP:POINT in restoring that inaccurate hook; I did not sufficiently clearly indicate that it was inaccurate. My mistake. And I've already conceded the point about letting grotesquely-inappropriate hooks remain in the queue if I've been so lax as to not intercept them earlier. So what's your point? DS (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the apology, I accept, and it is most appreciated. This proposal was recommended previously at WT:DYK, both by Rlevse (talk · contribs), and by Rjanag (talk · contribs). It was not simply my original suggestion, though it is a sound one. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support, all this 'ban' really would be is a restriction on DS using admin tools to edit protected templates at DYK against consensus. Does not actually ban him from reviewing DYKs. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support I wanted to give DS the benefit of the doubt, but from my discussion with him (now rolled up at WT:DYK, see [41]) it has become clear to me that he doesn't even understand why editors are upset and doesn't understand what the point of this proposal is. He can't be trusted to exercise good judgment with regards to the DYK queues and therefore he shouldn't have the ability to override other reviewers' judgments unilaterally. He can participate at T:TDYK like everyone else. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Of course I understand; don't attribute motives (especially when you only have a part of the conversation). DS (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC) No, you still don't understand what other users are upset about. I have already linked to the conversation in question. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Of course I do. You still don't understand what it's like to care about this project. <=== SHOCKINGLY UNFAIR PERSONAL ATTACK, MADE TO DEMONSTRATE THE CONCEPT OF 'ATTRIBUTING MOTIVE'; I DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT RJANAG DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WIKIPEDIA. I did not respond to comments made in those eight hours because I was asleep; becoming angry at me for those is ridiculous. I have already agreed to the point re: proper procedure, and attempted to demonstrate this by using it to deal with what I saw as a serious error of factual accuracy (my point was addressed and ruled to be not a problem). DS (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support ban - because DS just went and removed another hook from the queue right after being advised by several users not to do that anymore without prior discussion. I had given qualified support to DS up to this point, but it now appears he simply doesn't care about the opinions of other users on this matter. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Wasn't this exactly, what you have done, Gatoclass? Only it was worse in your case because you removed the hook for the topic you were involved over with your head.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Please keep discussion focused: if you have concerns about another user, feel free to discuss with them at their user talk page, or at WT:DYK. -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC) No it wasn't Mbz, it was a very different situation, but per Cirt this is neither the time and place for that debate. Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support. I personally found it shocking that such a long-established admin acts this way. His way of using admin tools (as far as DYK is concerned) is simply incompatible with the collaborative nature of this project. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support. Though I understand that DS is against fictional hooks without real-world context, removing them unilaterally from hooks or the main page is wholly inappropriate. I encourage him to bring up any problems he has with hooks at WT:DYK in the future, and I'm sad that it's come to this. Nomader (Talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose on both procedural and practical grounds. At 00:25 (UTC) today, the first complaint was raised on WT:DYK about Dragonfly's actions; exactly fourteen hours later, the topic ban proposal appears on this noticeboard (not on WP:AN/I, which would seem the forum for a demand that is so <irony>obviously important</irony> request). This is an obviously an insufficient period for any Wikipedia editor to be expected to reply to a discussion, given that we are a global project and operate in pretty much every time zone on the planet. As there was no reasonable time for a reply, there has been no attempt at WP:DR worthy of the name, and so a topic ban for DS would be completely inappropriate at this stage. My views about DYK are well known, but I think it speaks volumes that the matter has been handled in such an obviously inappropriate way, and the number of pile on supports that are above my !vote. The best long term solution would be a topic ban for all editors on DYK, by its simple abolition; every time it shows itself both incapable to apply the basic principles of WP editing, while being notorious for the miniscule numbers of readers who access the encyclopedia from the articles it features, it is adding another log on the fire that's cooking it. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Actually this seems to be a perennial issue with DS, I believe there are several other threads in the archives about similar removals (will try to dig them up later). As for the time that elapsed, you can see there was ample time for DS to reply, given that he did reply many times at the WT:DYK section linked above, and it was only after the discussion with him got nowhere that this proposal started. As for the appropriateness of having the discussion here rather than at the DYK talk page, I agree, and I too had suggested that consensus be reached there before bringing anything here, but that is not what happened. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I haven't found all of them yet, but other than the real-world issue that I believe is already linked, here is something from this September: WT:Did you know/Archive 58#Hook deleted from main page. I vaguely recall there being more like this (and note cmadler's comment "I'm really getting tired of reading about DS deleting hooks from queues"), I just haven't found them all yet. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I also don't see what about the above comments you think constitutes a pile-on (click through the link). They all have rationales with them (they're not JUSTAVOTEs), and they all came after extended discussion at WT:DYK (although you don't see that discussion here because Cirt rolled it up and somewhat hastily moved the proposal over here before the discussion at WT:DYK ended); they're not just showing up out of nowhere and dropping votes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose per Psychim62.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC) To reiterate: after a series of warnings regarding hooks-pertaining-to-fiction and the best way to deal with removing an inappropriate hook from the queues, I removed a hook from the queues for a wholly different reason: although I felt it was a perfectly valid and appropriate hook, I had concerns about its factual accuracy. Those concerns have been dealt with and the hook has been returned to its rightful place the queue, and I find it ridiculous to have this lumped in with the other behaviors for which I was criticized and for which I have already conceded the point. For that matter, I have continued making several small changes to sentence structure and punctuation, in the intervening time. We have all wasted too much time on this; I will not remove hooks from the template, queues, or preparation areas unless there are serious concerns regarding factual accuracy or BLP issues; but in all cases I will make certain to restore [any hooks which I consider problematic] to the discussion areas to ensure that they are not lost. Now can we all get back to work? DS (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, but the problem is, you removed that hook right after you'd been advised by multiple users not to unilaterally remove hooks anymore, but to discuss on the talk page first. What you've managed to do over the course of several weeks is leave a strong impression that you simply don't listen to concerns that are being raised over your hook removals. This is a collaborative project and you cannot just ignore the concerns of other users and go on doing your own thing as if other opinions didn't matter. Indeed, you are doing the same with this very post, which amounts to "I've done nothing wrong, now let's all get back to work". Multiple users have informed you that your hook removals are problematic, but here you are asserting your right to continue removing hooks if you and you alone see a problem with them. That is just inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Wait, wait, hold on. Too much going too fast; I may have missed a statement. Where was that statement made, please? This would have been much easier if it was all in one place, but I've been hopping back and forth and it's difficult to keep track. Diffs, please.DS (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support, I was hoping to avoid this but DS repeatedly fails to get the concerns and to address them. @Physichim, this is not the first time. See the link in the WT:DYK thread to a thread only 7 weeks old where this same issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) {EDITCONFLICT} (EDITCONFLICT)Important question: why has no one addressed the issue of whether my edits to sentence structure, word choice, and punctuation are permissible or problematic? This is a question which must be dealt with, and I find it most disappointing that this debate does not yet include a section precisely defining which behaviors are or are not to be considered acceptable. Is this diff acceptable? Why or why not? What about this one? Or this one? Why is no one else taking the time to address these points? DS (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I personally don't have much of a problem with such edits of yours, what I've seen of them. The issue is the way you remove hooks without discussion, when it's clear that you don't understand DYK procedures related to hook removal or when it is and is not appropriate to do hook removals. And until you demonstrate that you do "get it" in that regard, I see no reason why you shouldn't be banned from doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Note: So far, it appears (at least), prior discussion threads involving this issue at DYK have included: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_57#Clarification_for_.22real-world_context.22_in_DYK_rules, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_58#Hook_deleted_from_main_page, and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#.22Real-world_context.22. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding the Taylor Vixen hook: "Yeah, I noticed that one hook was removed. The hook was for Taylor Vixen. I must say that agree with DragonflySixtyseven on that one. The hook text was rather in bad taste and very tabloidy, IMO. I don't think hooks like that should be promoted." Regarding the 'real-world context' - those were objections that I made on the suggestions page. Under what circumstances do you have grounds to complain about my objecting on the suggestions page? DS (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) @DS: I don't know about others, but I have already addressed this question of yours repeatedly and at length here, and clearly you still don't get it. The issue is that some of the editors there, myself included, do not feel you are capable of deciding what edits you make to the template and queues are appropriate and what edits aren't. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (e.c.) Another thread in which it is made clear that DS's views on fiction in hooks is not shared by other editors: Wikipedia_talk:Did you know/Archive 57#Clarification for .22real-world context.22 in DYK rules EdChem (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC) At least 2 other editors explicitly support DS there, and the thread peters out without obvious conclusion. I gather DS's judgement in removing problematic hooks is in question, but given that we're talking about Main Page exposure, it seems quite appropriate to be conservative. This isn't a licence to ignore clear consensus, but it is a consideration. Overall this discussion seems quite extraordinarily premature - where are the prior steps of dispute resolution? Rd232talk 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC) And for what I believe may be the fifth time, let me repeat that I HAVE CONCEDED THE POINT. Objections are to be raised on the suggestions page. Can we all get on with our lives now? DS (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC I strongly concur with your view that we should "err on the safe side" in regard to DYK problems. The problem is that DS has on multiple occasions removed hooks that others don't see a problem with. He does it without discussion on the DYK talk page first, and he does it incorrectly, just deleting them altogether instead of restoring them to T:TDYK for further discussion and without restoring the previous debate or leaving a message about why he removed them. DS is basically acting like judge, jury and executioner, and it has proven very difficult to get through to him what is wrong with his behaviour. I personally wasn't keen on this ban proposal, but I think at least until he demonstrates that he understands the concerns and will act accordingly, a ban would be not inappropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Ah, you're quite correct in that I hadn't been restoring problematic hooks to T:TDYK for further work; mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. My actions have been done in ignorance of the methodology which evolved for this situation. If I ever notice anything problematic (regarding BLP or factual accuracy; regarding the question of 'appropriateness' in fiction, - and let me say this for possibly the SIXTH time - I HAVE ALREADY CONCEDED THE POINT) which I feel must be removed, I will immediately replace it on T:TDYK. The reason that I have acted so precipitously in making removals [edit: in OTHER matters such as porn stars talking about their breasts, or politicians who are in the middle of running for president, or forensic pathologists who are in mid-lawsuit over claims of criminal negligence which may have led to innocent men being executed, ALL OF WHICH ARE THINGS THAT I REMOVED FROM DYK) is that the front page gets hundreds of hits per second and that anything inappropriate draws dozens of complaints. DS (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC) And I'll say mine for the sixth time too. The proposal is not asking that you please make sure to replace hooks on T:TDYK after you remove them. It's asking you not to remove them at all. Not because you forgot to replace them, but because some editors do not trust your judgment in what should and should not be removed in the first place. You have not <big>CONCEDED</big> that point, no matter how big you say so; you don't even appear to understand it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Thankyou for conceding that your actions have been done "in ignorance of the methodology" - an ignorance that has persisted for many, many months as you have been contributing to DYK over a long period. I don't know of any other admin active at DYK who has remained ignorant of our procedures for such a long period, and perhaps you could ask yourself why that might be. But this confession is at least a step in the right direction. But while you have "already conceded the point" as you put it, I am obliged to point out to you that even after this concession, you still blew it in your very next hook removal by failing to restore the previous discussion as you had been reminded to do. You also removed the hook over a very minor issue that could easily have been resolved at DYK talk without any of the drama. The bottom line is that you are still not getting it right, and you are not getting it right because you don't listen to what others are trying to tell you. And until you do show some evidence that you are capable of paying attention, I see no reason why you should be allowed to continue disrupting DYK with your self-confessedly "ignorant" editing. Gatoclass (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Regarding recent behavior at this AN board by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) = The yelling and the bold and the all caps and the big font is not really helping matters. -- Cirt (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) You're correct, but I hope you can understand that it's a little aggravating (in particular, the edit conflicts when I'm trying and trying to make my points). This is a ridiculous mess, and aside from the disputes over the appropriateness of fiction (where I have already conceded the point, I stand by each one of my decisions and -- since your premise is that I have a record of poor judgment in this respect -- I am more than willing to argue each one with you, right here. DS (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC) There is no valid rationale for this level of text markup by DragonflySixtyseven (talk·contribs). It just appears to the reader as screaming at other users, which is not polite. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Clearly DS is aggravated and tempers running high. Frankly I'm not all that surprised, in the circumstances. Jumping to such a ban proposal when there seems to have been insufficient communication/discussion (dispute resolution) is just all round bad. It doesn't help matters that the proposal has no clearly argued rationale. What are the actual, current, outstanding, still-disputed issues? Rd232talk 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict) Whose fault is it that there has been "insufficient communication/discussion"? DS is pulling more hooks at the very same time he is blowing off the concerns of other admins or not responding at all. If we can get DS to acknowledge his mistakes and actually start paying attention to the concerns of others, I'm happy to suspend the ban proposal. But he hasn't done that yet. Gatoclass (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Important question: what's a prep area for if not for pointing out last-minute problems with hooks? This is not a rhetorical question; I may have misunderstood the purpose of the prep areas. DS (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Sorry, I've seen DS' constructive contributions at DYK in the past. This seems hardly necessary. He's conceded error; I'm sure he'll be more careful in future. By the way, Cirt, DS is reading the thread; you don't need to address him like he isn't here. Your comments are only serving to aggravate the situation further, I think. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I was attempting to avoid further escalation by avoiding back-and-forth and back-and-forth. -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Support - this has been a long time coming; DS has a fairly long history of unilateral actions and ignoring DYK consensus and conventions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Very Weak Oppose Seems like there's been insufficient discussion on the matter, but his actions both at DYK and here (All-caps shouting and the like) worry me almost to the point of supporting in spite of my first point. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose as whole however I would support an Interim ban until RFC/U fully examines the matter. RFC/U is to me what is needed right now. after such we Should come back and consider any other actions necessary The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose, agreeing with PeterSymonds. Speaking as someone whose DYK hook has been removed by DragonflySixtyseven in the past, I know what it feels like to suddenly have an article you spent time on removed from the main page. But had we stopped to wait for discussion, what I would now consider a violation of our BLP policies would have stayed on our main page for several hours, allowing it to be read by up to hundreds of thousands of users. Questionable hooks should always be removed from the main page, ASAP. It is not like they cannot be readded if consensus deems otherwise. NW (Talk) 18:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Again, I largely agree with this, but I must point out that not all concerns are equal. A BLP concern would obviously justify pulling a hook, as would, for example, serious POV concerns. When it's just a minor quibble over a possible inaccuracy, however, that can readily be dealt with by a discussion about it, pulling the hook in such circumstances is just needless disruption. Gatoclass (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed, the proposals for further discussion with DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs), and possibly Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, are indeed good ones. -- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Okay, I think it's clear this proposal is going nowhere, I had misgivings about it myself but in the circumstances thought it might be just as well to go along with it.

In place of the ban proposal, I would like to propose that discussion takes place with DS regarding the concerns that others have had with his edits, and that DS agrees not to pull any more hooks from the queue until those other users are satisfied that he fully understands our procedures and when it is and is not appropriate to pull hooks. If DS will agree to that, I think we can probably end this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed above proposal. More discussion by multiple users in attempts to resolve the dispute with DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) is a good thing, though if that does not resolve the matter, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct may be appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have some concerns that are unrelated to DYK, but would fit into a broader discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Can we get back to work now? DS (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Update posted to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Update_regarding_User:DragonflySixtyseven. -- Cirt (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Robinson (Rock Star)

7 days and 3 hours on the prod for Jessica Robinson (Rock Star). Anyone wanna kill it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as a process note, if deletion is time sensitive, why PROD? Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of User:Iaaasi

At this time, I would like to propose the unblock of User:Iaaasi so that he may start editing here again. He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki and at ro.wiki since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. That is, he was implicated as a possible sock puppet of banned user User:Bonaparte (see SPI cases), but it was not conclusive that he is. After communicating with him off-wiki, I feel that he has met the letter and spirit of WP:OFFER, sock or not, and that I have confidence that he can return to editing constructively here on en.wiki. –MuZemike 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• If not for his socking (and I'm referong to Conttest and Umumu, which he apparently has admitted), I wpuld be inclined to support it. However, once he created these socks, I oppose this for now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: This user has exhibited some seriously racist hatemongering. Please read [42]. This should have been logged as an WP:ARBMAC block. I think unblocking would be bad for the community in general even without the sockery. 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs)

• Support: We need more racists editing articles here to get their point across. Our standards are way too high. Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• From what I can see of his participation on simple-wiki, he has only been doing minor gnomish stuff there. I don't see anything in his performance that would give me confidence he has changed his attitude towards editing his apparent ideological hot-button topics, related to Romania and Hungary. Has he demonstrated he is able and willing to edit politically sensitive content in a neutral way? If so, how? Or is the plan to keep him topic-banned from that area? Unless this is clarified, I'm opposed to a lifting of the ban. WP:OFFER means not just that they have refrained from socking; if it has any meaning at all, it means he must provide a full, credible demonstration that all problematic behaviour patterns are thoroughly understood and under control. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I too have interacted a fair amount with Iaaasi. In my interactions with him, I have found him to be reasonably rational and generally accepting that what he did was wrong and is willing to learn from his mistakes. Regarding the accused racism above, I agree that does raise some concerns. As such, I have asked Iaaasi to email me a statement and I will cross-post it here for him. Tiptoety ^talk 16:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I was involved at the time of the block and things seem to have calmed down from where they were in the weeks following the block. If this can keep up I see no reason not to let him back. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I too am interested in reading the user's statement before coming to any view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for unblock conditional on the following being imposed in lieu of the block: (1) an appropriate Romanian/Hungarian topic ban, and, (2) an account restriction (restricted to editing with a single account). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support pursuant to the Wikipedia:Standard offer being applied. Basket of Puppies 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock with a Topic ban on Romania and Hungary Ethnic relations broadly defined I am willing to trust this user as the worst case scenerio is we block him again. If he can create and write on articles in that region (Towns, Local landmarks, Foods Etc). If he can manage to edit under that restriction, in six months we can review the need for the topic ban The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per ResidentAnthropologist, if this editor is sincere, then give him a chance to prove it. It should be clear that violation of the conditions will lead to the block being reinstated. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Let's give him a chance to show that he can be trusted. Netalarm^talk 02:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Let's give him another chance. If he misbehaves again, then I think the punishment should be harsher. Bejinhan talks 06:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have already proposed his unblock as my personal opinion was that the unfortunate edit on his user page mentioned by Toddst1 and which was the cause of his block had not been intended by him to be what it actually looks like. Although acting on impulse on some occasions, as a Hungarian, I felt that Iaaassi never intended to offend Hungarians, he simply wanted to chivy certain Hungarian editors who had a permanent edit conflict with him about a certain article. I frequently edit articles about Transylania having a conflict potential between Hungarian and Romanian (or vice versa) points of view. My impression was that Iaassi has made a significant progress in seeking mutual understanding and respecting reached consensus. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per ResidentAnthropologist and Mjroots -- PhantomSteve/talk contribs\ 09:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per ResidentAnthropologist and Rokarudi, plus, the editor is now aware of the consequences of being caught up in inappropriate nationalistic behaviours, and that any further incidences will result in possibly indefinite bans. Let's give them the chance to prove they have moved on and up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unfortunately, I can't believe in Iaaasi's troth. But if the community should be propitious to him, it will be in order with a concomitant of indefinite topic ban on Hungarian-Romanian related articles--Nmate (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Without any restrictions so we can see if he can respect Wikipedia. The worst possible scenario is that he will be blocked again. Adrian (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I just spoke with the user on IRC, I support giving Iaaasi another chance. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel that this request is seriously misrepresented, as it takes no account of the numerous confirmed socks [43] that this user operated and the degree of disruption over a period of almost a year now. In fact we see no confirmation that there is not currently multiple active socks running by this user. If we look at the user history we do know that that some of the socks made several hundred edits. user:Umumu Total edits (including deleted):1,354 . user:DerGelbeMann Total edits (including deleted):564. Just two examples as we see during the socks made several thousand edits in total. If the past is any indication these several thousand edits on just the confirmed socks in a period of several months meaning hundreds of edits each month on just the confirmed socks. If the past is any indication we can be sure that there are currently active socks right now. The focus should be on finding and blocking those socks. Also it is false that Iaaasi edited to "show he is constructive" he edited with the socks to 1. Attack fellow editors 2. Parttake in administration procedures admin noticeboards [44] 3. handed out "warnings" with his socks [45] 4. The last confirmed sock is as recent as August [46] 5. Many times he edit warred using IP socks as well not a tenth of which are logged into the suspected and other categories. In conclusion I can see no benefit from "restoring editing privileges" when in fact the user edited with several thousand edits as it is. Also in full disclosure I have reason to believe that this user edited using a sock as recently as within a week of today so this might make me more prone to oppose. Also there is the issue of his open displays of ethnic hatred as discussed above which make me uneasy. However there may be a possibilty that the issues can be lessened by a full disclosure of all present and past socks by this user and a complete removal from the problematic area meaning anything to do with any Eastern OR Central European topic history geography biographies etc. This would still leave almost all of wikipedia to edit. Hobartimus (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have just checked the standard offer referenced by someone above and it says as it's first point. "Wait six months without sockpuppeting." As it is pointed out above the last confirmed socking [47] is in 2010 August 9th. Mind you this is only the last CheckUser confirmed socking by this user so there could be much more of it just not yet confirmed by CheckUser. Hobartimus (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - In the light of Hobartimus' comment about recent sockpuppetry (less than 2 months ago) I agree that the conditions of WP:OFFER are not met, so I oppose an unblock at this time. I have some ideas about a suitable unblock condition regarding articles subject to WP:DIGWUREN, but I think that discussion can wait until a full six months have passed since Iaaasi's last usage of socks. I support Jpgordon's request (below) for Iaaasi's complete disclosure of all past accounts he has used. I encourage him to be frank, since Jpgordon is a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose a nationalist editor who was socking as recently as August to return to his arena of conflict and generally engaging the old battlefield. Seriously misguided proposal.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Isn`t the purpose of the block to correct the behavior of one user, not to punish him? If this user is ready to change I think the opportunity should be presented so we can really see if this user is a nationalist or a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. This user has shown a great deal of understanding over various issues where I would`t call him a nationalist or something similar. For example on this consensus, [48]. Also User:Hobartimus recognized the valuable contributions of this user. Adrian (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Since I saw my name above I examined the link posted by Adrian. It is true that the user in question YellowFF0 seemed like a constructive user to me, in other words I was 100% fooled by the first edits of that account. Now this [49] later behavior, a brand new account reporting someone at ANI would have raised a bit more of a red flag. What's more important, the YellowFF0 account was active in late august and posting at ANI as late as August 25th, reporting User:Romaniantruths [50] to administrators. But the August 25th date, about a month before this unblocking suggestion was proposed shows, he not only socked in a Checkuser Confirmed fashion, he also actively used administrator noticeboards to report others to get them blocked. By this relevation found by user:Iadrian_yu it can be demonstrated that the words of the original proposal "he has met the letter and spirit of WP:OFFER" no longer apply. WP:OFFER states it needs to be more than six months for it to apply, now we found, it was actually one month. WP:OFFER does not apply to this case that is certain now. Hobartimus (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support as he was corrected and let's give him another chance--Yopie (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Socking as recent as August? No. And I dislike the IRC canvassing. T. Canens (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, concerns about the recent violations of site policy with socks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Iaaasi

I think the block of an user should be firstly a measure to protect Wikipedia against people who try to sabot it by destructive edits, not a punishment for someone who did something wrong without a clear intent, so I hope I can find understanding...

The fact that I was involved in conflicts in the past was against my will and was partly a consequence of my lack of experience from that moment and perhaps a result of the fact that I was too less calm.

The famous xenophobic profile page was a kind of childish revenge after an user tried (in the end unsuccesfully) to remove the Romanian name of a historical personality, not an expression of my feelings. My aim was in no case to offend all the users of Hungarian nationality, but my action was focused only against a single user. That is not an excuse, it was a terrible mistake and I regret it

On the other hand, I know that it is blamable that I evaded my block, but the only reason was to show that I want to be a good contributor and my goal is to improve articles, not to disturb others.

If I will be unblocked, I am ready to be kept under a strict observation and at the first mistake to be irevocably re-blocked. (Posted on behalf of Iaaasi by Tiptoety ^talk at 06:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC))).

The famous xenophobic profile page was a kind of childish revenge after an user tried (in the end unsuccesfully) to remove the Romanian name of a historical personality, not an expression of my feelings. My aim was in no case to offend all the users of Hungarian nationality, but my action was focused only against a single user. That is not an excuse, it was a terrible mistake and I regret it -- "Mistake"? No. Writing the number 1 when the right answer is 2 is a mistake. Putting your left shoe on your right foot is a mistake. Swallowing with your trachea instead of your esophagus is a mistake. The expression of gross bigotry is not a mistake, unless, perhaps, you'd intended to put "not" in every quote there and forgot to. "Not an expression of my feelings"? Whose feelings, then? Whether the hateful sentiments you expressed are your own or someone else's, you, the person who posted it, are responsible for your own actions and your own words. I'd want a heck of a lot more than this poor excuse for an apology. Oh, it's not even an apology -- it's an expression of "regret". And of course you'd be under strict observation if unblocked; we do that routinely to serial sockpuppeteers. Just how many accounts have you created? Please provide us a list, including those that we have not yet blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to post the following message from Iaaasi upon his request:

I don't want to accuse others for my actions, but I think the users Nmate and Hobartimus are not the most entitled persons to talk about correctness:

• User Nmate is a constant edit warrior and has a very colorful block log, including sanctions for this kind of things: "Ethnic slurs and incivility"
• Hobartimus showed hostility to me since the beginnings, one example being here, where he reverted my edit with no clear reason

I know there are serious reasons to believe that I am not trustable, but please give me a second and last chance.

–MuZemike 05:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning for participants!

Not accurate, off-topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I must inform all participants in Iaasi cause, especially all with "Support" vote, that you can be reported by Nmate for really everything. I was blocked in "rolback" by his request for my vote here and he explicitly says here, that "when I was logged in to the Wikipedia yesterday, I recognized the situation and it induced my dudgeon and that proded me to fill that report at WP ANI".--Yopie (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Content RFC closure requested

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at the RFC at Talk:Ahmed_Yassin#RfC:_Should_the_image_illustrating_Yassin_be_changed and close it please? Thanks, nableezy - 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

While We are on the topic of RFC if some one could close and summarize Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts it would be much appreciated as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the Ahmed Yassin one, but that looks to be much too complicated for this late in the evening... After a brief read-through I couldn't see an obvious consensus for any particular outcome, in case that's any help to whoever wants to close it. Sandstein 22:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Content RFC closure requested

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at the RFC at Talk:Ahmed_Yassin#RfC:_Should_the_image_illustrating_Yassin_be_changed and close it please? Thanks, nableezy - 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

While We are on the topic of RFC if some one could close and summarize Talk:Judaism and violence#Rfd thoughts it would be much appreciated as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the Ahmed Yassin one, but that looks to be much too complicated for this late in the evening... After a brief read-through I couldn't see an obvious consensus for any particular outcome, in case that's any help to whoever wants to close it. Sandstein 22:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD

Could someone uninvolved - if there actually is anyone left - please put Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dream Focus (2nd nomination) out of its misery? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never closed one ... but crikey. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done subject to DRV, drama, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What kind of community actions can AN/I enforce?

(discussion has stopped for a week now, so timestamping for archiving reasons here. Fram (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Backlog at WP:AIV

Hi! There are some reports at WP:AIV that date back over an hour. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple move

Can someone please G6 All the Women I Am so I can move All the Women I Am (album) to it? The qualifier isn't needed; the author doesn't know how to overwrite redirects. If I didn't ask here, it'd probably take about a month before someone got around to doing the G6 deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DoneHJ MitchellPenny for your thoughts? 02:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha. I just went to move it (which effects the G6 automatically) but it seems HJ Mitchell had already G6'd it. Either way, consider it done. I've fixed one double redirect.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that we have a wonderful separate noticeboard for this kind of requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Whenever you're in need of page-moving fun, it's better to place a request there than on this general noticeboard. Jafeluv (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reinstatement of topic ban

Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from Cold fusion (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) due to disruptive and tendentious editing, wall-of-text commentary and proxying for banned users. As soon as the topic ban expired he returned to all three, notably going to the Meta blacklist to request (again, after previous refusals) removal of banned user Jed Rothwell's site lenr-canr.org, which Abd misrepresents in the request as a "by-permission archive" despite it being pointed out in the past that some of the content is copyright Springer Verlag and they absolutely do not give permission for full text copies in third-party websites. The only evidence for the by-permission claim is the site owner, who has, to put it charitably, a vested interest in interpreting this elastically. It's his funeral if he gets a takedown, after all.

Cold fusion is a former FA which was demoted and subject to extended edit-warring by advocates of what is unquestionably regarded by the mainstream as an extreme fringe field. Abd paints himself now as an "expert" but this expertise is courtesy of the now-banned CF advocates Jed Rothwell and Pcarbonn, whose mission is to recast Wikipedia to reflect the field as they wish it to be rather than as it is. There is ongoing trivial research by minor parties but the supermajority view in the scientific community is that this is not just fringe but a pariah field due to the very highly publicised issues with the original paper in Nature and subsequent failure to reproduce results.

Having looked at Abd's involvement in this article it is crystal clear to me that the problems which led to his original topic ban have not been resolved, or even acknowledged, It's a question of wait until the timeout finishes and carry on as before. Nobody in the world has enough time to resist this insistent POV-pushing, so I propose that the topic ban be reinstated.

Abd's mission seems to be evangelistic rather than encyclopaedic. He's writing an article putting the pro-CF case at Wikiversity, that's where it should stay. His talk-page commentaries have always argued the primary case rather than the proper Wikipedia case per NPOV and UNDUE, and this is only partly IMO because NPOV mitigates against the relentless attempts of the CF lobby to swing the article to their POV; mainly he is a self-declared obsessive personality and has a bee in his bonnet about something he ahs come to believe is an unjustly vilified field. It does not seem to be posisble to get home the fact that it is not Wikipedia's job to fix that and using it to do so violates policy.

The debate goes on an on in the same form:

World+Dog: Abd, your endless commentary is impenetrable, takes too much time for anybody to read, and argues the primary case.

Abd: Yes, you're right, thanks, I will do somehting about that

Time passes during which Abd carries on exactly as before

Repeat ad nauseam.

The comments from NawlinWikiNuclearWarfare [edited by NW (Talk) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)] on Abd's talk page echo almost word for word the findings of the arbitration case. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. Abd fundamentally does not believe he's doing anything wrong, and never has, despite topic and site bans. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Completed after edit conflict and login

Thanks for signing this, JzG, I was thinking of filing an SSP report.... --Abd (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I urge that this report from an anonymous editor [JzG] be ignored. The above is radically distorted. The charges are familiar, but I'm not going to accuse anyone of socking yet, but to respond to this would take a lot of words. Someone let me know if any [other] registered editor signs up to support this, confirming and taking responsibility for charges, and I'll respond. Thanks. Briefly, however, all the above has been considered in depth and there has already been consensus formed, which I'm acting on. The pages that I linked were all whitelisted, I could not have added those links without it; that took an admin, who considered the arguments. This is beating a dead horse. --Abd (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)struck now-irrelevant text, added relevant text in brackets. --Abd (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Having perused the talk page at Cold Fusion, I see impenetrable walls of text posted by Abd. That, certainly, has not changed. → ROUX ₪ 22:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To someone not interested in working on the topic, what I wrote, which was very much on point, and about improving the article, is going to seem like walls of text. However, I stopped that. Entirely. Roux, you were seeing what was there before certain users complained. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Abd, may I try to mediate this between you and Guy? I see that your involvement on Cold fusion is probably going to upset other editors. It would be a wise idea to go take up other interests. We have millions of articles. Why return to the scene of a very unpleasant dispute that went all the way to arbitration. Guy, could you supply diffs for the case you are making? Additionally, why is this here, rather than at requests for arbitration amendments? Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No mediation will help. This is not between me and Abd, it is between Abd and absolutely everybody who supports WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and in doing so, necessarily, opposes his attempts to recast the article in a light more favourable to his banned friends' mission. Proxying for banned editors, returning to the behaviour that led to sanctions as soon as they expire, and dismissing criticism out of hand, are all hallmarks of Abd's long-term behaviour. This is not because Abd is a bad person, albeit that he is an incredibly vexing person to deal with, it's about long term civil POV-pushing, proxying for banned editors and constantly restating the same position regardless of how many times it's rebutted, as with the request for removal of the copyright-violating lenr-canr site at the Blacklist. The request is substantially identical to the previous rejected request and does not address in any way at all the criticism of the previous request, nor does it even acknowledge such criticisms as valid. It's like talking to a deaf person with their fingers in their ears changing "laa laa laa I can't hear you". I am ot active on these articles. There is nothing to mediate between us. Check NawlinWikiNuclearWarfare's [edited by NW (Talk) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)] comments on Abd's talk page, check previous AN and ANI debates. This is an editor whose problems are only resolved by excluding him from his hot-button topics, or fomr the project altogether. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Guy, you appear to be upset. Is it the case that you feel very frustrated that all the time and effort that went into arbitrating the matter has resulted in a return to exactly the same situation that existed before with this article? Jehochman ^Talk 22:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Point of information - it appears that the User talk:Abd comment Guy states was NawlinWiki was in fact NuclearWarfare... Is that correct? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Guy meant NuclearWarfare's recent request that Abd makes posts of 200 words at most. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing - Abd, it appears that (recent contribs) your contributions since the prior Arbcom topic ban expired on Sept 13 2010 have been either entirely or nearly entirely focused on Cold Fusion. All the other articles and editors talk pages related to this appear connected to the Cold Fusion topic. Do you generally agree with that statement? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm COI on the topic, am highly involved with it as a researcher and editor, and am following COI guidelines carefully. I'm disgusted with Wikipedia, in general, and so I'm not putting in much work, beyond a brief period, ending several days ago, where I did write a lot about problems with Cold fusion text. I do not edit the article anticipating controversy, unless I do so as a suggested edit, in which case I self-revert and discuss in Talk. I see that the links I added today were reverted by another editor who was previously sanctioned and banned from Cold fusion as well, for a time. I certainly won't revert him, but the issues he raised in removing them have been addressed before and I was following what I thought was established WP consensus; removals of these links survived only when not noticed. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG addressed JzG's POV involvement at Cold fusion and the spam blacklist and his abuse of admin tools; some of the damage has not yet been cleaned up. I was doing that today, because I'm aware of the history and the issues and the sources. I might be wasting my time, but I thought I could be helpful. --Abd (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Guy hasn't done anything there directly, nor abused admin capabilities in this go-around. He just reported here.

Abd, can you characterize what your recent (last 3 weeks-ish) edits have done, in terms of sources, approach to editing, and content you attempted to add, compared to the editing you were doing last year before the topic ban? Do you believe you are editing in a significantly different or more collaborative manner than you were previously? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. I now depend entirely on collaboration for anything that might be controversial, and I could point to examples. I also, by the way, know perhaps ten times as much about the topic as I did then, I understand the significance of sources (positive and negative) much better. I've pointed to reliable sources, as I'm supposed to do, as a COI editor. Arbitrators are aware of my activity. JzG did intervene, four times now, in this period, but this isn't about him, so I won't provide links. What occasioned today's report was an action remedying JzG's prior abuse, and he's continued it, only without using admin tools, just pushing the POV, including his POV about lenr-canr.org links, which has been rejected by the community when it's been considered. Jehochman knows some of the history, consider his remarks.... he filed RfAr/Abd and JzG, after it was clear that JzG wasn't going to back down after RfC/JzG 3.

By the way, what is this report doing on AN? If immediate admin action is needed, the boilerplate for this page suggests AN/I, but there is no emergency here, no revert warring, no major activity. I've seen JzG use AN like this before, to get a user banned for his POV -- it was that explicit, and it worked --, when there was no emergency at all. To my mind, this is a violation of ban policy, but, I do know, that's been ignored. The "community" is not "the community of administrators," even though some admins think of themselves as the community. --Abd (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding only to the venue question - Discretionary sanctions were enabled by Abd-WmC arbcom case and no timeout was set on those; also, AN is the preferred (though slightly less common than ANI) venue for community sanctions discussions. In this case, either an uninvolved administrator under discretionary sanctions could act, or the community could here. Whether it's warranted is up to the discussion etc. I respect JzG but we certainly won't to anything just on his say-so while he's self-admittedly emotionally responding to something. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, GWH, I hadn't thought of it that way. This is a problem: there has been misbehavior by a number of editors at Cold fusion, and it got very much worse just a few days ago, when some former editors with problematic histories returned. Those editors are not COI, AFAIK, but they are quite unrestrained and are clearly pushing a POV, and strongly. Ideally, what I'd like to see is some neutral admins who will watch Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion with an eye to arbitration enforcement, and I'd be happy to discuss that, but this isn't a good place for it. Let this be a request for such administrative oversight, it could do a great deal of good. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb here. I think it would be less stressful for all concerned if Abd avoided the cold fusion area as long as he's engaged in primary research on the topic. It is challenging to be so involved, and yet maintain the necessary detachment and objectivity required for Wikipedia editing. Some editors can do it, but because of the history here, I think it wiser for Abd to avoid the entire area. Would you agree to that, Abd? We have millions of other editing opportunities. I'd really like to see an outcome where all sides agree and part ways, rather than having this matter return to arbitration where I feel the result will be a lot less friendly. Jehochman^Talk 00:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jehochman, that would be fine for me, but lousy for the project. No, I'm far more interested in cold fusion than I am in Wikipedia. It's really up to the community whether it wants experts editing, and COI editors are generally expert or at least more expert than the large majority of users. WP:COI appears to encourage COI editors to participate in Talk. This is a widespread problem, it is by no means confined to me and Cold fusion. Experts tend to get banned even when they follow COI guidelines, because Randy in Boise doesn't like to be corrected.

Suit yourself, folks. I'm just an advisor now, and you are free to ignore my advice. At your own risk of loss. You have an article which is massively deficient in many respects, compared to what is available (on all sides!) in reliable sources. You have many other problems, with many other articles, but I'm not necessarily expert in them, and it's way too much work. Try to figure out how to get experts involved, and protect them, if you want better content in such areas.

From what I've seen of JzG recently, though, the project might be better off if this does, indeed, go back to ArbComm. I didn't provoke him, I just did what I knew to do, and none of it will I repeat. What he's done with me, he's done with others (and that, in fact, is how I became aware of the problem with his work). Someone, please, give him some good advice. I see you trying, Jehochman. You are also trying to give me good advice, but you don't understand my motives (just as you might not understand his, I suspect. Or maybe you do.) --Abd (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Abd reports here a clear conflict of interest. Abd is motivated to encourage interest and activity in the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Actually, Wikipedia is a distraction from what I need to do. Could be a mistake on my part. I gain nothing by advising the editors here. I have a business, indeed, but that business could actually be hurt by a better Wikipedia article. Long story, I won't explain here, but someone can ask me on my Talk if this seems mysterious. In any case, we expect COI editors to "push" a POV, that's why they are restricted, but supposedly we also encourage them to advise in Talk, providing sources, and reviewing content (if you imagine that it's possible to write good encyclopedia science content without understanding the subject, you've been dreaming and it might be time to wake up.) --Abd (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We do need to be clear with you about something:

It's not "all COI editors" or "all expert editors" - Most editors are experts in things we have Wikipedia articles on, and conflicts of interest with some topic or topics. Some are particular experts, in the sense of technical or scientific or being a professor or industry recognized person or some sort, for example.

Very few of those people ever come up for ANI review, much less Arbcom review, much less multiple Arbcom cases or multiple Arbcom sanctions. You are in very rare company to have been so focused on in your career here. This is not a good thing.

I don't prejudge whether you are in the right or not on the particulars this time around. However - you should not and can not hide behind the shield of being an expert. If you believe that you are entitled to do so or that you should be able to act in different ways on the article because you are, you are wrong, and acting in a manner to place your editing status in danger.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

GWH, the fuss arises because there are certain editors who have aligned around certain topics, and some of them have consistently acted to harass and seek the ban of editors with whom they disagree. What have I done that is a violation of policy or guidelines? I'm not generally acting on the article, except tentatively, occasionally, without even 1RR of others. The bulk of my article edits have been accepted, I think. What I've said about "shield" should apply to all those who claim expertise and who follow COI guidelines, not just me. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I realized that GWH may have a misunderstanding. I had no connection with cold fusion at the beginning of 2009 when I became aware of certain abusive blacklistings, those later covered at RfAr. This was not my "career." However, I started to read the article and look at the sources, and, because I knew some of the history -- I believed Cold fusion had been conclusively rejected -- and I had the physics and chemistry background to understand the issues, I became interested, bought most of the major books on the topic (skeptical and otherwise), and started to work on the article. I came under attack for that, as others had before. Eventually, with about two dozen editors yelling at me, long story, I was topic banned for a year. As I saw this coming, I decided to pursue my interest in cold fusion. I was a Wikipedia editor first, and one of my special concerns had been administrative abuse, I took two cases to ArbComm; in one case the admin was "admonished" -- JzG -- and in the other the admin lost his bit. So while I'm currently, in effect, an SPA, I have not always been so. It was cultivated. --Abd (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• It makes no sense that Abd is allowed to continue in essentially the same behavior for which he has been sanctioned repeatedly, simply because the most recent sanction has expired. It should not take another ArbCom case to deal with this. It should be a simple, straightforward administrative action. Problematic behavior is identified repeatedly → sanctions are applied → sanctions expire → problem recurs → ? Of course, Abd also continues to view his ArbCom cases as vindications, so this outcome should surprise no one. We need to make a clean break here - Abd can go off to promote cold fusion through the proper channels, and we can have a break from this constant misuse of Wikipedia to promote cold fusion. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't been "promoting cold fusion." Period. I've been describing on Talk, the state of the field, as shown in what is supposedly our gold standard for sourcing, peer-reviewed secondary sources. There are sixteen reviews of the field, reliable secondary sources, all positive, over the last five years, in mainstream peer-reviewed publications, and there is no such review that confirms the original reasons for rejection, which have all been answered. You would not see this from our article, because every time such a review has appeared, it's been excluded on arguments of "fringe" and "undue weight." I've proposed changes consistent with COI policy.

• From the article, one would think that there is no evidence for cold fusion, it's all just "pathological science," pursued by "fanatics," no theories have been proposed that are anything more than "ad hoc," and what was clearly a blatant bureaucratic error, easy to verify as such, is what the article still gives as the critical heat/helium finding, not what is actually in peer-reviewed reliable secondary sources. (Cold fusion always produces helium, in the right amount, from measured excess heat, to be fusion. No heat, no helium.) The strongest source to date: Status of cold fusion (2010) published in Naturwissenschaften this month. I know what the pseudoskeptics here are saying about this: biology journal. It's not. It's Springer-Verlag's "flagship multidisciplinary journal," covering all the "natural sciences," including physics and chemistry, and cold fusion is cross-disciplinary. And there is reliable source on that, very explicit.[51].

• Yes, the ArbComm cases were vindications of certain things (what I filed them over!), and not of others. In particular, ArbComm tends to shoot the messenger, and generally to follow a community that does the same. Given what I've seen in the three weeks or so since my topic ban expired, it is useless for me to advise Wikipedia, which is what I, as a declared COI editor, was doing, in full respect of the COI policy, and with my knowledge of the WP guidelines and policies on content and sourcing. Those policies are routinely being violated, and admins like MastCell don't care, they allow blatant NPOV violations -- such as the statement filed here by JzG, following his long-term push on cold fusion -- and they don't protect those who point it out. Hence it is useless for me to work here, the help is not wanted, there is no protection for expert advice.

• Because of the damage long done by abusive bans, if I'm banned or blocked, based on what's come down here -- where no violations of policy were alleged, nothing blockworthy or properly bannable -- I will appeal, but it's not a task I look forward to, nor do I have any attachment to outcome.

• MastCell has long been part of the problem, though certainly not the worst. I'm glad I won't have to deal with him any more. I wasn't sanctioned for what JzG accused me of. Nor was Pcarbonn, whose editing on Talk:Cold fusion was also brought here to AN, for ban, by JzG with no disclosure of his own history. JzG, in effect, if not in intention, lied, in both cases, presenting "evidence" that with any caution he'd know was deceptive,. But he knows people will often buy it, and the most he's gotten of sanction is a slap on the wrist, so he's continued. This is what Wikipedia built. I want no more part of it. --Abd (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any significant change in behaviour and just a repeat of previous problems. Moreover, while Abd is a COI editor, I don't think we should warp the debate by referring to him as a expert, he's a hobbyist who's read some books (as far as I can determine, someone correct me if I'm wrong) and swops emails with other fringe figures. This is not a debate about expert editors because as far as I can tell he's not a expert - he's just some guy with some books and a lot of time on his hands. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

JzG is constantly flogging the horse (live or dead?) that the blacklisted site is allegedly engaging in copyright violations, where it's his word against the site operator who denies this. If the site is in fact a pirate site, why hasn't it received a takedown notice in the years since it began posting the papers in question? Is it Wikipedia's role to aggressively enforce against alleged copyright violations that the copyright owners themselves aren't pursuing? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Within the collapse above, there is a link to a review paper published by Springer-Verlag, a publisher of many of the papers hosted at lenr-canr.org. You can see in the first-page image they provide for free, a link to lenr-canr.org, very prominent, as a place to read conference papers on the topic of cold fusion. This is often the only place where they may be read, but they are cited in the review paper, which makes them notable, in fact. Does anyone here seriously imagine that Springer-Verlag is not aware of the many journal papers published by them which are hosted in some form on lenr-canr.org? Lenr-canr.org often comes up at the top for specific searches for these papers. If the publishers are not aware of copyvios, they would be extraordinarily inattentive! Here they are publishing a link to the site, prominent, the first article page in their "flagship multidisciplinary journal."

Rather, what's happened is that editors here have assumed copyvio, out of a simple assumption of bad faith, a libel against Jed Rothwell. I.e., a phony legal problem is asserted, creating a possibly real legal problem, if Jed were to be inclined to sue. (He's not.) Last time I noticed, Jed was living, and BLP policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia. But these people don't really care about Wikipedia, they just use whatever policy suits their purposes at the moment. Imagine this level of attention given to all links on Wikipedia! It's happening here only because of POV, and that is visible in who has removed the links when they were used. I'm finished with this. Way too much work, and too little support. But thanks, DTobias, it's appreciated.

The links which were just removed by ScienceApologist from Cold fusion were all approved by an admin as being acceptable. The copyright arguments had been raised and rejected, for these papers, the whitelisting that allowed me to add these papers makes that obvious. Foolish me, I thought that all the prior discussion meant that these would be okay even though I'm COI. But now that someone has objected, even if it is SA, I certainly won't do that again!

And I just noticed this where JzG is fat and happy that the three main advocates of this content, Abd, Jed Rothewell and Pcarbonn, are all indefinitely topic banned, and yet again raises the copyright issue. Jed Rothwell was never actually banned, he abandoned his account, and no community discussion ever banned him. Rather, JzG declared a ban, unilaterally, and blocked some IP. Two of the IPs blocked were definitely not Jed, but ... JzG sees any content that he thinks is pro-cold fusion POV as being Jed Rothwell or a meat puppet. Pcarbonn is under some kind of ban, never properly closed, length not stated, in the report based on an AN report filed by ... JzG. However, the closer, FuturePerfect, notified Pcarbonn of an indef ban. There had been no clear consensus at AN, and FuturePerfect had argued for the ban, so the close wasn't neutral. I was under a topic ban at the time,one year, not "indefinite." When Pcarbonn's topic ban had expired, something like December, and he returned to editing the Talk page, JzG acted to get him banned, and he knows how to stir up the pitchforks and tar and feathers. When I came off the topic ban, the same, and the same report here. It's blatant. Now, who will do something about this? I'm not holding my breath. Jehochman waved his hands a bit, he wants everyone to be nice, which I sympathize with and I was actually hoping for that, but ... it's not what happened! I was promptly attacked. By the same old same old. I'm starting to sense that I may need to do something about this. And, against that, my better judgment, that it's useless, Wikipedia has gone too far down the tubes. You know, reading that AN report, JzG lied again and again, and it would be easy to show.... When I preparing RfC/JzG 3, I found the source of his enmity for Pcarbonn, and it is echoed in the AN report. And, reviewing this and the long-term behavior, it is conclusive proof of serious POV-pushing through misrepresenting sources, the kind of stuff that can sometimes get ArbComm's attention.... --Abd (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If we knowlingly link to a website hosting copyright infrigements we are just as guilty as the site that hosts the material, and policy reflects this. It isn't acceptable to break the law just because you haven't been caught. Hut 8.5 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, Hut 8.5. But you've misunderstood the issue. It is not our job to enforce copyright compliance on other sites. Rather, the key word in what you wrote is "knowingly." Prosecution for such would be rare, but it is possible. All prosecution for this has, in fact, been for egregious violations. But we draw the line at positive evidence, if it's known.

What's missed is that we have no obligation at all to verify the copyright status of some other site, and if you think about it, this would place an impossible burden on Wikipedia. What would the proof consist of? What is clear about lenr-canr.org is that, if there are any copyvios there, they are relatively few. And the policy does cover this, it is quite clear. Perhaps people should read it! It has been attempted to add a verification of permission requirement to the policy, and it was shot down, for obvious reasons, I'm sure. But it lives on, with POV-pushers who wish to exclude sites that They Don't Like.

We don't have to check every site for copyright problems before we link there, no, but this doesn't mean that if we are aware of such problems we should ignore them. Even if a prosecution over something like this is unlikely or difficult that doesn't mean Wikipedia can take part in illegal or immoral behaviour. Hut 8.5 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• It does look as if Abd has been repeating the same behaviour that got him topic banned in the first place. This is a bad sign, as topic bans should act as an indication that an editor needs to change their practices, and not as a temporary break. Hut 8.5 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And that "behavior" is? Not lying down and playing dead? What? Have you actually read the finding on the topic ban? I'm acting very differently than then. So what's the common factor? Read the report above. The common factor is an allegation of a POV. This, like other bans at Cold fusion is an attempted POV ban, of an editor who was following COI policy, which requires discussion, giving advice on Talk. It's that simple.

By the way, I am not editing Wikipedia any more, unless I get some indication from the community that it wants me to, and there has been too little of that to allow me to continue. I'm under personal attack here, which is why I'm responding, and I will continue to do that as long as it's permitted. You don't like these responses, advise those filing personal attacks to stop, don't blame the attempted victim. --Abd (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So to clarify, you will stop editing Wikipedia altogether once this thread is closed and nobody talks about you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was the plan. However, I also wrote that if banned, I'd appeal, and the reason for that is the protection of future editors from abusive bans. I will remind readers that I took two cases to ArbComm as an originating party, successfully, and that I'm permitted to do that, still, I'm not banned from it. I was thinking it wasn't worth it. I still don't know if it's worth it, but what I've been seeing is certainly adding to my motivation. I was thinking that this might quiet down and stop, and that I'd simply disappear. My conclusion was that Wikipedia was hopeless as to getting the attention that Cold fusion might need. I'm COI, I could do nothing without cooperation. So, my conclusion, useless. I'll build resources elsewhere, much easier, the boulder doesn't roll down the hill every day. However, there is another thing to consider. What JzG did to me he did to others, before, and, indeed, that's how I became involved. And it's not just JzG.

Anyway, is there any more dead horse beating to be done here? --Abd (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You were topic banned for tendentious editing and a problematic style of communication. In my opinion those problems have not gone away, and stating that opinion does not constitute a "personal attack". If it did then it would be impossible to enforce policies concerning disruptive editors. COI has nothing to do with it and it is still possible for an editor to be disruptive even if they only edit talk pages. Hut 8.5 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll document the "personal attack" claim. Hu, he's not only done this to me, he's done it to others. He lies, and shallow commentators like you just fall for it. That this happens on Wikipedia as much as it does is a structural problem, and nothing is being done about it, nor do I see any hope that anything will be done about it, which is why I'm bailing, overall. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reinvoking topic ban as general sanction

Abd, I just re-reviewed the developments here and on the meta.wiki spam blacklist thread.

It is clear to me that between the two pages, you have returned to the behavior you were previously sanctioned for. I AGF - I think you think you're doing a good and reasonable thing here, but in my judgement as an uninvolved administrator you're reverting to the exact same behavior and unrepentant and inappropriately righteous about doing so.

I am reimposing the topic ban as a general sanction, as authorized by Arbcom. I will log to your talk page and the Arbcom case enforcement page. I will link diffs for those here when done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Diffs for User talk:Abd and Abd-WmC Arbcom case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Without having followed the backstory, Abd's comments above are pretty clear: "I'm far more interested in cold fusion than I am in Wikipedia." If so, ABD, you should focus on what you are interested in, and a topic ban will allow you to do so. Sandstein 21:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So much for caring about Wikipedia, Sandstein. That's why I'm not caring myself, people like you stopped caring and fell into running a private club. I'll benefit from the ban, I have no doubt about it. Don't worry about me. Worry about the project, which is sliding, and, when the faction I confronted is active, NPOV goes out the window. Look at the filing here. This Guy is an admin. Is that conduct appropriate for an admin? He lied to you, Sandstein, and to the rest of us. And, yet, I'm the problem? Sure I am. For people like him and far too many of you. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a chat with Abd earlier on and expressed the hope that he wouldn't repeat old mistakes. Well, those ancient errors have resurfaced in full array. --TS 23:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened, Tony, is that the same people who worked very hard to get me banned before -- remember when two-thirds of commentors at RfC/JzG 3 were screaming for me to be banned, when what I'd done was file an RfC with evidence fully accepted by ArbComm later -- simply ran the same numbers, and continued the same very obvious and outrageous POV-pushing. They tolerate "fringe editors" who don't know how to find the sources and to point out policy, but someone like me, even though all I was doing was pointing to sources and to an obvious understanding of the field, obvious to anyone who knows it and who knows the sources, is really a threat. I was warned that I'd be banned as soon as I dared to edit again. Even though I followed COI rules meticulously.

As an uninvolved administrator, I fully support the reinstatement of all prior ARBCOM-sanctions related to this user. Sanctions are meant to alter behavior, the prior sanctions did not, so they need to be reinstated. It is as simple as that. --Jayron32 03:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• From this venue, the Community usually considers + enacts its own sanctions or it considers appeals of ones imposed under ArbCom remedies. In this case, the Community is doing a combination of both - it was considering imposing a sanction and it's reviewing one imposed under ArbCom remedies which Abd was going to appeal (which Abd would've been required to appeal here before going to ArbCom). If there is support for this sanction, it would be appropriate for the restrictions to be imposed concurrently as a Community topic ban (logged at WP:RESTRICT). Accordingly, as with all sanction discussions, please state your level of involvement when commenting in this section. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• As a somewhat involved admin (noing on Cf, but prior positive and negative interactions with AbD), I think that we should reinstate sanctions. The nature and scope of and,s actions are nearly identical to the actions which drew sanction in the first place. We don't need to re-litigate this in order to come to a decision. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A decision has already been made, Protonk. An admin intervened under the discretionary sanctions re Cold fusion. This is better than the older ban because there is a supervising admin, who seems like a fair sort. We'll see if it is necessary to escalate this, it might not be necessary. How about not beating a dead horse? --Abd (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I musta missed the archive box. Protonk (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Metawiki role

As an aside - Abd asked on his talk page what role his participation in the metawiki spam blacklist played in the topic ban, given that that's a separate external wiki and neither en.wikipedia admins nor Arbcom have authority over metawiki per se (which is correct).

As I have responded in more detail on Abd's talk page [52], though that behavior is out of scope for our administrative activities here, it does form part of a picture of what Abd's current overall behavioral attitude is regarding Cold fusion topics and Wikipedia as a whole. It was brought to all of our attention as part of Guy's filing and further discussed by Abd. That discussion formed part of the total picture of Abd's ongoing behavior that in my mind merited the topic ban being reinstated, along with edits he made to the Cold Fusion talk page after this AN discussion began, user talk page edits, and the conversation here.

I do not believe that it's wrong to take note of external issues as they bear directly into english Wikipedia ongoing operations and content issues (as the metawiki spam blacklist does) nor as they bear directly into a users' overall behavior and attitude (as Abd's behavior did here). It is somewhat unusual for it to come up, though, so him asking about it and my explaining it is a reasonable question, and I'll answer any additional reasonable questions raised here or his talk page from it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)+

Perhaps JzG needs a sanction too?

Unfortunately, Abd's obsessiveness on the topic of cold fusion provides what might be justification for the topic bans he has received; however, he is not the only obsessive involved in the related debates. JzG, in particular, appears to have an obsession with ensuring Abd is stopped from editing and the sites he likes are blacklisted, which is of a magnitude similar to Captain Ahab's obsession with finding Moby Dick. Perhaps a topic ban for him from any discussions pertaining to Abd or lenr-canr.org is justified? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dan. You made nine edits since June, most of them on articles, then you show up here and make two comments attacking JzG for raising legitimate concerns. That's okay, and nothing wrong with it. Except, well, doesn't that mean JzG is your Moby-Dick, according to your perception of how these things work? --TS 23:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I will document either here or elsewhere the egregious lies that JzG told here and in other fora. I will start with due process on this, I've asked GWH some questions on my Talk page, and I'll determine where to go from there. It's very serious. I took JzG up to ArbComm before, and I've just been provided with a fast track, he will be a party again, and this time, we'll see if ArbComm, which warned him before, is so lenient. I'd suggest looking at RfAr/Abd and JzG. Sure, ArbComm dinged me for my style. However, the biggest complaint was that I didn't take it through dispute resolution quickly enough. If the project continues to tolerate what came down here (and with Pcarbonn before), it's dead, at least as any kind of neutral encyclopedia is concerned. It's neutral only when and where people like JzG don't sink their teeth into it. --Abd (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding JzG - I don't see a problem personally but when I have imposed a sanction on one party in a multiparty dispute of some sort and not the other one, and it's raised back up, I ask for additional uninvolved third-party admin review. I would encourage other admins to review Guy's conduct and comment here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin and I have not looked specifically at the recent events. But in an earlier case to which this one looks superficially very similar, JzG went to great lengths, including misrepresenting facts and then refusing to communicate when it was pointed out, in order to keep a convenience link out of the Martin Fleischmann article. Up till then I had thought that JzG really cares about BLP. But in that instance he fought with unfair means just to make it harder for readers to read Fleischmann's own account of his fall into disgrace. If he is trying the same stunt again now (as I said I haven't checked this), then a sanction would be more than appropriate. See Talk:Martin Fleischmann/Archive 1 for the previous incident, which unfortunately was a very chaotic discussion. (In the end JzG lost because he was verifiably wrong, but that's hard to see.) Hans Adler 01:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for efficiency

GWH, thanks. (And thanks as well to Hans Adler.) I've made some serious charges about JzG, and I see that Hans has confirmed a piece of them (JzG continued that behavior with lenr-canr.org in other places, including, most recently, at meta in the place cited by GWH). However, this is probably not the best venue to consider them.

If GWH persists with his ban (I can see why he'd think this ban appropriate, and I was banned for so long -- way over a year -- that a bit more time is trivial), then I have a fast track to ArbComm, and I assume that I'd raise the underlying issues, which ArbComm did address before. JzG, among other misrepresentations, hasn't told the true story of my ban and the basis for it, and this is what he also did with Pcarbonn in January. So, GWH, if you see the basis for some kind of restriction for JzG, you can issue it, under the same discretionary sanctions as you applied to me. You could also do that later, after more review of the evidence, or you can do it temporarily, pending review. I'm fine for this to close as-is and we can continue, you and I, discussing the ban to see if ArbComm can be avoided. Let's keep it simple.

I'm not big on banning anyone, but I'm not so happy when editors try to ban others because they disagree with them. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and pending revisions

I have a quick question concerning how to handle vandalism within a "pending revision". Obviously, in a case of vandalism the pending revision should not be accepted. Under those circumstances, is it still correct to issue the standard escalating warning to the user who attempted to vandalize an article (I use Twinkle for doing this), or is some other warning type more appropriate? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes don't modify vandalism warnings. If it's so egregious I would have blocked without a warning, I will continue to do so despite the fact that some Wikipedia users were prevented from seeing the vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is vandalism, even if it's, shall we say... say... nevermind, I can't come up with a good analogy... Either way, it's non-constructive, it's against policy, and vandalism to PC-protected articles should be reverted and the user warned, just like any other vandal. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the advice. I will continue to apply warnings as I did before the introduction of "pending revisions". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Y'all should also probably update this. Steveozone (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

Hi! There is a backlog of two hours, in some cases, over at WP:AIV. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unbacklogged. T. Canens (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Should bots ever have reviewer rights?

I notice that some bots, such as XLinkBot (talk · contribs), have reviewer rights. This is inadvisable under the current configuration of the pending changes software, since it can result in the automatic acceptance of vandalism. Suppose that an article under the highest level of pending changes protection (accept=reviewer), is vandalized by user A. Subsequently, user B adds a prohibited external link, which is reverted by XLinkBot. The resulting revision, still containing the vandalism by user A, will be automatically accepted. (Also see the discussion of other automatic acceptance problems at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Design_flaw_in_pending_changes_protection.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think it would be the same with adminbots - do they need said bit to carry out whatever tasks they are set to do? –MuZemike 05:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any bots approved specifically to review edits. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, in most cases an unneeded user right won't do any harm in the absence of a malfunction, since the bot simply won't use it. But the reviewer right causes edits to be automatically accepted whether you like it or not; the sysop bit might result in unwanted editing of fully protected pages. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As the second operator of XLinkBot, I'd like to comment here. I have been thinking about that, and actually, I don't really know. In principle, it would not be different than, say, editor A is vandalising the page, but it goes unnoticed, and editor B, with an autoreview bit (but who does not care about it), is adding some info (and ignoring the 'there are pending changes'). Of course, the bot would not care by definition, and therefore the autoreview-right should be removed. Leaving the edit unreviewed would 'enforce' an individual check of both the 'new editor's edit' and the bot edit, to see whether the link might have been of use, or was really 'in violation' of WP:COPYRIGHT/WP:NOT/WP:EL/WP:SPAM/WP:COI.

On the other hand, most of the reverts by XLinkBot would revert back to a reviewed version, and therefore it would be great if the edits were autoreviewed (as otherwise it does give a lot of work). Maybe I should have a look into the data, and see if XLinkBot could actually detect whether the to-revert-to version is reviewed, and review automatically then, leaving it unreviewed if not. (P.S. for me .. I think it is better removed, and have no objection against removal). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• When editing with the reviewer right, there's no choice to "detect whether the to-revert-to version is reviewed, and review automatically then, leaving it unreviewed if not": any revision produced as a result of the edit will be automatically accepted. Peter Karlsen (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think if a page is reverted back to a previously reviewed version, no matter who reverted it, it is automatically reviewed and accepted. Could be wrong though. NW(Talk) 13:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell from a quick perusal, XLinkBot doesn't use the rollback tool. It just loads the old revision's wikitext and saves. MediaWiki cannot tell that that is a rollback, and hence doesn't treat it any differently to any other ordinary edit in this regard. Uncle G (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that it works in this way. The revision of user A is not accepted because they, supposedly, do not have the 'autoreviewer' right. The revision of user B is not accepted either because the previous revision (of user A) is unaccepted. The revision of XLinkBot will not be accepted because the previous revision (of user B) is not approved. The undoing is actually not different from an ordinary edit. On the other hand if the edit of user B is rollbacked (to the revision of user A) as opposed to undone, the resulting revision will not be accepted as well, because the revision of user A is not accepted. This is my understanding. Ruslik_Zero 15:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Pending changes: all edits by reviewers are "visible immediately" (automatically accepted.) To prevent the inadvertent acceptance of vandalism, etc, when editing an unapproved version of a page, the edit form will display the following text: "The edit form below includes changes that have not yet been accepted." Bots not specifically designed to notice this language will simply proceed anyway, insensible to the potential problem. Furthermore, "reviewer" rights are very different from "autoreviewer" privileges, despite the similar names. Peter Karlsen (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In the case you describe, don't you have to explicitly check the box to accept the revision? –xeno^talk 15:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You're right. It seems that I'm mistaken as to exactly how the PC protection works; the issue I'm describing won't actually arise. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I've had a little look around. As far as I can see, a 'bot editing via api.php doesn't actually possess any way to check that particular checkbox when making an edit. It's simply not supplied as part of MediaWiki's editing functionality there. Uncle G (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay, then it looks like any bot (which uses api.php) can safely be run with the reviewer right (and should be, for bots that edit quite frequently, to avoid creating a backlog of unreviewed revisions that differ from the last accepted revision only by a bot edit.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The bot would have to use action=review if it wanted to mark its edit as reviewed. So yes, it can't check the "Accept the pending changes" checkbox, but it can get the same effect with little extra work if it really needs to. Anomie⚔ 16:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Ah, I see my confusion. XLinkBot is an autoreviewer .. and will not be anymore in a couple of secs. XLinkBot does not have botrights so that its edits do show up in the recent changes (both to catch real spammers on the fly, as well as keeping an eye on its reverts for various reasons). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)strike that .. the bot is reviewer .. I am too confused, logging off and coming back tomorrow. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Xeno asked me to comment here about User:DASHBotAV running with autoreviewer:

The bot has one job: To revert vandalism found in the article,file,category, and template space. I thought giving autoreviewership to anti-vandalism bots was standard procedure, but alas I could not find any policy page that verifies my suspission. I am neutral on this issue, and grant full permission for the bot to be de-autoreview-ed (gosh that's a mouthfull). Regards, Tim1357^talk 03:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on my revised understanding of the technical aspects of flagged protection, that shouldn't be necessary; bots can safely be run with the reviewer right, since only modifications of previously approved revisions will be automatically reviewed. Peter Karlsen (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in giving a flagged bot "autoreviewer" (a.k.a. Autopatrolled), as flagged bots already have the autopatrol right. As noted above, the "autoreviewer" group has nothing to do with the "reviewer" group. Anomie⚔ 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD / redirect issue

Someone has turned the Revelations redirect page, which used to and should redirect to Revelation (동음이의), into an Iron Maiden song stub. The Revelations page is now up for AfD, so I don't believe anyone can just change it back to a redirect since that would wipe the AfD notice (right?)

What's the right way to fix this? I apologize if this is not the right place to ask this. 28bytes (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The AfD seems to be heading towards a redirect, so I'd just wait it out. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've split out the new revisions pertaining to the song and merged them with Revelations (Iron Maiden song). The AFD will continue regarding that page. The OP is slightly inaccurate however: prior to the redirect becoming an article it redirected to Revelation; after the history split, it now points there again. I have no opinion on which target is better. –xeno^talk 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Xeno. 28bytes (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Blicking of the article “People of the Bayan” by a group of users without needed foundation by a way redirect of it to other article from different field.

Could you help to stop dishonest behaviour of some users at discussion of our article People of the Bayan please?

We have found two cases looks like falsification of some writings down and commentaries. Jeff300 and MARuseePESE constantly block the article People of the Bayan by a way of redirection of it to the art. Babism and they did it such soon as they could. They did the redirection without any explanation in writing 11:25, 9 September 2010 Smkolins (talk contribs) () and 10:11, 9 September 2010 Jeff3000 (talk contribs) () on page Revision history of People of the Bayan, but after our notes they placed their answer by back date. We call such their actions “hooliganism” (a form of vandalism), but they had placed their explanations by something and back date, and our note “hanged”. And now those users are propagating our notes on all commentaries to the People of the Bayan. We think that the actions of Jeff300 and MARuseePESE are dishonest, and we have not known where and how many times they used such their abilities in the discussion.

We also have not known who helped them from administrators. We did not wait for such their actions and did not do any archive of history of the discussion and now at once we are not able to find all cases of their dishonest actions. Therefore, if fact of their dishonest actions be corroborated, we ask administrators will block of those users in order to they have not any access to us because relationships have to be honest.

Itself discussion around of redirections of the article People of the Bayan on the article Babism is about nothing (see Talk:People of the Bayan. It is similar with intellectual trolling. That wrangle has been led to absurdity, since Jeff3000 and MARuseePESE say that the religion of the Bayan, which is motherly religion for religion of Bahai, is not in the nature. Bahai declare that the Holy Book of the religion of the Bayan is their own, e.g. the Holy Book of the religion of Bahai and they spiritually abolish the main its part on right of “owner”.

People of the Bayan believe that the religion of Bahai is a heresy. Bahai believe that the religion of the People of the Bayan is not and about that they have writings on different levels, from original writings of Baha to academic research and their chronicles, which they read, and on which they do notes in discussions. All rest sources, including the same levels, they ignore. They have a few technologies of ignorant. For example, they declare Holy Book of other religion of their property and as owner prohibit it (see above), or they change up status of academic publishing till a level higher than level of Holy Scripture, and therefore inaccessible and not understandable level for inhabitants and understandable only for “selected”, who interpret the source by in light of their thinking. For instance, Jeff3000 do such with works of Prof. E.G. Browne (see Jeff3000 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC) and Jeff3000 (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC) on page Talk:People of the Bayan). They also impose arbitrary rule changing status of Scripture, for example, The Persian Bayan is Holy Scripture for a number of other religions and not historical book or Old Testament.

Probably, here whole team of fighters of religion war is, not only Jeff3000 and MARuseePESE. It is not excluded that similar fighters are and among administrators. They are determined by monotony of their falsifications. We are needed to write about that since without studying of regularity and reasons of the falsification in commentaries, it is difficult to understand the hidden false argumentation in their commentaries and to understand their co-ordinated actions. Inventcreat (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the Talk:People of the Bayan page, I am not personally convinced that the complaint is well justified. The other editors involved do indicate that reliable sources say the People of the Bayan are practicers of Babaism, so it could reasonably be redirected there. If you would want to make it a separate article, I think it would be incumbent on you to find reliable sources as per WP:RS which clearly indicate that the People of the Bayan are not adherents of Babaism. Without that evidence, I don't think there would be any real basis for having separate articles. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Inventcreat, I think you are looking for dispute resolution. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear John Carter, have you tried to look through the article “People of the Bayan” itself?

Not all from the people of the Bayan practise the Babism, for a part of them the Babism is station of Forerunner. In the article the talking does not going about contemporary variety of followers/movements among the people of the Bayan. It has got limit only by historically reliable information, which be in keeping with WP:PS, for example, publications of the beginning of the 20-th century. Inventcreat (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ƒETCHCOMMS, We think it is still early to address to Arbitration with the article “People of the Bayan” and with the discussion. Many such things are, on which it can pay attention. For instance, algorithm, which has been used by Jeff3000 in the discussion about the article, contains logical operations of allegation: 1. primary sources are not secondary ones, 2. secondary sources are not primary ones, 3. third part sources are not secondary ones. Using the algorithm and accompanying it by examples (primary source and its name) description can take a form of reality, under which one can write any opinion even opposite. If we think it is better do not do it then it will be better to read itself the article “People of the Bayan”. Inventcreat (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, It would be good to protect the article “People of the Bayan” from vandalism even if temporary. Maybe in a time, when religion passions around of the article are calmed, users will start to read and to think, but will not press on the button “re-direction” as soon as their fingers can do it. If pretensions are to the article that possibly in a time some offers and observations to the article will come to a head. Possibly discussion will be consisted. Inventcreat (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, During the period from 17:28, 2 August to 10:00, 12 October passed 1576 hours and for the time the article “People of the Bayan” was accessible only 46 hours. It was done by users De728631, Jeff3000, Smkolins and (MARussellPESE). They redirected the article “People of the Bayan” to the article “Babism” 12 times, and they no one have shown why the articles are the same, or why one of them includes into itself other. In our opinion the article “People of the Bayan” have enough notes as on primary sources, and academic (secondary) sources, and third part sources (news).

The users, who redirected, ignore the article “People of the Bayan” itself and the notes on sources in the article. Anonymous users turn by deficiency for Wikipedia in the case since the anonymous users present interests of corporations, which are not registered in Wikipedia, but they conduct their own policy and at that play by policy of Wikipedia. Now we are researching deep of the latent corruption of Wikipedia on example of round block of the article. Inventcreat (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for a community topic ban of User:Tao2911 from Eido Tai Shimano and related pages

I first came upon this editor as a result of a post to the WP:BLPN in June 2010. Having tried hard, I now believe that this editor is a not net contributor to this article or related ones. User:Tao2911;s edits shown the classic signs disruptive editors. Many editors have noted the repeated problems with NPOV and violations of BLP policy. Since June 2010, the editor has been attempting to insert poorly sourced negative material into the biography of a living person Eido Tai Shimano. His edits have been the subject of multiple postings to the BLPN and reliable sources noticeboard by different editors; July 2010 July 2010 July 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010

The editor's conduct has been discussed on ANI in July 2010 and previously for issues related to other articles. The editor has been warned on their talkpage about personal attacks,"point violations", BLP violations and edit warring.

Of particular concern is their disregard for our BLP and V policies. S/he has used poor sourcing (e.g. blogs) but more worringly has repeatedly inserted material that are not in the citations given.(see [53][54][55][56][57][58]). Their edits are also slanted and breach NPOV standards. e.g.[59]. Editwarring against multiple editors to protect their preferred version has also occurred on multiple occasions (see the article logs for September/October for example [60]) In addition to the article related problems, Tao2911 attacks other editors, accusing them of vandalism, being "pro-Shimano fascist sexist trolls" bias, whitewashing and censorship, and has made disruptive, point making edits.

Besides the examples given above, the most recent edits are a case in point. Recently returned from an edit warring block, Tao2911 has, without any discussion as requested and commenced on the talkpage to delete sourced information that had been agreed to by editors on the talkpage, and more problematically still, to insert negative false material (in that it is contradicted by the citations given) :ie in this edit s/he adds "some of" to the sentence about Shimano's denials of allegations of sexual misconduct, a limitation not found in the sources given. This has been reverted, quite correctly, by another editor. In July User:EyeSerene explained that this kind of problematic, tendentious editing, especially on a BLP might eventually lead to sanctions.[61]. Several other editors have asked for restrictions on Tao2911 [62][63] I think we've tried long enough to help this editor learn the kind of standards (editorially and behaviourally) required on WP and especially a BLP article. It appears the editor is able to make useful contributions on other articles, and indeed one they have edited Adi Da was recently made a Good Article. However, the time has come for Tao2911 to be topic banned from this page and from any related pages that deal with Shimano, though perhaps others have other ideas. Slp1 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Slp1 gives a fair summary of events, and I concur with his request. I first visited the Shimano page after discovering it through WP:BLPN. Not knowing the history, at first I was sympathetic towards Tao's position. However, his disinclination to discuss things reasonably quickly changed that opinion. I am disturbed not only by what seems to me to be a tendency to accuse others of conspiracy when others disagree with him, but also by the pattern of highly tendentious editing. In Tao's absence, reasonable progress was made toward a consensus on this contentious article. That progress has been nullified by his edits and comments. His edits to Shimano are routinely improper per the BLP rules, and his interactions are difficult to perceive as good-faith discussions. It's definitely time for something more than a slap on the wrist, especially given Tao's history, as summarized above by Slp1. In my opinion, Tao's primary contribution to the Shimano page has been to unite opposing editors—through disbelief at his actions. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

After Slp1 summary and macwhiz statement I do not have much to add. While discussing matters in Shimano talk page, as well as in BLPN or RSN, I was struck by the manners of Tao and they way he responds to me and other editors. By now all of us, involved in editing this page, reached limit and it does not look we can find a way to cooperate with him. There is a consistent pattern in the way Tao is sabotaging efforts of others, who try to make this page balanced and complete. I support the request for banning Tao2911 from editing this and related pages. Spt51 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I got involved after seeing the issue raised at various noticeboards as detailed by Slp1 above, and have intermittently followed events since July. I have seen numerous examples confirming that Tao2911 will not understand basic procedures regarding a WP:BLP and sources. Reading various news reports makes it obvious what a Buddhist teacher has been doing for many years, but reliable reports use quite mild language, while Tao2911 would prefer something more direct. I endorse Slp1's statement above, and if no better solution can be found, I support a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Tao 2911 will not understand basic procedures regarding a WP:BLP and sources". Reading today's discussion in POV section on Shimano page I am sorry to say, but I feel even stronger that he should be banned. Personally, I have a problem with they way he responds to editors and the language he uses. It was pointed out to him, but still the same pattern. Can someone explain to him what is appropriate and what is not? Spt51 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand WP:BLP perfectly clearly. Ban me, and you will simply hand the page to a concert of biased editors who wish to remove all mention of scandals surrounding Eido Shimano that have directly resulted in his retirement. I'm not going to draft the long list of dif's that would show this activity on behalf of partisan editors (Spt51 seems to have joined WP for this purpose) - a long list it would be, indeed - but check out the page history for yourselves. All I argue for again and again is a succinct description of the scandals that the New York Times describes as having "rocked the American Buddhist community."Tao2911 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Alphathon made me fear getting blocked

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Defining "involved admin" more explicitly

I've started a discussion on this with a draft proposal here. Roger Davies ^talk 10:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposing community ban

Rai Muhammad Saleem Bhatti

Rai Muhammad Saleem Bhatti continues to make disruptive edits to biographical articles despite all our warnings. The user has made no attempts to communicate. Is the next step a request for comment, mediation, or can this concern be handled here? I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rai Muhammad Saleem Bhatti. Marcus Qwertyus 20:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that i would bother working on the RFC any further. This user has never edited an article talk page and has never responded to any comments on their own talk page. It's kind of hard to come to a voluntary agreement with someone who won't even speak to you. Let's see if he can show at least enough cluefullness to come here and explain themselves. This is a collaborative project, users need to be willing and able to communicate with other users. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. MarcusQwertyus 03:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Went back to check on him, and while combing through his contribs discovered very compelling evidence he is a WP:DUCK of User:Rai muhammad saleem akram bhatti, therefore now indef blocked for being a block evading sock account. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A new game with the featured article

Just as a heads up for those admins who don't watch TFA or RfPP, but yesterday (Shield nickel) and today (Convoy GP55) there's been IP vandalism to redirect the TFA to [The Game (mind game)] (intentionally not wikilinked), which has resulted in batches of short semi-protection. It would be helpful if other admins could keep an eye out. Ta. GedUK 08:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not just TFA; I reverted this [64] yesterday. Seems to be a variant on rickrolling, might need an edit filter. Acroterion _(talk) 12:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And this [65] by the same IP, now blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 14:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

They need to free themselves: [66] --Golbez (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it is, having read the article, an attempt to make people lose the game, by making our most prominent articles redirect. An edit filter should be fairly simple to do, I'll make a request. GedUK 14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Related: TheGamer123 (talk · contribs). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Grr...Aside from the fact that I just lost the game, is an edit filter the best way to handle this? I'm just wondering what would happen if anyone needs to make a legitimate redirect sometime in the future, would there still be a way to do so? Overall, small concern, and assuming an edit filter will do the trick of stopping the redirecting, I'd say go for it and cross the bridge I just mentioned when the time comes. Ks0stm^(T•C•G) 15:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The filter can be set to deny non-autoconfirmed editors and to warn others. Acroterion _(talk) 15:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for clearing that up. Ks0stm^(T•C•G) 16:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Filter 363, set to log only for now, editcount threshold 50. No hits yet. Thanks to EdoDodo. Acroterion _(talk) 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't imagine this will persist, so that's probably all the action we need to take, save for reverting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Filter got a few hits. Since all of them looked alright and there were no false positives I have gone ahead and changed it to disallow the edit. - EdoDodo ^talk 20:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I lose! --TS 00:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. The edit filter is doing quite a good job of catching the vandalism, and it seems to be quite common (about a dozen hits a day), so I'll leave it enabled. If the filter misses any edits, please let me know, preferably by email. - EdoDodo^talk 16:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's still picking it up. Good work I think! GedUK 11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bitches, I am the game. HalfShadow 23:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh-huh... GedUK 11:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work with the Edit Filter. On point of procedure, though - does the notice that says their edit was disallowed also inform them that they lost the game? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ban Rich Zubaty

Username block advice

Adahater101 (talk · contribs) appeared on my watchlist after vandalising articles about two communities in Hardin County, Ohio, including the city of Ada. Given the username and the edits, I've levied an indefinite block, but I'm not sure which template to place: in cases such as this, is it more appropriate to use {{Uw-ublock}} or {{Uw-uhblock}}? By themselves, the edits aren't enough to warrant a block, but even if the user had made only constructive edits to these articles, I would have blocked on a username basis alone, and that's the thing I want to concentrate on for the block message. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I mention this user's edits of Hardin County topics because of the city of Ada — if there were no Ada in Hardin County or the surrounding area, I wouldn't have realised that the username was "Ada Hater". Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, I simply use {{uw-voablock}} for an SPA like that. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 2#June 2010 West Bank shooting

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 2#June 2010 West Bank shooting? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus to overturn in there. Secret ^account 01:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

RL0919, thank you for your thoughtful close. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

I noticed that several editing restrictions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions have expired. Some have been expired for 8+ months. Should they be removed from the list? I would do it myself, but based on the nature of the page I thought I should ask first. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. It is helpful to know that users used to be under editing restrictions, especially when they fall back into old habits. --Jayron32 05:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but maybe the list could be cleand up by placing the expired restrictions in a new section at the bottom of the list. If said section gets too large, it can always be moved to a subpage. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable solution. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that logs of former restrictions should only be on a subpage, not on the main page; that this subpage shouldn't be transcluded on the main page; and that if we create it, we look back at the history and make sure to include all the ones which have been removed form the page. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Community restrictions are up to date anyway; if any are out of date, they are ArbCom's, so I'll make them aware. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio on Main Page

The Joan Sutherland image is a crop of this photo: http://www.nndb.com/people/674/000083425/ And the original uploader has a talk page red with copyright violations. Please delete and replace! Thanks Hekerui (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted T:ITN to the previous image. Original uploader was Conmaleta (talk), I agree that image does seem to be taken from here. Still looking into this. TFOWR 21:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As we are not using the copyvio image, I have deleted the local crop. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Criticisms?

Does the noticeboard belong there? I haven't seen any prior discussion of this. Enigma^msg 20:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I found it. Fixing now. Enigma^msg 20:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I think that was me. Sorry. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Snow?

Perhaps a previously uninvolved admin could take a moment to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Norgrove, to determine whether a snow close is in order? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though there's very, very little chance this article gets deleted, I think there would be far less drama if the AfD were to remain open for the full 7 days. -Atmoz (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is very informative for the discussion currently underway at WT:NOT. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute

This is a heads up for a proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute See: Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#RFC: Proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute -- PBS (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

General question

Given the various things that Wikipedia is not, is there anything that can be done about an editor when 94% of their edits are to Wikipedia space, article talk or user talk, and under 5% are actually article edits? (And no template or category edits at all, but a few to files.) Such an editor seems to be here to discuss, or push a POV, not to improve the encyclopedia. Can anything be done, or is everything dependent on there being bad behavior from the editor? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To the point: That sort of editing distribution wouldn't be surprising if an editor primarily contributed media (sounds, pictures) and did some related WP space work, such as helping with the featured sound or featured picture candidates. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it you are not going to tell us who you are talking about? Anyway, if there is no "bad behavior" then why should we "do something" to them? Sure, it would be nice if fewer folks spent their entire time here griping and fighting and actually worked on the encyclopedia instead, but i don't believe there is any rule that says they have to. If you can provide evidence that they are here to push some POV agenda that is another matter, but if they just don't work on articles but aren't actually causing a disruption it's probably best to just ignore them as much as possible. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You could ask them if they have considered running for adminship - nobody misses my article contributions... LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Those willing to spend a lot of time sorting out the mechanics of wikipedia, resolving disputes, helping other users, etc. are just as valuable as those who contribute large amounts of content to the encyclopaedia. You're proposing we sanction constructive editors who happen to do most of their work out of article space? You may as well start with me then (and LessHeard vanU) Sorry for volunteering you there ;). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My pie slice is pretty close to what you're describing, actually. sonia♫ 09:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mine comes a hell of a lot closer. When I first read this post I was almost certain the OP was talking about me. Though art the man as Nathan said to David. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think the take-home message here is that while wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, there are many ways of editing constructively without focussing on mainspace, and I suspect that attempting to sanction users who choose to operate primarily in non-mainspace areas will result in the end of wikipedia as we know it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for the opinions, I appreciate them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mind you, this is not the venue to get a really project wide range of opinions - mostly because a lot of the people who may take the alternative view to those expressed above are occupied in the writing of content. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• @LHVU: Yes... well, I wasn't thinking about admins, who obviously have legitimate reasons to spend a lot of time in places other than mainspace - although, even there, I think the best admins remain well-involved with article editing, which is (after all) our core. In any event, what other venue would you recommend as a place to get a wider range of views? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Some people ^[who?] might consider that now the encyclopedia has grown so rapidly, it has reached a "Maintenance Phase" and as such article edits are less crucial. I seem to recall this being discussed over at everyone's favourite website for the mentally un-hinged rather more sanely then on Wikipedia as it goes. The irony was delightful. Pedro : Chat 21:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The obvious flaw in the maintenance phase argument is that the overwhelming majority of wikipedia's articles are complete shite. Why have a corps of knights janitors dedicated to the maintenance of shite? MalleusFatuorum 22:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is so that all articles either do not become more shitty (this applies to all of them - good or bad) or are flushed down the toilet. Airplaneman ✈ 22:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well there are always WP:Alternative outlets. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And the relevance of your comment with that rather unhelpful and insulting blue link is what? MalleusFatuorum 22:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know that if you want to call all of our collective contributions "shite", no one's forcing you to contribute to the project. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you do NPP, you do run into a lot of this. Airplaneman ✈ 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. My contributions to the improvement of WP is by (gently) nudging articles that have to business here out the back door. This typically involves me tagging an article and dropping notices on the author's talk page. This means that I'm getting about 1~3 User talk notices for every mainspace edit? Does this make me a bad WikiPedian? Hasteur (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the learned GiftigerWunsch is of the opinion that my time would be better spent elsewhere, and he may well be right. His reasoning is faulty on several levels though, but I can't be bothered to argue with him. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• The concept that we are in the maintenance phase by no means is meant to indicate that Wikipedia is "finished" and just needs upkeep. The idea is that, for the most part, we already have article on subjects that are actually notable. It's also true that many of those articles suck ass and need lots of help. The problem is that instead of helping our existing articles most new users, and some very experienced ones as well, just want to keep creating new articles so they have bragging rights or whatever, and will stretch the concept of notability to rather absurd extremes in order that they might be allowed to keep creating articles instead of working on the several million articles that are already in dire need of cleanup, better sourcing, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed; unfortunately while randomly looking up some random terms I want extra information about, I almost invariably find myself making at least a few clean-up edits to that article while doing so. Without the many editors dedicated to helping clean up articles, as well as helping to resolve conflicts which would lead to serious problems in mainspace, I shudder to think what description Malleus might reserve for wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • if you're looking for a fight then you've come to the right shop. I'd suggest instead though that you consider engaging your brain before posting here again. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (Reply to Beeblebrox) It's an awful lot more more work to improve an article than it is to write a new one, and as you say, it comes with far fewer bragging rights. Little wonder that so many prefer to write new crap. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Obviously a stub is ripe for expansion and improvement. A more mature article may require more work to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and a willingness to grasp the topic at hand, realise what is and what is not important to a reader's understanding of the topic; but doing that really only requires some general knowledge and an ability to take the time to work on it. This is not only a learning process on the part of the editor, but also is a valuable input into improving "defective" articles". Maybe not an ideal development process, but at least a step forward, if done properly. But my experience is that such steps will only be taken by those with the confidence in their own ability so to do. So bald statements about competence really do not help. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are you disagreeing with? MalleusFatuorum 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean you don't know?Rodhullandemu 00:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No I don't know, so I ask you again. Who were you disagreeing with? MalleusFatuorum 01:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing both you and Giftiger. There is really no use arguing over this; it is a waste of time better spent elsewhere, helping this encyclopedia become less shitty. Airplaneman ✈ 02:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the original poster (& ignoring a lot of unhelpful comments), I think the most important factor in your hypothetical situation lies in your comment, "Such an editor seems to be here to discuss, or push a POV, not to improve the encyclopedia." If someone's intent is not to improve the encyclopedia, then it really doesn't matter where they are active: we don't want them. I only hope that anyone betraying this intent in meta space will be shown the door faster than in any topic area. On the other hand, if they are contributing in apparent good faith, that will make matters more difficult to resolve. -- llywrch (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@Llywrhc - "Good faith" is an interesting thing -- I have no doubt that the editor in question is being perfectly straight-forward about expressing their opinions, but it's still POV-pushing nonetheless. They certainly aren't dedicated to NPOV, and it's a contentious topic area, but still... Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

When I saw the original question, I was immediately reminded of a certain editor who contributes almost nothing to the encyclopedia other than jokes and pure personal opinion, especially at ANI. I have occasionally brought this up, but for some reason this person seems to be too popular to get even an ANI ban through against them. The editor is apparently part of a subculture that seems to be forming around WP:Reference desk. (There is nothing wrong with the reference desk, but involvement in that doesn't qualify anyone for discussions related to encyclopedic content or behaviour of editors in article space, and is most certainly not an excuse for consistently providing personal opinion where rational arguments are required.) HansAdler 10:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@HA - What a wonderfully coy passive-aggressive comment! No, I'm afraid the editor you speak of does not meet the profile I was referring to, since his percentage of article edits is more than 5 times larger than I specified. Nice try though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

At first I thought you must be talking about someone else, because when I checked with WikiChecker for the user's last 10000 edits I found a a little less than 10%, not 25%. But fortunately when I wanted to recheck right now it was down and I found X!'s edit counter instead, which I guess is where you have the number from. The user's editing pattern seems to have shifted almost completely from editing an encyclopedia to social networking. In any case I only said who came to my mind when I saw your question. Hans Adler 20:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns about an editors motives / intentions then you should be glad that 94% of their edits are on talkpages where they can do no damage to the article content itself without others assisting them. Out of control talkpages with POV flying around in all directions is in my opinion far less problematic than an editor making a large number of POV edits to articles which seriously undermines wikipedias status as a neutral source of information. There are no rules about how much or how little someone need contribute to this project, its all voluntary. If they have not violated the rules, they have not done anything wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@BW: Yes, I considered that very point, better on the talk page then in the article, but (as I'm sure you know) such an editor, here to push and not to improve, can make talk pages an absolute hell-hole and destroy any hope of there being a collegial atmosphere; therein lies the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

BMK, I guess you & I don't exactly agree on what "contributing in good faith" means. My usual approach to problems on Wikipedia is based on the principle of least work. For example, my usual approach to other Wikipedians I find problematic is to simply ignore them -- unless they do or write something I feel is so stupid that I'm compelled to respond. Another approach to problematic Wikipedians is to have an off-Wiki discussion with them. In both of these tactics -- ignoring or an off-Wiki discussion -- an individual doing what you described above in good faith will likely stop do that. (Well, I hope that one would.) The reason that if someone is truly contributing to Wikipedia in good faith, she/he will cease unproductive or harmful behavior once they are aware people don't approve of it; this is the principle behind the rule "It is easy to make useful contributors leave, but no matter how hard you try unuseful ones never will."

Now your further statement that "an editor, here to push and not to improve, can make talk pages an absolute hell-hole and destroy any hope of there being a collegial atmosphere", sheds more light on the issue. If this kind of person is disrupting the work on talk pages, despite all attempts, both direct & indirect, to convince them to knock it off, she/he is not acting in good faith. Sometimes the solution which requires the least work is a straight-out, bum's rush indefinite block of a person. There are some people who don't get it, don't want to get it, or never will get it, & if a clue-by-four like that doesn't make it clear they need to change their ways, nothing will. -- llywrch (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer the orginal question about can anything be done to the unnamed editor, I would leave them alone unless they have broken some rule which I don't see. This project needs every type/area of editor possible! Even the one who only jokes around on ANI, believe it or not. I always use the Grateful Dead analogy and Bill Graham's quote: They might not be the best at what they do, but they are the only ones who do what they do. To try to compile the sum of ALL human knowledge, editable by 6 billion folks, needs the largest spectrum of contributors possible....for better or worse of course ;)....--Threeafterthree (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages#Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes

This was closed, but no result was posted. (actually it looks like the initial close was contested[68]) Wondering if an uninvolved admin (or an uninvolved anyone else) would care to take a crack at adding a closing statement that reflects the results, as it now stands there is no summary, it's just boxed. Even "no consensus" would be better than no statement at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I am uninvolved, and I totally agree with the original closing statement of "No consensus to change wording or to allow vandalism sandboxes". However, I let someone else a little bit more experienced add a closing statement. -Atmoz (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"You've Got" the Touch

Can someone please histmerge You've Got the Touch and "You've Got" the Touch? It seems there was a copypaste move at some point. The correct page is "You've Got" the Touch. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, I'm not sure which version you want to display the actual content so I just restored the most recent non-redirect edit. I hope this works out well. —Soap— 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

New admin question re deletion log

An account that just showed up at UAA created, as its first action, the article Firing of U.S. Inspector General Gerald Walpin controversy. This has the look to me of a previously created article, but I can't find it by searching the deletion log. I'm wondering if there is a better method of searching for deleted articles that match a set of criteria, or if I'm simply doing something wrong. (Or, of course, if the article is really new in spite of the circumstances.) Looie496 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably looking for this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it's banned user User:Grundle2600. Deleted, blocked. WP:RBI. Rd232 ^talk 01:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there really is a way to search redlinks for content that was once there but now isn't. One can however make searches like this one to try to look for AFDs that might match. NW(Talk) 01:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Grundle needs a new hobby... --Jayron32 02:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

D'oh, it never occurred to me I could search for the AfD. Thanks. Looie496 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies

• Fox News Channel controversies (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Fox News Channel, Fox News Channel controversies, user:SemDem
• [69]

It appears this article has received a large amount of off-wiki requests for editing. The article has had to be protected twice, and I'm pessimistic about its future given the tone on the talk page. The recent RFC is something ridiculous like 250KB, and as you can see above, there is clear evidence of off-site canvassing. Is there some sort of sanctions we can draw up concerning this article without involving ArbCom? I'm afraid I stepped into an ugly mess by protecting this article, a mess I'm not prepared to see through to the finish lest it eat up all my time here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Even ArbCom might not be able to handle such a large case if comments from meatpuppets swamped the case page. I haven't been involved in this, but if it is a very major issue, I'd keep up the fullprot, start a new RfC with clear organization and clear goals, and then hope for consensus some way or another. Then, any editor who breaches the terms of the RfC can be warned, then blocked, without more arguing about. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest that we place the article (and any related ones, as necessary) under community-based General Sanctions similar to Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions immediately, to head off the problem before it becomes unmanageable. It has been done in the past, with mixed results, but I think it is worth trying in cases of off-wiki collaboration or meatpuppeting. We could either use AN/ANI for enforcement request, or establish a separate sanctions noticeboard, or even revive WP:CSN to handle community-enacted probation enforcement. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, we could probably apply this to most of the pages in Category:Criticisms and its subcats, which are almost universally problem articles. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am pessimistic about the need for a separate noticeboard. AN/ANI should work fine (as would simply merging the general sanctions noticeboards and WP:AE). The idea about the use of discretionary sanctions is a good one though. NW (Talk) 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Community Sanctions idea WordSmith makes a good argument and its much needed IMO, it will also centralize allow us to centralize and future discussions and actions The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support CS Seems reasonable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that community probation will be helpful here. I'd be happy to endorse the protection in a way that that it doesn't become a centre of controversy, but I don't see the point of us going into this repeated cycle of where we impose this then it eventually needs to go to ArbCom anyway and then ArbCom accepts and then they impose discretionary sanctions which go hand in hand with AE. That's all that I can foresee from the suggestions so far. An alternative is changing this into a Community request that ArbCom impose discretionary sanctions (without, at this time, trying to address specific individual editors, which would be the real time-eater); that seems more suitable for the particular circumstances here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What I'm proposing is not like the failed Climate Change sanctions, rather I want standard discretionary sanctions, but without the months-long hassle of an Arbcom case. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The issue is that WP:AE is an AC page; if anything gets confusing or goes wrong, AC puts a lid on it (as they know the circumstances of the case for which they put discretionary sanctions - particularly ones which are especially drafted for a particular topic). When CC probation was enacted, they thought they importing something that was standard (they happened to copy every textual bit of Obama probation, as well as every page) - the reason it failed was for that same reason; what I'd specifically drafted for Obama probation with a specific type of operation doesn't to work in all other disputes; it's not quite-so "standard". Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support community sanctions. I assume the concern is that ArbCom discretionary sanctions will take too long to handle the ever-mounting piles of unpleasantness over there. I also like the idea that the community acts of its own accord to define certain topics as so contentious that they need to be editing more slowly, carefully, and civilly. It's bad when individual admins try to start imposing such rules, but if there is enough community support to say "Hey! Calm down already!" it seems like a good thing to me. Of course, we'll need wider input for this....Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• This section got prematurely archived, i'm putting it back. What is the next step here? The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No it didn't; it was archived due to inactivity. A project-wide scheme cannot be put in place on the basis of limited input otherwise the entire project would be free to use discretionary sanctions (in reality, the Community specifically rejected this). The next step is for administrators to demonstrate that they've used all of the tools available to them in this area; that may include making a few proposals in relation to specific editors here with the specific restrictions they have in mind and seeing how the Community respond to these, and in more clear cases, blocks. If it does turn out that all the restrictions that need to be imposed have been via the Community, there's no need for anything else because it's just a handful of editors (some of whom might be treated as a single entity). If it doesn't, that's when your proposal will be ready for enactment. Steps need to be taken before shortcuts can be used. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It appears that everyone except you is in favor of some sort of community sanctions scheme, so now we need to determine the exact scope and process for handling issues. If we want to revive CSN, we'll probably need either an RFC or a thread on the Village Pump, to attract a wider consensus. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support community sanctions. As proposed by The Wordsmith (talk · contribs), with the note about location by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs). A logical, rational, sensible, and reasonable proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions

It looks like we have some sort of consensus that sanctions on this specific article is a good idea. Where do we start? The sanctions must address two things:

1. The meatpuppetry and WP:SPA's.
2. The edit warring by long existing parties

Putting a blanket 1RR sanction would address #2, but not #1. I'm open to ideas. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to determine specifics for a few different parts of the proposed sanctions, so I have created a few subsections below. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added some initial thoughts at, um, sub-section #Some thoughts below. If anyone wants to move the sub-section somewhere more appropriate, please feel free to do so. Roger Davies ^talk 06:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope

This proposal seems like it would cover Fox News Channel controversy and related articles, broadly construed. However, we might want to look at expanding it to all "Criticism of..." articles, which are nearly always problematic. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Making this a general rule for all "Criticism of" articles. At best they are "problematic" and at worst they become the WP cesspool of rumours, innuendo, BLP violations, and POV pushing. Collect (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How to enforce

The gist of discretionary sanctions is that any uninvolved admin can do whatever he needs to do to maintain the peace. As far as requesting enforcement, AN/ANI is one possibility, but that place handles enough issues already, and it might be better to have a place where people can respond to complaints while they already have knowledge of the specific sanction. Therefore, I propose reopening Wikipedia:Community sanctions noticeboard as a sort of community-run WP:AE board. I'm posting to the Village Pump to attract wider attention to this issue. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Community-placed discretionary sanctions is a great idea, and a great way to nip disputes in the bud before the parties get too entrenched. However, the purpose of them is to streamline the sanctioning process so it is probably wise to build in a few safeguards. Here are some initial thoughts based on a few messy ArbCom cases:

Define the area of conflict

Best to do this broadly and to include talk pages and any Wikipedia process related to articles within the area of conflict.

Topic bans

It's best if these explicitly include article talk pages as well as associated Wikipedia processes and their talk pages, widely construed. I know that some people believe that editors should have their say, come what may, but in reality posses of heavily involved editors turning up at AfD, admin talk pages, AN/I, AE etc really games and snarls up Wiki process and so it's best to try to keep them out of the equation.

Admin discretion

This means just that. It means that an uninvolved admin can and should act on their discretion, and of their own volition, without having to wait for community consensus or the outcome of a discussion.

Uninvolved admins

The enforcement has to be done by admins not only without a dog in the fight but also appearing to have a dog in the fight. Obviously, this means they're not part of the dispute but, less obviously, it means that they don't have a recent history of fraternising with or leaning on one side or the other. This needs spelling out as WP:INVOLVED is not concise enough and perhaps over-nuanced. Perhaps something along the following lines:
For the purpose of imposing sanctions, an administrator will be considered involved if they have recently or significantly: (i) participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) interacted personally with the editor, or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, or (iii) participated in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.

Sanctions

There are more options that straight blocks and bans so perhaps include some guidance to help admins to get creative. For example:
The sanctions imposed may include: blocks of up to one year in length; topic-bans applicable to any page or set of pages and their talk pages within the area of conflict; strict revert restrictions for edit-warring; interaction bans for feuding, baiting, and incivility; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Anyhow, that's my ²/₁₀₀, Roger Davies ^talk 06:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to echo what Roger Davies has just said: with solid guidelines for the process such as those Roger has suggested, I believe that a community sanction regime, applied to an article or topic area when it becomes clear that there are recurrent problems, has the potential to be very effective in addressing these situations before the situation becomes so entrenched that little short of an Arbitration Committee case will resolve the problems. I think that timeliness of the application of community sanctions is important. If a situation has been going on for years, there may be much more limited success than if community sanctions are applied after only a few weeks or months of problematic editorial behaviour. The earlier that the battlefield mentality is deprecated, the more likely that less combative editors will return to improve the article in encyclopedic manner and repair any damage that may have taken place. Risker (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I support proposals taken to reduce edit warring and certainly prevent a repeat of the canvassing/meatpuppetry that took place over the recent RFC (no more RFCs and use of mediation instead seems like an easy solution to prevent or reduce what was basically vote rigging in the recent RFC). How the talkpage is managed though is always a rather delicate issue, what some view as "incivil" others have no problem with and think is perfectly within the rules. The focus should be on the article, not a witch hunt that takes place resulting in editors getting blocks or other sanctions applied for their comments that would be acceptable on other article talkpages but not Fox News related ones. Having such differences between articles on what is and is not allowed causes confusion and can lead to people being caught out accidentally because they think their comments are ok. Any sanctions agreed should certainly include a clear need to provide a warning to advise people their comments are unacceptable on the fox article, before any blocks are applied so they are not caught out by any change in the rules or how the rules are enforced in the area. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that I have begun drafting a proposal for standard community sanctions at User:The Wordsmith/Community sanctions. Input would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Bump. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• In response, Wordsmith, I'm glad you have the idea of CS up, but I was looking for a more specific response for this situation (though I'm glad if we can create community sanctions for every article out there). The only viable response I've seen was proposed by EdJohnston on my talk page: indefinite full-protection, with all changes made via consensus on the talk page and the {{editprotected}} template. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  EdJohnston is correct and my support goes to protection measures which are more useful to this situation at this point in time. The Community can already create Community sanctions when they actually become necessary, but some individuals are persistently trying to use this thread as a reason to re-manufacture that (when as you've said, it's not really what was being looking for in relation to this). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Defining the use and scope of "Incivility" (Terminology of the British Isles)

Can someone firstly tell where how and where the "best" place is to appeal, and have removed, the terms of a sanction?

Cheers. Secondly, I want to discuss a serious policy matter which related to this.

In the terms of the sanction place on me and Triton rocker is about a disputes over the Terminology of the British Isles. The admin Cailil has used the term "persistent incivility" and "assumptions of bad faith" for both of us. What he really means and is is banning us from is discussiing the national identity or nationalist POV of the other editors involved in this dispute - Not "incivility".

I am concern about this because the word or policy is being use to hide a different meaning.

The disputes about the terminology of the British Isles are definitely being influenced by nationalist interests - it has been going on for a long time. We need "good faith" but we also and to be realistic it. We need to be able to discuss it where it might effect content and editorsæ motivations. These sanctions are just a kind of censorship from doing so. Many of us have point out that the sanctions are completely onesided.

It is true to say that I strongly believe the motivations for the removal of the term British Isles from the Wikipedia by HighKing and other Irish editors are not logical or sincere and are nationalistically motivated. We need to be able to discuss this seriously without being blocked all the time. "Britain and Ireland", which is what they want to use, cannot be used to mean "British Isles" because the British Isles also include other islands with their own independent governments and identity.

They want to use Britain and Ireland to make Ireland equal I suppose - I accept that - but they are confusing two different uses of the terminology. It creates problems because it removes the same rights for the Isle of Man and Channel Island which are part of the British Isles and British history. They are not part of Britain and Ireland. We cannot list all 4 nations every time. "British" in British Isles is not the same as the "adjective form" Britain as in Great Britain.

The sanction was rapidly pushed through by Cailil, who is coincidentally also Irish, when both Triton rocker and I could not respond to it in anyway because we had been blocked see, sanction. Practically the only people commenting on it were those same editors we are talking about. It was also prejudiced by what was then an ongoing sockpuppet investigation Sockpuppet investigations LevenBoy which has since cleared me complete.

Because of this, I think the sanctions and the terms are wrong and unfair. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well, TR's was completely correct; a complete inability to stay within the grounds of a sanction doubled with incivility to boot. LB, I will have a look at your case, but it's half midnight here now, so it may not be until tomorrow. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at TR's behaviour he was perfectly "civil" with others. He just had the wrong, perhaps too British, sense of humour.

You are talking about something else entirely which was "your indefinite ban" to stop him adding the term British Isles to any page. I think we should question it too. The sanction being applied is completely different and even more far reaching. It is an identical censorship to me. He was also blocked during Cailil pushing through his sanction and I think he should be allowed to join this discussion. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't this already undergo review on ANI? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(answering self) Yes, on Oct 3rd - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Inappropriate sanctions imposed on Triton Rocker and LevenB, filed by a SPA, review finding was that the sanctions were appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually GWH this went in front of ANi before that again for community approval in the first instance[70]. When that ANi thread closed with only LemonMonday (that same WP:SPA account who already had this reviewed on 3/10/10) objecting I imposed the community's decision. Also the sanction is for persistent incivility and persistent failure to assume good faith as stated and as defined in policy--Cailil ^talk 00:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

For ease of reference the block and the civility parole discussion for LevenBoy was precipitated by this edit[71] which was preceded by a warning for this one [72] (warning issued by TFOWR[73]). That warning came days after LB had been blocked for incivility for these edit [74] and this one[75] made after users were asked not to comment on this page[76] (these offending edits were made after 4 earlier instances of disruption with 4 warnings - that particular issue is explained here[77])--Cailil ^talk 01:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• LevenBoy, some of your comments seem to be contributing to a battleground atmosphere (for example, "You are talking total bullshit and I've reverted your vandalism - and that is what it is. If you revert again I'll take it to AN/I." or " At the risk of being snipped, the raft of lame excuses given above for not changing to British Isles is plumbing new depths. It's all quite deplorable. In the past the so-called pro-BI editors have routinely been accused of stonewalling. Well we now know what real stonewalling is.") If you heeded the multiple warnings to avoid making inappropriate comments, and avoided such remarks, there would be no civility sanction imposed on you at this time; this is a collaborative project and your comments need to be in synch with that. When you're trying to make a point about a content issue, you can and should make the point without personalizing it or turning the area into a battlefield.
• In other words, it's not your content position which this sanction is asking you to consider changing; it's your conduct approach to this topic area which you need to consider changing. The restriction does not "muzzle" or "censor" you from contributing to the area; it restricts you to making comments that are within the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policies (without letting you take detours). If you are unwilling/unable to conduct yourself in accordance with these, you will find yourself blocked, so an alternative would be to find an area where you will be willing/able: contribute to that area until such a time that you'll avoid making inappropriate remarks. However, if you can already conduct yourself appropriately and in accordance with the site's policies in this topic/area, and you wish to continue contributing to this topic/area, then demonstrate that in your contributions and you won't be in violation of your sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A number of the contributors here seem to be missing the point. That point is in regard to the sanctions, which were unilaterally imposed by the Cailil account without consensus. I have previously remarked on this. The indiscretions of LevenBoy are quite minor and there has been a total over-reaction to this matter. As LevenBoy points out, only those from what we can call the anti-BI camp were in favour of the sanctions. In fact, the sanctions appear to have been designed to silence opposition; what do we make of this from HighKing [78]? Given that Triton Rocker is blocked with no access to talk page, and LevenBoy has only just resumed editing after a significant break, how could HighKing claim the sanctions were successful if it was not that his consideration of success was the silencing of opposition. Tis whole issue of anti-BI POV goes on and on. Surely admins identifying, however indirectly, from one side of the debate, should not be issuing sanctions on those from the other side. LemonMonday Talk 12:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing the point, too. When this was initially brought to ANI an uninvolved admin, Mjroots (talk) commented:

Agree. Wikipedia is plenty big enough for troublesome editors to find outlets for their talent away from areas where it has been shown that their editing is problematic. The alternative is to completely exclude them from the project.

When this was last reviewed an uninvolved admin, DGG (talk) commented:

I am a little startled by Lemon Monday's statement above that "imposing a version of civility on the debate, which, due to the nature of that debate, is arguably inappropriate. " -- when this apparently refers to imposing a high level of civility. Where higher levels are most needed is precisely for disputes like this--the more intractable the dispute, the greater need for a very high standard of polite behavior, because of the ease at which they can escalate. I certainly endorse Cahill's actions.

Another uninvolved admin, Georgewilliamherbert (talk), commented too:

Concur with the blocks and DGG's comment.

How many uninvolved admins need to concur with Cailil, Black Kite and myself before this matter is settled? LemonMonday, for that matter you've been told exactly what relevance Cailil's nationality has to this (i.e. none) on multiple occasions. After making your drive-by comments you disappear into the ether. The same happened when you asked for a diff of a civility issue - I provided one, but your thoughts on the matter were conspicuous by their absence. TFOWR 12:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think LemonMonday should be blocked for tag team edit-warring [79] and continuing this battleground mentality with his comment above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I just did that, and cited the very same reasons, tag-team edit warring and WP:BATTLE, plus WP:HEAR. [80] Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just going to ignore this issue but it troubles me. I am struggling to understand the definition of edit warring, anything seems to be possible to fall foul of the rule. I have received a warning and threatened with a block for edit warring on British Isles naming dispute. The time line (my clock is usually 1 hour wrong)..

• 19:45, 3 October 2010 - Highking removes templates with no debate. (removing templates)
• 20:15, 3 October 2010 Juhrere (now indef blocked) undoes Highkings edit. (restoring templates)
• 22:11, 3 October 2010 GoodDay undoes Juhrere's edit and tells him to take it to talk. (removing templates)
• 12:45, 4 October 2010 BritishWatcher - undoes GoodDays edit (restoring the templates)
• 16:47, 4 October 2010 HighKing - undoes BritishWatcher's edit (removing templates)
• 21:52, 4 October 2010 BritishWatcher - Adds a different template (more refs template)
• 15:34, 5 October 2010 BritishWatcher - Readds POV template and explains on the talk page one of the many problems (adds POV template)
• 15:57, 5 October 2010 HighKing - Undoes BritishWatcher's addition of POV template (removes POV template)
• 13:45, 8 October 2010 LemonMonday - Restores both templates

I do not believe anyones actions in the above warrant a block, not even Highking's, nobody even violated WP:1RR let alone WP:3RR. Now i understand that "Edit warring" does not always have to mean 3RR or 1RR is violated, but i do not see how the "exemption" is justified in this case. An instant 12 hour block for LemonMonday in part for "Tag team edit warring" simply for restoring tags that were removed without debate or consensus after a year, that sort of thing could apply to so many editors and reverts. My 2 edits were over 24 hours apart and were trying to restore the status quo, if it was in a WP:1RR area then i could understand it, but as far as im aware no such restrictions exist on that page. Will the next person on the naming dispute page that removes the templates be given a warning or blocked for tag team edit warring simply as others have acted previously? It hardly seems fair.

We may as well scrap 1RR an 3RR and simply say never revert anything because it can be classified as edit warring. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine that the key part is "...in part for...". If you or HighKing had also been "...continuing this battleground mentality with [your/their] comment above..." or otherwise expressing a WP:BATTLE mentality or inability to WP:HEAR then it's entirely possible that you or HighKing would also have been blocked for 24 hours. There is also the fact that by the time anyone noticed the edit warring it was mostly several days stale, which Jehochman did explain to you and HighKing. In contrast, LemonMonday's edit warring was not stale. TFOWR 11:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I still do not see how 2 edits over a period of more than 24 hours is edit warring and deserving of a block, its not even a technical breach of WP:1RR, let alone WP:3RR and yet if it was spotted at the time by the admin apparently it would justify sanction. LemonMonday made one edit restoring a template that was removed several days before, i do not see how that justifies a block either. Will the next editor to remove those templates from the article be blocked because they too are "tag team edit warring" simply for removing a template someone else removed? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A key thing to understand BW is that reverting slowly but continuously over a long period of time is just as bad as breaking 3RR inside 24 hours. The reason we have policies about edit-warring or reverting in general is becuase the abuse of the revert function (or indeed edits that partially revert a previous edit) clogs up the history of an article. WP:3RR explains that editwarring need not be fast and furious but can also be slow - both are prohibited by policy. When we find slow edit wars they are taken seriously (as you can see). Also all of you really need to remind yourself that area is under probation--Cailil^talk 14:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring slowly over a long period of time with dozens of edits backwards and forwards just spaced enough not to violate WP:3RR is one thing which i accept is problematic, but just two edits over the use of a template separated by more than 24 hours and the second after comments on the talk page, in an area that has no 1RR and sanctions only apply to adding/removing BI seems extreme. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BW, you're still missing the point that LemonMonday wasn't blocked solely for edit warring. WP:BATTLE and WP:HEAR were also cited by Ncmvocalist and Jehochman, and I repeated that in my previous reply to you. TFOWR 14:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You could have been blocked, but nobody noticed at the time. Rather than place a punitive block on your account, which isn't allowed, I left you an admonishment not to edit war further. The basic pattern should be edit-revert-discuss, not edit-revert-revert-revert-revert. That sort of repeated reverting is hopeless because it doesn't lead to a stable outcome. I didn't see any intervening discussions of the edit, just a lot of slow-reverting, but if there were discussions please do leave the diffs and I'll update the record. The take away point is quite simple: don't participate in an edit war. This isn't a borderline case at all. Jehochman^Talk 15:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well i made a number of comments on the talkpage after my original revert. These are the main ones, although there are a few others where i simply made minor alterations / corrections to other parts of my comments.

12:45, 4 October 2010 - (I undid Gooday's revert. Restoring the tags (POV and OR) removed by highking without debate after over a year) [81]

12:51, 4 October 2010 - (i create a new section on the talk page titled "tags") [82]

12:59, 4 October 2010 - (I mention another problem) [83]

13:00, 4 October 2010 - (I respond to James saying theres still a ton of citation tags in the article which is enough to be concerned about) [84]

13:01, 4 October 2010 - (i add to previous comment, no problem with tags being removed once some of the issues are dealt with) [85]

13:15, 4 October 2010 - (i respond to James and highlight a problem with one of the sources) [86]

14:08, 4 October 2010 - (Mentioned problems with a few more sources and another issue) [87]

16:47, 4 October 2010 (HighKing undoes my revert, removing the tags again) [88]

21:52, 4 October 2010 - (i add morerefs tag to article) [89]

22:06, 4 October 2010 (I reply to HighKing saying the article certainly has neutrality/accuracy issues) [90]

15:32, 5 October 2010 (I reply saying the intro is a problem for a start as it gives undue weight to random terms nobody ever uses which are put in the intro. I state i will be readding the neutrality tag. [91]

15:34, 5 October 2010 (I readd the POV tag) [92]

15:57, 5 October 2010 (Highking reverts my addition of POV tag) [93]

I just do not understand how my actions are "edit warring" that could justify a block. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not looked at all these diffs yet, and don't think it is worth the time at this stage because the issue is moot; you weren't blocked and aren't going to be blocked over this incident. It's history. You seem to provide an explanation for your actions, and if in the future you continue to discuss while avoiding provocative reverts, there should be no problems. Even if you do discuss, repeatedly reverting is still edit warring. Discussion is a mitigating factor, not a license to edit war. If the other side behaves badly, don't join them; ask for help instead. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on what TFOWR wrote about BritishWatcher's timeline, I don't see one thing which I would expect to see, & which would prove that there is no battlefield mentality in this dispute: an attempt by any party involved to actually discuss the matter. Maybe there is one; BritishWatcher didn't provide any diffs or links for this Admin (who is so disinterested in the matter as to be almost uninterested) to investigate for himself. But, if a group of editors are simply reverting each other without discussion, then it doesn't matter if they are under a 3RR, a 1RR or a 0RR restriction. They are all edit warring & they all deserve sanctions. Either talk the matter over & figure out where you can agree on the matter, or find yourselves another hobby that doesn't involve editing Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing or rewording the sanction

I apologise at having to return to the first question again but it appears to have been buried in discussion.

• I would like to appeal the 'copy and paste' sanction [94] and have it removed or reworded to reflect the specific nature of it. It was not about "civility".— Preceding unsigned comment added by LevenBoy (talk • contribs)

Given this, do you really feel that now is a good time to be asking for the sanction to be removed or reworded? TFOWR 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rockers sanction

• In order to look at Triton Rockers sanction, I think he should be allowed to defend himself fairly by allowing him to edit his talk page. The sanctions were clearly hurried through. He was unable to defend himself. Afterwhich he seems to have been blocked while in the middle of doing so.[95]

Certainly all his recents edits have been civil despite all the provocations. Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What provocations? GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• For example, the petty blocks, SarekOfVulcan edit warring with him over British Isles naming conventions pages [96] and all the general fun and games at WT:BISE. I cannot speak for him. I just think he should have been allowed to defend himself. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolute load of shit. His sanctions and his (in)ability to edit his talkpage occurred well after each other. He had plenty of time to make comments before finally losing access to his talkpage. LevenBoy, Your continued insistence otherwise is becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but "Absolute load of shit." is uncivil. Triton Rocker and I have been blocked for less than that. Here is the exact timeline. Allowing for a few hours here and there due to timezones, and the fact that not all editors live online 24/7, you will see I am correct. Neither of us could edit, neither of us were allowed to defend ourselves during Cailil accusation. Cailil accusation was heavily framed in a sockpuppet accusation which later prove to be false (unrelated).[97]

• In my case, I accept the sanction but I want the wording changed to be more accurate and specific. I was denied any input to that.
• In Triton's case, he should be allowed a chance to defend himself as the actual incidents he was banned for were exceptionally petty and he had not been being "incivil".

It looks to me as if the whole thing was railroaded through deliberately quickly whilst we could not edit. That may be coincidental but you still it without allowing either of us to comment --LevenBoy (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling a WP:SPADE a spade is not uncivil, as it referred to the edits, and not the editor. TR was given full opportunity to defend himself more than once. Editors/admins copied/pasted his comments from his talkpage into the ANI thread as per standard practice. Defending one's self and continuing violations of WP:NPA during that so-called defence are two different things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

1) 10:11, 25 September 2010. Triton Rocker does not and cannot comment or defend himself at ANI because you had blocked him from doing so.

"Bwilkins - blocked Triton Rocker (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (violation of topic ban)"

2) 11:14, 25 September 2010 LessHeard changed block settings for LevenBoy with an expiry time of 2010-09-29 T 19:59:32 (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)

3) 22:58, 26 September 2010. Cailil posts sanction here [98] Expansion of sanctions at WP:GS/BI

4) 03:27, 27 September 2010. Note Triton Rocker's comment that they are blocked from contributing from ANI and requests ANI is delayed until after prejudicial sockpuppet CU is done. [99] - (perfectly civil but ignored)

5) 12:57, 27 September 2010. Second request to wait until sockpupper CU is done and comments regarding censorship. [100]

6) 23:18, 30 September 2010. Cailil announces his decision [101]

7) 00:17, 1 October 2010. Tnxman307 announced results of sockpuppet CU, "These two accounts are pretty conclusively unrelated." - Tnxman307 [102]

8) 01:45 to 01:49, 1 October 2010. Triton arrives around (→Civility parole: Civility Parole or Kangaroo Court?) to make ANI comment noting that he is "still gagged", requests waiting until checkuser accusation is dealt for the third time and clarifies, "neither I, nor Levenboy, have made any request or statement yet. We are both blocked from doing so and I, personally, have not had the time to do so". [103]

"Your accusations are prejudicially framed with directly false and indirectly misleading accusations of sockpuppetry."

9) 02:04. Triton requests admin help to post comment, noting CU has closed. [104]

10) 02:59, 1 October 2010. SarekOfVulcan arrive blocks, reverts and locks user page again disallowing him to post at ANI. While Triton is in the middle of writing given the "work in progress" edit. [105]

"SarekOfVulcan - changed block settings for Triton Rocker with an expiry time of 2010-10-25 10:11:11 (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)"

11) 03:04, 1 October 2010. SarekOfVulcan makes up excuses that "calling an archived thread on WP:AN/I an "ongoing discussion" or blanking his talk page was a crime when it is not and reverts.[106]

It is clear that Triton did not know that the ANI had been closed as he logged on at the same time, finding out the checkuser had also closed in his favour. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I find it astounding that all these sanctions were being applied when the two accused couldn't even edit their own talk pages. LevenBoy's talk page editing was removed for a highly dubious reason, as was Triton's for that matter. Anyone from outise Wikipedia looking at what's gone on here would be dumbfounded! LemonMonday Talk 17:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the main point

I want to return to the main point again.

This sanction was hurriedly pushed through while neither I nor Triton Rocker could defend ourselves. Yes, it was brought up again but, again, hurriedly closed while neither I nor Triton Rocker could comment or defend ourselves. Triton Rocker is still not allowed to defend himself because his talk page is still conveniently blocked. [107] The point I want to make is, this sanction is essentially dishonest in its wording. It is not about "incivility" meaning "bad words". In my case, it was not even about my irrelevant history. Cailil's sanctions are not about bad language or rudeness. It creates a false and prejudicial impression to new contributors to the dispute. The intention is to stop individuals from rationally discussing the issue of editors involved in the British Isles naming dispute being nationalistically motivated, and possibly even irrationally so. Specifically questioning the motivation of the Irish editors involved.

If you look at Triton Rocker's history, I can see no relevent history of "incivility". I think he was an example of civility even while being accused of being me, reverted or attacked by the usual gang surrounding these topics. See: [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114] (taken at random).

What are "incivil" about these? Nothing. Therefore it is not about "incivility".

Like I said, the accusations were framed in an then ongoing sockpuppet accusation which has since cleared as "pretty conclusively Unrelated." [115] This I believe was deeply prejudicial. Basically, no one else cared about it except the Irish tag team involved in the dispute.

I am raising this is because it sets a dangerous precedent in any nationalist conflict area or naming dispute where an admin who themselves associate with one side or another can swoop in and throw around blocks at the other side. Of course, I want the wording taken off or sanction changed, and I think Triton Rocker should be allowed to defend himself.

Neither of us was making false or harsh accusations. No one was calling anyone else a "Nazi". The others editors literally state their nationalistic or republican sympathies clearly on their talk pages, or would admit to it. No one was being outing.

It is highly relevent to ongoing discussions that we are allowed to discuss this. --LevenBoy (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Premature Poll Closure

I apologise but I have to raise the issue of the admin TFOWR prematurely closing a poll I set as consensus building and unilaterally forbidding it to complete, despite being supported by others. [116].

We need to clarify matters on the British Isles naming dispute. We need to see where individuals stand and resolve the contradictions. It may even be that we have to encourage certain user to educate themselves what the legal reality of the 4 states are. I asked TFOWR politely to allow me to ask three simple questions which would help us do so.

• Is Britain and Ireland is an invalid equivalent for British Isles. (speaking legally or technically) - the answer is no because Britain and Ireland does not include the Isle of Man & Channel Islands whereas British Isles does.
• Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland? - the answer is also no because Isle of Man & Channel Islands are neither part of Britain nor Ireland.

And, thirdly, I want to ask

• What do we do when references, which might be subjective opinion, outdated, propagandic or even erroneous, contradict that reality?

The reason for these questions is that the Irish activists on the Wikipedia, lead by HighKing, have been persistently attempting to replace "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland" which is incorrect because it excludes the Isle of Man & Channel Islands.

I feel TFOWR is becoming provocative by twisting my words suggesting that I want to "poll reality" or by changing the argument, that it is "beyond the scope of the project" to decide national borders, when those borders have already been decided nationally and legally.

Amazing, he claims "Contributors' knowledge of constitutional law is of no relevance here" when, surely, that is precisely what we need to accept in such a dispute to get it right. While accusing me of disruption I think he is actually causing more disruption and blocking consenus building. I have stated clearly that I think he is acting beyond his authority here. --LevenBoy (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The question on Britain and Ireland / UK and Ireland are valid ones although it may have been better to deal with that at the main terminology page, rather than BISE. "Britain and Ireland" is claimed to be the main alternative to the British Isles, at present British Isles does mislead people about the status of "Britain and Ireland", which is not an archipelago in north west europe. TFOWR did nothing wrong by closing one of your polls, infact closing the poll on if they are part of the UK / Ireland highlights its commonsense they are not part of those places. There for there is a problem with "Britain and Ireland" being an alternative name for the archipelago. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• The more disruptive certain editors become, the more closer those editors move towards a ban - for however long it takes for the actual message (not the foolishly fabricated excuses that this is about a pro or anti POV of some sort or that this is about overreaching authority of some sort) to sink in. I'm not sure how many other ways that Cailil, TFOWR, Jehochman, Georgewilliamherbert, llywrch, DGG, Mjroots, or any other user for that matter can make it clear that this area is under probation and disruption should (and will) be met with sanctions. With the continued soapboxing and battleground mentality exhibited by Levenboy, particularly in the section above this one, there will be no option but for a topic ban to be imposed if there isn't a drastic change soon. Note: I've also changed the title of this section to something more neutral. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• LevenBoy set up two polls: one asks under what circumstances, if any, "Britain and Ireland" is an accpetable alternative for the term "British Isles". I have not close this poll, as it is a valid question to ask. The second poll asked whether the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. I have closed this second poll because it is not within our power as Wikipedia editors to decide this - the constitutional status of these islands is well known, not disputed, and I felt the poll was pointless. Indeed, I felt that the purpose of the poll was to justify an edit like this one - a cheap attempt to make a WP:POINT. Regarding LevenBoy's amazement at my "Contributors' knowledge of constitutional law is of no relevance here" point - I have told LevenBoy and other editors at WT:BISE time and time again that what matters is policy and precedent, not contributors knowledge of arcane British constitutional law, or other expert topics. This should come as no surprise to most Wikipedians: this project was set up in such a way that non-experts could participate; indeed, so that non-experts could take a primary role. Expert knowledge has never been required: what's required is the ability to read, discuss, and collaborate. I do not believe that contributors' knowledge of British constitutional law is relevant at WT:BISE, and I believe if LevenBoy wants to ask other contributors about their knowledge of such law it is best done on LevenBoy's talkpage. TFOWR 17:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is a straw man argument. We are not talking about "constitutional law". There is no need of any knowledge of constitutional law. We are talking about simple, commonly known geography as presented in any number of reliable sources.

The purpose of the polls is to build consensus on the basis of our mutual knownledge of that commonly known and agreed geography, identify the contradictions and resolve them. It is very simple. The problem is if we have individuals who strongly believe something is right which is wrong, who want something to be in the future that is not in the present, we have to identify that, inform them using the reliable references and resolve the matters with them.

Why would TFOWR block that from happening and, by digging his heels in forbidding it, cause disruption by doing so? The poll was going ahead perfectly peacefully and was well accepted. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just sayin'... TFOWR 17:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant reference. TFOWR, you're the one rolling out the straw man argument, not me. It's just simple geography the stateman decided a long time ago. The bottomline is, a consensual mandate is an important content and community building tool. Forbidding the poll caused far more disruption than allowing it to run its course. It was counterproductive. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The only disruption came from you, LevenBoy - I closed the poll as it had run its course - it was a WP:SNOW close of a pointless poll that was outside WT:BISE's remit anyway. My only regret is that I didn't close it as soon as it opened. My reference was relevant was because it showed you asking How on earth can you say knowledge of constitutional matters are of no relevance when we are discussing and deciding matter of Statehoods? Yet above you claim We are not talking about "constitutional law". There is no need of any knowledge of constitutional law. The diff speaks to your honesty. Which I believe is very relevant in a thread you started about my conduct. TFOWR 18:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The poll had not "run its course". The poll had hardly even started. It was open for less than a day. The purpose was to clearly see what everyone thought, and their level of thought, and to build a clear mandate for consensus. As I have had to caution you, you do not speak for others.

I think it was a situation where you should "Assumed Good Faith" in the first place and consulted others. There was nothing uncivil or disruptive in the questions. They are entirely pertinent and logical. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've covered this already at WT:BISE, but I'd prefer to keep things here. Was there any likelihood whatsoever that (a) anyone was going to say that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are part of either the UK or the Republic of Ireland? and (b) that, even if they had, it would make the slightest difference to reality? It was, and remains, my belief that the purpose of the poll was purely WP:POINTy - you wanted to contrast the two polls in order to try and suggest that "Britain and Ireland" can't be equivalent - ever - to "the British Isles". But "Britain and Ireland" is used by some sources in that context, i.e. to mean "the British Isles" and not(Great) Britain and Ireland. It was unsubtle, pointy, disruptive - and factually wrong. You disagree with the government of Ireland using the term "Britain and Ireland" to mean "British Isles" - take it up with them. You're not going to solve that at Wikipedia. Your continuing refusal to understand that is disruptive. Your causal insults directed at other editors is a breach of your civility parole. TFOWR 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just on the issue of the "Britain and Ireland". No reliable sources have been provided showing that Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in north west Europe the rest of us know as the British Isles. All ive seen is Britain and Ireland is preferred by some rather than mentioning the British Isles. The first poll was an important issue although it should have been done at British Isles naming dispute, British Isles , British Isles terminology or the main taskforce page rather than BISE. Second poll that you closed on if its part of the UK was not needed though as its obvious to all it is not part of the UK. But i do find the split in response to the first poll very interesting, although i guess it comes down to how one defines "equivalent" which itself has different meanings. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see individuals state simply that "Britain and Ireland is the same as British Isles". Obviously it is not and needs the various qualifications that others offered. It would have been useful to see how editors who did say that Britain and Ireland equals British Isles viewed the IoM and CI.

If we are honest here, the historical problem that has caused the naming dispute is Engligh chauvanism over the Irish. I accept that. If we are honest, the Wikipedia naming dispute was about primarily Irish editors trying attempting to replace every incident of British Isles with "Britain and Ireland". I understand the Irish's feelings.

The problem is, we cannot resolve Engligh chauvanism over the Irish with British and Irish chauvanism over the Manx (Isle of Man) or Channel Islanders who have their own indepedent histories and cultures. If we are to bring to re-position "Ireland" then equally we have to re-position the Isle of Man or Channel Island. But we cannot stylistically because it would be silly (too long) and unmatched in academia.

We are ultimately working towards a MoS on the matter. Polls are useful for building consensus. I was working through this clearly and logically giving everyone a change to voice their opinions. It was not disruptive. 4 individuals had already accepted and voted with any issues.

• I would like an agreement to allow the polls to run without unilaterial disruption from one editor speaking on behalf of others. I can accept they are run on another taskforce page but not my user page. That was little more than an insult. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for my consent to run an off-topic poll on whether the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom, the Republic of France, or the Most Serene Republic of San Marino then no. I can tolerate your surprise; I can't tolerate your disruption. TFOWR 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The poll is over now, there is no need for another or a rerun of it. Although carrying on with the debate at British Isles naming dispute about how these issues there should be covered and how the introduction should be worded is probably the best way forward. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Run the polls at BISE's main-page. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. For some strange reason LevenBoy would apparently prefer not to do that, however. TFOWR 20:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's word I think this discussion is more of a soapbox. I honestly don't know were you get the patiences for this TFOW. Bjmullan (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well past time for at least a 1 month vacation for LevenBoy. Nothing but BS and WP:SOAP, which as noted above, is well past disruption. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, TFOWR, but I must pick you up on that again. You dont speak for me or anyone else at WT:BISE. That is a false representation of my position. I am happy to put them in the "right" place but your suggestion put them on my talk page was an insult. Fact, the WT:BISE pages are a sprawl mess full of stuff that needs sorted out. Nothing is clear. There is one active page discussion page. I put them there for obvious reasons. That is where we meet and talk. For whatever reason, you have attempted to quickly derail them as you have derailed other conversations. You did not assume good faith or even asking my intentions first. The polls were supported and appreciated by others. There was no conflict over them.

• I think that is an admin overstepping their authority and I'd like to ask TFOWR is sanctioned for doing so please (not to presenting himself as talking for others and not to disrupt GF polls). --LevenBoy (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The BISE page is a mess and it's very annoying the way sections disappear due to archiving. The true motive of BISE seems just to be to satisfy various POV arguments. It must be unique in Wikipedia and as far as I can see it detracts from the true purpose of the project. It seems also that TWOFR is maybe not assessing consensus correctly and I question some of the decisions he makes. Is TWOFR the final arbiter on these matters? LemonMonday Talk 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE is a talkpage, like any other on Wikipedia. The one possible deviation from Wikipedia norms is that the first two sections are "stickies" - the first one reminds editors about WP:CIVIL, contains a pointer to the archives and also provides a general guideline about "fauna" (real fauna, not Wikipedia editors...) If you can suggest a way to make the pointer to the archives more noticeable I'm certainly open to suggestions. But your suggestion that "sections disappear due to archiving" is way off base. Discussions stop, I mark them as resolved, they're left for a couple of days, then they're moved to the archives. Which are advertised at the top of the page. If you needed help discovering this, you could either have read the page or asked. TFOWR 17:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please, LevenBoy. Where do I "speak for [you] or anyone else at WT:BISE"? Where have I "derailed other conversations"? TFOWR 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I consider LevenBoy's comment, above, to be a breach of their civility parole. I have requested diffs both here and on their talkpage. TFOWR 17:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that's an excellent reason why he shouldn't be under civility patrol. I see nothing uncivil at all. Frank views, yes, but he's not badmouthing anyone. Editors should not be blocked for having an opposing view, but it seems to happen all too often (including to me) in this arena. LemonMonday Talk 18:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the previous block has had little effect on you; at the rate at which you and LevenBoy are going, another is likely to be imposed. Please stop this troublesomebehavior. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct because it was totally unjustified. This is not participating in a battle, it is expressing an opinion. Pleas don't take this personally but it seems like you and others are hunting around for reasons to block editors opposed the the anti-BI POV (and I acknowledge there's also a pro-BI POV). Your threatening remarks add nothing to this debate. LemonMonday Talk 18:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That very comment is a sign of the same conduct that you were blocked for (bad faith comments that reinforced a battleground mentality, and it appears that no amount of explaining is going to help you understand while you continue with IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Calling on an administrator to either enforce probation or take action under our site policies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility parole. Nobody is patrolling anywhere. It's "be nice from now on, or else" as opposed to "I'm watching you very closely for being bad". Perhaps the difference in words will help you to understand that you're off blowing in the wind in the wrong direction here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy has offered this up by way of a diff for the claims made above. I take the view that it in no way supports LevenBoy's claim, and I intend to block LevenBoy for breaching their civility parole. If they're able to provide diffs which support their above claims, I am, of course, open to their block being lifted. TFOWR 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Part struck: Cailil has already blocked LevenBoy for same. TFOWR 18:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton and Leven civility parole

can some one please explain since I genuinely don't understand this: what can I say that Triton and Leven can't? In other words, we're all supposed to be civil, so give me an example of something I might say that won't result in a block but if Triton or Leven said it, would. It seems to me that the whole notion of placing users on civility patrol is plain daft.

The comments above from users such as Wilkins strongly suggest a desire to block users for no good reason. There is incivility in a great deal of the comments above. LemonMonday Talk 16:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Already answered on my talkpage. TFOWR 17:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

...and I replied on mine, even though someone apparently has never read WP:CIVIL. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I just can't be doing with all these policies. Most of them are just opinion pieces anyway. We don't need a policy to tell us that your remarks are uncivil. LemonMonday Talk 17:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed be a shame to let policy (not opinion piece) interfere with increasing WP:DRAMA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

LevenBoy has been blocked for 1 month for persistent failure to assume good faith in breach of his editing restriction, for disrupting the project to make a point here and at WP:BISE, and for continuing to behave with a battleground mentalty--Cailil ^talk 18:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, LemonMonday has been warned for failing to assume good faith and displaying a battleground mentality. They have also been reminded not to "ask the other parent" in regard to the issue of TritonRocker's sanction again--Cailil ^talk 18:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate measures. Noting that LevenBoy requested unblocks; declined ([117] [118]). Ncmvocalist (talk)

Doncram/Blueboar

Since Doncram (talk · contribs) and Blueboar (talk · contribs) don't seem to be able to edit collegially at this point, as shown in the recent history of Sons of Haiti, Grand Lodge of Idaho, and their associated AfDs, I've blocked both of them for 48 hours. In the meantime, I'd like input as to whether this is sufficient, or whether some form of interaction ban might be required when they return. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I myself am one of those stupid eternal optimists who despite all the evidence think that giving people one last chance, with those involved knowing that it is their one last chance, is generally the best way to go. Having said that, if at some point after the blocks expire, either one or both return to the behavior in question, there's no reason not to place down a ban of the kind you describe. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• I've just stepped through today's history for Sons of Haiti, and it was interesting. The edit summaries look suspicious, but when you look at the diffs, it looks like Blueboar isn't actually reverting -- even when the edit summary indicates that he is.

  See how the article changes when you look at Blueboar-to-himself edits: [119][120][121][122][123] NB that there are substantive changes each time that are relevant to his fellow editors' complaints. His "reversions" never go back to the same version.

  Now compare that to what his fellow editors are doing: [124][125][126] (but see [127])[128] -- with the exception of a couple of spelling fixes, all of them basically wholesale reversions to their preferred version, with no effort to change or compromise. The Marksv88/Doncram "tag team" has been highly effective at preventing net changes for the last 18 hours.[129]

  In short, I think that we may be punishing Blueboar for actually following the recommended procedure at Wikipedia:Consensus#Process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • That's possible, and if so, he has my apologies. It's not just that article, though -- it's the talk pages and the AfDs, and the various other pages they've bumped heads on over the past month or so. I was trying to be fair by applying the sanction equally, as I thought both of them were at fault, but if one of them was being baited into disruption, that's a different situation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• This is a shame. I had been trying to come up with something to suggest at User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Yet another conflict with Doncram. Now neither editor can continue their participation in that discussion. I can understand the viewpoints of both editors, here. But this is a long-standing situation that doesn't admit of a simple single-article mediation solution; and it's hard to see what third parties can do to alleviate the problem. Resolving this is not easy. I suspect that revoking editing privileges isn't going to achieve very much overall. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It'll gain time for uninvolved parties to evaluate the situation without it continuing to spiral out of control -- that's why I brought it here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• tbh I think you're a bit too close to this whole issue yourself at the moment and I think this response was disproportionate with respect to both users. I think both could do with walking away from the various articles for a while although that's unlikely to happen. I'm not convinced that any sanction would have any beneficial effect on content though, or could be defined reasonably enough that it could/ would be complied with by both.

ALR (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was really hoping for a little more input here before the blocks expired -- anyone else?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on Doncram, but I've found Blueboar to be a valuable editor. WhatamIdoiing's comments concern me. I also agree with ALR's comments. This isn't an easy call and I wish I could be more constructive. There are times when bumping heads with someone is almost unavoidable if there are policy/guideline issues involved (not saying that this is the case here, just that it's unavoidable at times). Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked Blueboar. On neither of the pages mentioned (Sons of Haiti and Grand Lodge of Idaho) did he actually breach 3RR, whilst "and elsewhere" is uselessly vague. There is nothing here to justify the strong block log entry "disruptive editing"; on the contrary, he seems to have been editing constructively. Furthermore, Sarek, you've very recently edited Sons of Haiti on one of the issues Blueboar was discussing, to a degree which may not rise to WP:INVOLVED but is still less than ideal. It may even be that your attempt to be "evenhanded" here was motivated in part by that involvement. I'm less clear about Doncram, but equally, I see nothing to justify the block log entry, so I've unblocked him too. If there are wider behavioural issues, they need to be handled more systematically, eg by an WP:RFC/U. Rd232 ^talk 13:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I thank Rd232 for unblocking. Sarek, please do contact me and explain what you found disruptive in my behavior... From my perspective, I honestly was trying to follow procedure and do the right thing ... but, obviously you didn't see it that way. I would like to better understand what you found disruptive so that I can avoid such behavior in the future.

As to the larger issue of the ongoing conflict between Doncram and myself... I really don't know how to resolve it. It seems that whenever we cross paths, we end up butting heads. It has gotten to the point where good faith is very hard to assume... for either of us. I suspect that Sarek is correct that this will take some sort of admin action to resolve, but I don't know what it is. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks also to Rd232 for unblocking. I was preparing an unblock request actually and have posted draft/notes from that in the block section at User talk:Doncram#October 2010. (As a reference link, the corresponding block section for Blueboar is the October 2010 section within this version of Blueboar's Talk], which he just blanked.) I would be interested if another editor or two would collaborate in preparing an RFC/U for further discussion. I have not before opened an RFC/U but would be willing to start that, if it's not required to be done on a rush basis and if one or two other editors would assist. IMO, there are fundamental problematic behaviors going on, and an RFC/U on Blueboar's name is most natural. As part of such an RFC/U, I fully understand that my own interactions with Blueboar would be under scrutiny as well. If another editor wished to start an RFC/U without my involvement in any drafting, that would also be fine by me. --doncram (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with an RFC/U on me... if this would resolve the conflict. Is it possible to have an joint RFC/U on both of us at the same time? If not, then I would suggest one on each of us. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC) - PS... I too have never done an RFC/U and so would need assistance in setting one up. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an update... Doncram and I have agreed to formal mediation, with User:RobertMfromLI as mediator... hopefully this will result in better interaction between us. I thank you all for your comments and advice here and on my talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• A specially-tailored version ofdiscretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletionof them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey[130]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen[131]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Price check on aisle 5

Because I'm feeling a bit badly about it, and for my peace of mind, would someone please check my discussion with an editor, here and here, to see if I'm correct in what I've said and if there's any other suggestions that can be made to this person? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check executed. No insanity detected. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Protector of Wiki unblock request

Create /ɕ/ redirect

Hi, can an admin create a redirect of the page /ɕ/ to Voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative? The character ɕ is part of a blacklist. Thanks. - sik0fewl (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Done]. --Courcelles 04:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Need an Admin with English Lit and Poetry Expertise

I am looking for an admin who has some expertise in the area of English poetry and literature. There's a content dispute that may need a little oversight and I am out of my league in this field. I don't there is any edit warring yet but some eyes would be helpful. If I understand correctly it is at To Autumn. Thanks JodyB _talk 14:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike and Rlevse, two of the most experienced admins around, have participated there in the past day, so I think we can take it that things are being overseen. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Content RFC closure requested

This was archived unresolved here. As it is still has not been closed, could an uninvolved admin please review the discussion at Talk:Ahmed_Yassin#RfC:_Should_the_image_illustrating_Yassin_be_changed and close it? Thanks, nableezy - 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The RfC has run significantly longer than a month and all of us involved would appreciate knowing which direction in which to head next. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Time for WP:RFRD?

We're getting more and more requests for rev del at ANI. Do we think there's enough frequency here to split off those requests into a "Requests for revision deletion" board? I don't watchlist ANI, but I could watchlist something more modest like this. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Certain requests for revision deletion (outing, personal information, so forth) ought not be posted at ANI at all, nor any central noticeboard. –xeno^talk 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. But the fact remains that we have at least half a dozen on ANI right now. I would expect that you'd put this list on {{admin dashboard}} for quick action, much like our take on {{db-attack}}, such that we'd reduce the risk vs. just accepting them on ANI by quickly handling them. Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if we could "appropriate" something, like the unblock-l mailing list that has lots of admin eyes on it, yet is still private, to direct such requests to? Because posting on ANI is defeating the whole point of RevDel, as would a separate noticeboard. A separate mailing list might be a better idea, actually. Courcelles 18:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if something really merits oversight, we're pretty clear on that one, but there are plenty of gross insults meriting RD2 but not oversight. This would be targeted for those, again, like G10s. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Irony. I was literaly just coming here to pose the same question. WP:BURO and WP:BEANS aside, surely it's better to have REVDEL requests somewhere better than the highly visible (and some may say toxic) atmosphere of ANI. I'm not sure what my opinion is on wether it's better to have a board or a mailing list (gut instinct is that I don't like mailing lists) but it's clear we need something per Jclemens. Pedro : Chat 19:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote for a board. Instructions should make clear that you should not identify anything in the objectionable content when posting diffs. These requests can be handled very quickly. --Selket ^Talk 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I missed the boat on this. Are the rev-delete criteria that broad that items which merit rev deletion show up dozens of time a day? How many things are we rev deleting which would be better left in the history and reverted? Protonk (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The main things appear to be BLP violations in edit summaries (which can't just be reverted) and extremely offensive BLP violations in the text of an article. Personal information happens but is rarer. -Selket ^Talk 21:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, based on my reading of ANI today, it certainly seems like it. Feel free to peruse it and make up your own mind on whether the number of requests is based on merit (they should have indeed been made and done) or overuse (better simply reverted, as you say). Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this today, considering how many revdel requests are on the ANI board right now. Since I've found myself doing so many of them lately anyway, I'd be happy to sign up for a mailing list or watchlist a noticeboard, whichever way people want to go. I just don't think that ANI is the best place in the long term for these requests. -- Atama頭 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make this more clear on the WP:REVDEL policy page, just as it is on the requests for oversight page? I do have to agree with Xeno, that we should be discouraging people to post Revision deletion requests on ANI or any noticeboard as that only creates a "Streisand effect", which we don't want. –MuZemike 21:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

At the same time, though, we can be sure that any request getting posted at ANI will get rapidly dealt with; earlier today, I dealt with one report within three minutes of it getting posted. Unless it's oversightable stuff (which should always be emailed anyway), I think overall it's better for these reports to get a minute or two of high-profile attention than to send it off to what is certain to be an under-staffed and under-utilized mailing list, where requests may end up getting left around for hours or missed entirely (which does happen, even on the OTRS lists at times). Hersfold^(t/a/c) 21:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The ability to stick a {{resolved}} on an entry is one reason I prefer a noticeboard to a mailing list. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes not, though; we had an outing issue on ANI yesterday which ended up with at least three admins having to revdelete about fifty revisions on half a dozen articles. By the time that had been cleared up, any editor who was interested would have known who the editor concerned was in real life. Black Kite (t)(c) 22:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that situation is the exception, not the rule. That was a situation where personal information was sitting on a talk page for 2 years without being reverted. I doubt that happens a lot (or am I being naive?). -- Atama頭 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Outing issues shouldn't go to ANI anyway; those DO belong at the oversight list for that reason. Normal revdelete stuff - grossly offensive attacks, copyright vios, etc., can be handled in due time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything that needs RevDel also needs public postings. Noticeboards are fast, but visible. Mailing lists are private, but slower. I don't think there's a good solution either way. I would prefer a mailing list over a noticeboard, but both have their drawbacks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider, though, that a RevDel mailing list OR noticeboard can explicitly exclude anything that meets the criteria for oversighting. RevDel on the way to oversighting is not something appropriate for such a noticeboard; RevDel for inappropriate content that does not rise to that level is. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Very true, but people will inevitably ignore things like that and post OSable stuff publicly because either they don't understand the gravity of the situation or they don't bother reading important notices. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Although a standalone specialised board could really, really whack people in the face with the need not to do that. Also such a board would provide a convenient single place to go for removing info from public view, since in explaining the difference between RevDel and Oversight it would point people to the latter's email address. This would also been opportunity to clarify under what circumstances Oversight is now preferred to RevDel, which I don't think is clear enough. eg at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight some of the points seem like RevDel. Finally, it would help keep experience with handling these requests in one place, which may be helpful for consistency. Rd232^talk 15:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What I'm afraid is going to happen is that people are going to start posting stuff that should be oversighted on-wiki to this noticeboard, making it visible in two places instead of just one. –MuZemike 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if that really happens, even after taking advantage of the specialisation to make the issue much more prominent and clearer than it is now at AN/ANI, then we can delete the board and try something else. Rd232 ^talk 08:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that those who wish to harass users via outing will game the system to make the personal information known in as many places as possible. Unless there is a bright line against posting personal information, like if in doubt do not do it, if unsure, do not do it, etc, it will continue to happen for a variety of reasons. Until the consequences of doing so are clearly not worth the thrill of harassment, it will continue. Bullies will always justify their tactics until it is clearly and uniformly forbidden. 71.139.5.184 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but as we already have {{Copyvio-histpurge}}/Category:Requested history purges and {{Non-free reduced}}/Category:Rescaled fairuse images, both of which involve revision deletions (AFAIK anyway), why not implement something similar along these lines? In any case, as I commented at the TfD for {{Copyvio-histpurge}}, I don't think it would be appropriate to delete that template without having something to replace it. PC78 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Seems that the discussion has died down a bit, and people have staked out a few definite positions, which I'm going to try to summarize here:

Position 1: Nothing new is needed

The status quo position. Editors can be encouraged to use the oversight mailing list and/or discouraged from posting anything to ANI. The risk of centralizing RevDel requests anywhere per either of the following outweighs the benefits in doing so.

Support

1. 2nd choice to establishing an "WikiEN-admins" mailing list, see discussion below. –MuZemike 15:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
2. First choice per my comments above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Sorry, but I just don't see any good way to deal with this. ANI has its speed benefits, and hopefully no one is stupid enough to post private info there. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
4. No matter how fast ANI or a new board can take care of the problem, material that is subject to revdel should not be posted anywhere in the same way that oversight requests should not be onwiki. I have no objects to a new mailing list, but don't think it's necessary. -Atmoz (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Kevin Baas^talk 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
6. I agree that we should discourage new posting of the offensive material on site by making a new board that hosts it. Anyone that puts the noticeboard on their watchlist will see the content. This looks like a well intended proposal, but would led to more focus on the content not less. For example, an internet site could easily find the offensive material if it monitors the noticeboard. Also, the content is not always corrected perfectly with revdel on the first try. It is not uncommon for extra diff with offensive material to be left on the page in error. So we are potential taking a page with low page views to one with much higher page views. For these reasons, I recommend against a centralized noticeboard. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

   I respect your concern but "Anyone that puts the noticeboard on their watchlist will see the content. " is exaggerated. Generally people will be sensible enough not to put sensitive content in an edit summary or on the board itself (and revdel is available for errors here); so it's generally just diffs to the content, which people will need to first go to the board for, and then click on. Diffs which will disappear as soon as the revdel is done. And I'm not quite sure who is supposed to be out there looking on a continuous basis for revdel content on anybody on Wikipedia in case something interesting gets rev-deleted (meaning: no source for it). I can't quite see a market for that. Anyway, we can slightly guard against this by keeping even the subject/topic out of the edit summary - eg just "RevDel Request 817". Rd232^talk 10:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

   Everyone that reports a contribution to be revdel will have the page added to there watchlist, right? So overtime the number of people who are alerted about new content will steadily grow. But I'm not primarily concerned about the innocent rubberneckers, but the people who deliberately troll. Our internal discussions are monitored by people who are banned and in dispute with Wikipedia editors/admins and WMF, and the also people who are the subject of articles. When I checked my email today before posting this I saw an email on checkuser mailing list about a vandal account who was trolling and mentioning the name of a banned wikpeida editor in their trolling on meta. I'm very concerned that putting the content in a centralized location will expose more low profile content to these vandals and trolls. We know that trolls and banned users are already doing this to some degree. This will make it easier for them to see the newest content that is problematic enough to be remove. IMO, we will be making the situation worse for the sake of efficiency of processing the requests. Also, my concern is that people will get the impression that placing the content on this page is the "right" way to get it removed when it would be by far better to quietly contact an active admin to do it. Also, on this page are there going to be discussions about whether to keep revdel, or whether to escalate to suppression. Will someone be clerking the page to keep out discussions and questions about content? FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

   Well as I said below, it comes down to which you think is more of a problem: A) people seeing Bad content in the article before it's RevDeleted, because they're reading the article (or at least watching it and seeing the Bad edit) or B) vandals and trolls looking to cause problems, and deciding to use Bad content to help them, and getting easier, centralised access to it, albeit in very brief bites before it's RevDeleted. I don't see any easy answers to prevent both - the current solutions offered basically trade off A and B (and to me A feels marginally more of a Real Life problem and B marginally more Wikipedia, though both have both qualities). More complete answers might be some completely new approach, like say a Site Notice type thing which is only visible to admins (and can be dismissed immediately once the issue is handled). Or else a board which can only be read by admins (but permitting posts from anyone). In the mean time, the current system defaults to ANI, which has the worst qualities of both A and B. We can emphasise at the new board that if you can catch an admin active right now (eg get an onwiki or IRC confirmation they'll respond quickly to an email you're about to send), then that may be preferable to posting on the board. Again: this explanation is not an option at ANI. Rd232 ^talk 11:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

7. Nothing new is needed. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not in favour of either of the other two options; more consideration needed before we do either. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• You gotta be kidding. We're supposed to be trying to decrease the impact of these postings, not highlighting them, with a noticeboard whose history will include all of the articles that have been vandalized....or users who have been on the receiving end of harassment....or the ones that actually need to be oversighted. Try this sample post to ANI instead. "HI, I need an admin to do a revdelete, could an admin please email me? Thanks!" Much better to wait fifteen minutes, with three people seeing the problem edit, than wait five minutes with 300, including folks taking screenshots of it just to prove how inept we are. Risker (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • screenshot of what? A specialised board can provide detailed guidance on how to make a request without revealing any more info than necessary, as well as providing guidance on how to try contacting someone directly instead. Rd232 ^talk 10:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Per the other functionaries who have explained why we should not do this. oppose any of the other options. A noticeboard is a very bad idea. A new mailing list is a bad idea. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• A noticeboard would defeat the purpose of the procedure, Revision delete is intended to hide revisions, not call them to general attention. DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well said, I was about to make my own comment but DGG has hit the nail squarely on the head. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Not convinced on the issues some have raised here. RevDelete (in this sense) is not the same as oversight/suppression and doesn't need the same degree of off-wiki privacy. It's in effect a cousin of WP:CSD. Attack pages may be emailed to oversighters or asked about off-wiki, but the norm is they are simply tagged on-wiki and dealt with by admins as a routine on-wiki matter. RevDelete (in admin mode, as being discussed here) handles similar kinds of issues. So I see no problem with it being visible on-wiki that RevDelete has been requested. A noticeboard seems the sensible option. FT2^{(Talk email)} 11:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  We don't have a CSD noticeboard. They are tagged, as you point out, and dealt with sans a public record+discussion of them being left behind. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But they are handled on-wiki and nobody worries if they are seen, because by and large they aren't sensitive issues (as RFRD is not really for "sensitive issues"). Any user at all can watch the category on-wiki and look at the material due to be deleted before an admin does so, whether it's a copyright breach (G12), an attack page (G10), whatever. The same applies to RevDelete. If someone really wants to see that malware link, or the page someone wrote "fuck all you fucking fuckers" or "I want to fuck Admin X in the ass" or 200 copies of "You lost the game!" before it's revdeleted, frankly let them. Sensitive and oversightable material still goes off-wiki.

There's always been a distinction that routine admin deletable stuff isn't a problem if it gets viewed by others before an admin actually deletes it (AFD, MFD, CSD, {{db-reason}}). Let's avoid the slippery slope where gradually more and more stuff that doesn't need off-wiki handling gets expected to have it anyway. FT2 ^{(Talk email)} 12:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Position 2: Add a new noticeboard

A new noticeboard provides a centralized place, much like the monitoring of {{db-attack}} where RevDel'able material can be widely watchlisted and quickly handled by interested admins. We can NOINDEX it, point people to oversight mailing list for serious issues, and not archive it to keep the Streisand effect to a minimum to mitigate the known risks.

Support

1. As proposer. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Sounds good. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Makes sense to me. Disagree it will necessarily have slower responses than ANI. Yes, ANI has more watchers, but the relevant watching will be from active admins, which is a pretty small group - and with proper announcements, that shouldn't be an issue. If anything, it might lead to quicker responses, because ANI has so much else going on that (a) requests won't appear on watchlists the same way they will on a specialised board and (b) quite a few admins basically ignore ANI as taking too much time and trouble, and at least some of these may watch the new board. Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Can't hurt to give it a try. I agree with Rd232's points as well. Airplaneman ✈ 23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Good idea, we already have the category for attack pages. Make it like AIV, dealt-with reports should automatically be removed. Maybe make disposable date-based subpages that are deleted a soon as everything for that day is done? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
6. The lesser of all evils. I think it would likely be well maintained to be honest - AIV is rarely backlogged for example and I'd view it as a similar board. Pedro : Chat 13:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
7. I think it would help get these requests off ANI and would bring faster response than an email list. -- Atama頭 20:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Seems like a sensible proposal, as worded, above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
9. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
10. Give it a try. I like the bot idea. MER-C 02:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Yes. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
12. Sounds like a good idea, but oppose the use of a bot for revision deletion. This task should be made by humans, to avoid bugs in the bot causing problems. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
13. Provided that it bears a prominent warnings, including an editnotice, that requests for the removal of non-public information are NOT to be placed on the noticeboard under any circumstances, but must instead be emailed to the oversight list or otherwise transmitted to oversighters privately. WP:AN/I currently lacks such an editnotice, and the warning in the header is buried. Also, a dedicated noticeboard easily facilitates the revision deletion of the requests themselves, when necessary, while WP:AN/I will probably have too many unrelated intervening edits. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
14. As long as the material linked to there isn't oversightable, this is probably the best way. The page's header and editnotice can ensure that users know what not to put there, and it's as visible as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages, which I believe is on the same level. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
15. Support per precisely Peter Karlsen's thoughts above. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
16. Would result in plenty of people handling the requests, so response times would be similar to AIV or RFPP, and would stop these requests piling up on ANI. Possibly we could delete the page once a day to remove any problematic material in the edit history. Hut 8.5 12:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
17. I think it is a good idea. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
18. Support per my comment in previous section. RevDelete in the sense being discussed is used as a cousin to WP:CSD which are tagged on-wiki and not seen as a problem to do so. The kinds of issue for which RevDelete will be used here, are similar to those which have CSD templates and where on-wiki tagging and eventual admin action have been used for years. No problem with them being listed at a noticeboard. FT2 ^{(Talk email)} 11:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
19. Support - easiest option. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
20. Support - In the case of some edits which infer that they reveal passwords (as I reported about Perry High School (Gilbert, Arizona)), I knew the safe approach would be to redact them as they are of no use to an encyclopedia. Unfamiliar users won't have to take such reports to AIV then. mechamind90 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Too high-profile, and likely wouldn't be handled as quickly as they would on ANI. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• What if we have a bot that automatically revdels revisions submitted to the board (with limits on number of revisions per user in a time period and perhaps require submitter to be autoconfirmed, etc. to prevent abuse) pending admin review? This way any revisions submitted would be revdel'd immediately and invisible to most people, but we still retain the benefits of a public noticeboard. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What, so we'd then go back and check for abuses, reverse them, and block editors for requests made in bad faith? Hmm... that's a radically different proposal. Not sure I've thought through all the implications yet. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • In any case an obvious, um, advantage of this noticeboard idea is that it permits automation. E.g. very much in the spirit of a completely open Wikipedia something similar to Deletionpedia could be set up. A bot could save all problematic edits on a server outside the Wikimedia Foundation's hands before an admin gets around to dealing with them. This would take inclusionism to a new level and would certainly be useful for all kinds of research about Wikipedia. HansAdler 19:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
      • This is such a distant possibility that any further discussion of it is really an unnecessary and possibly even counter-productive distraction. In any case, if volumes ever get high enough for people to seriously consider automation, I doubt the existence of a board would make all that much difference. In other words... come back c. 2015 and see how things are going. :) Rd232^talk 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
        • It appears that you've come around (based on what some more recent posts are saying) to realising that this is not "such a distant possibility" as to be discounted, but rather a very real clear and present danger. Did you want to formally retract the above and then apologize to those you cast aspersions on? Might help soften some of the opposition to any change in the status quo among many of those who have actual experience with oversight and other privacy sensitive roles within WMF. Because your latest proposal, that RFO be enhanced to speak to the revdel aspect without any encouragement of posting any private information, is a lot closer to what's needful here if we want to properly respect privacy and not enable those who actively wish the project and its volunteers harm than where you started from. Which is to be applauded. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Hersfold. We are taking content that often is only on a page with a very low number of view, and moving it to a centralized page where many more people will see it. Seems to me this approach would make it possible for someone to monitor the page and see their offensive comments repeated. Some of our worst vandals look for new people to harass. Copycat vandals are a problem, and could be made worse if the material is centralized. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not obvious that many more people will see it than on ANI, which is the status quo. Non-admins wouldn't have much of a reason to monitor the new board (would they?) and the setup (unlike at ANI) can very clearly be limiting info to diffs, which die for non-admins as soon as RevDel is done. "Some of our worst vandals look for new people to harass." I can't comment on that - I'm not aware of anything like that and it doesn't obviously make sense to me (I thought vandals generally targeted editors, unless they had a real-life grudge). And if the material is swiftly RevDeleted, copycat vandals don't have anything to copy. And remains true that if this actually happens, we can pull the plug very easily. There's also the issue of alternatives: the only one which avoids this risk entirely is a new admin mailing list, which creates issues with timeliness of response, as well as perhaps coordination problems. A priori, I'd put not removing things from the page in question with due speed as a higher problem than potential problems from centralisation, but maybe I'm just unfamiliar with that territory. Rd232^talk 10:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, most people have the sense to find an administrator on a one-to-one basis to ask for a revdelete. And the only "timeliness" issue is the number of readers who see the problem edit between its identification and its removal. Fifteen minutes with three people seeing it is a lot better than 5 minutes with 300 people seeing it...copying it...discussing it... Risker (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The 3 people are more likely the ones who actually care about the subject and perhaps know the person IRL; the 300 (in 5 minutes?!) are likely admins and random passersby. Rd232^talk 10:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
        • And malicious lurkers rubbing their hands in glee that their bot gets to auto archive the content all the links posted... lots of raw material for later mischief in one handy place. We should not be encouraging anyone to post any details of the problems themselves and a notice board is likely to do just that. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
          • It need not, and why would it? As explained, it can be designed as merely a central place for contacting admins about RevDelete, with no-info logging of request handling. This would be better than the status quo, which is ANI + an unknown number of requests never made by people who are unaware of RevDel or how to get a request executed. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

I have added this straw poll to {{Centralized discussion}}. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Eww, the idea is to revdel something before lots of people notice it. If we create a noticeboard, people will use it rather than dig around a bit further until they find the way to privately request revdel. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • And a big notice at the noticeboard suggesting they contact someone privately wouldn't help them? You could even have a system by which admins log themselves in and out at the board as available right now for private messages. (Ideally with some kind of software backup to check for them forgetting to log out.) Rd232 ^talk 10:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Position 3: Add a new mailing list

A mailing list loses the {{resolved}} capability of a noticeboard, but it's relatively simple to restrict membership to admins such that we're not putting requests for rev deletion directly onto Wikipedia... as long as people follow the instructions.

Support

Discussion

• If we were to go forward with a "WikiEN-admins" mailing list, it would definitely need to be non-public for obvious reasons; non-admins can post to the list, but they will not be able to subscribe to it or view any other emails in it (similar to "unblock-en-l" regarding unblock requests). Something like this would also open the door for other forms of (at times sensitive) discourse exclusively amongst en.wiki admins. I'm leaning towards supporting if at the least to see if this is a viable route to go, but perhaps more discussion is necessary if we wish to go in this direction. –MuZemike 15:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Ewww. I get enough emails already from the lists I'm already on. Also has severe risk for these requests to fall through the cracks and never get noticed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Can't people just send stuff into WP:RFO's mailing list like they do now? That's what I do. Gets the job done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Also, if there are two mailing lists, some mail will go to one place that should have been sent to the other, and then it will be forwarded to the right place - increasing the net exposure of information that's being removed because it shouldn't be exposed. Better to just make the current Oversight infrastructure a front end for all of this stuff. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• a new mailing list for admins could be quite useful, but it should be considered with more than this in mind, by way of a full RFC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Neutralhomer is correct, Requests for Oversight is a better alternative than a noticeboard. First off, a goodly number of published requests for revision deletion have actually been serious enough for oversight. Secondly, the oversighters keep a pretty close watch on the mailing list, and most requests are DISCREETLY addressed in a short time. Finally, the more people who are on a mailing list, the higher the likelihood of leaks. Any mailing list with a thousand people on it is going to leak like a sieve. Risker (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm confused: are you suggesting all RevDeletion be handled via RFO (discounting cases of admins being approached directly)? Doesn't that require all the work to be done by oversighters, or else admins to have access to it (which I thought they didn't)? Rd232^talk 10:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • This board has received, what, 5 requests for revision deletion in the last month? There were hundreds of revision deletions during that time. The oversighters can handle the few that aren't already addressed in other ways. But creating a noticeboard whose main effect will be to PUBLICISE EDITS NEEDING REVISION DELETION defeats the purpose of revision deletion. As to whether or not it will be overwork on the part of oversighters, the oversight team had no difficulty keeping up with the volume of requests before admins had revdelete, and it would be even simpler now with better workload management and a wider timezone availability of oversighters. The argument that it would be too hard for a newbie to find an admin doesn't make a lot of sense; the biggest issue that newbies face is that they don't even know that certain edits can be revdeleted, and they're no more likely to go to the "right" noticeboard than to anywhere else. Here's a question for you, though. Why are there so many revision deletions? Has anyone been reviewing them to ensure that policy is being followed? I'd venture to say that at least 30% of the ones I look at aren't covered by policy. Risker (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • "Has anyone been reviewing them to ensure that policy is being followed?" - how? A specialised board would permit some reviewing, as even after swift deletion, other admins could look. Consistency is one of the arguments for having a board: and it's a big argument, because there's quite lot of uncertainty both among admins and among everyone else as to what qualifies. The former figuring out some kind of agreed practice would be a basis for more clarity all round. Rd232 ^talk 13:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Of course, if oversighters can handle the load that well, then having them do all RevDeletion would be one way to both centralise and ensure consistency. Leave admins the RevDel right but as a matter of practice, point everything to WP:RFO. Rd232 ^talk 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • No matter how vociferously you shout "PUBLICISE EDITS NEEDING REVISION DELETION", that doesn't mean that this board will do much of that. I've made various suggestions as to how the board can make posting at the board a last resort, with alternatives given at the board itself which avoid making any info public. Those alternatives are not publicised anywhere else! There needs to be a central place to handle this, even if the place itself doesn't actually handle the info itself and thus isn't really a board. But it would make sense for it to handle posts on occasion as a last resort. Rd232^talk 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
        • it needs to not do any of that. Not one bit. Else I think regardless of consensus it needs to not be done... consensus cannot override WMF privacy policy. I do like the idea about tracking that mail was sent, and that it was handled, without any actual details of what the mail says, but as soon as any details are made public, no. Not acceptable. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Position 4: status quo

Position 1 does not adequately describe the status quo ante, which is unhelpful. Currently we have

1. WP:RFO
2. WP:ANI
3. Contacting admins directly.

1. currently ignores RevDel. 2. is highly visible (most watched page?), has no relevant guidance for RevDel, and if it had any, it would be pretty well lost in the existing noise of instruction. 3. Is haphazard, and especially for newbies problematic. For anyone, creates the problem of knowing whether an admin will actually respond to an email or user talk page request in a timely manner. Now let's review this again: who supports this? Rd232 ^talk 10:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do. (nice straw dog by the way but ok) It is not perfect but it's better than either of alternatives 2 or 3. Especially 2 (a new noticeboard) which is fraught with peril. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Status quo works for me, as apparently it does for the majority of people looking for revision deletion. Please note these statistics here: Wikipedia:Revision deletion/Statistics Given this data, it's pretty clear that this is a tool being used by a wide range of administrators, and that it is being used very regularly; the numbers you are seeing here are only from five months. As I noted above, I am concerned to see this many revision deletions being done; in fairness, when administrators got the tool, some went and reviewed long-present data that was not covered under the strict deletion policy but was covered under the revision deletion policy. Risker (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

  As an aside, do we have any idea what a similar slice of oversighting actions was in the preceding period? I'd be interested in knowing if a lot of these revdels are things that previously would have gone and been accepted for oversight, or if it is the wider availability of the tool + perhaps a less firm grasp on what can and cannot be revdel'd. Syrthiss (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

By and large, oversight only oversighted things that would get the foundation sued and personal data about people. Statements such as "Foo is a ***ing *** whose ***ing mother ***s ***ing goats" would just have been reverted. Go back prior to revdelete in the history of Jeremy's talkpage and you'll see what I mean. These days they revdelete the 4chan stuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Position 5: RevDel Central

A "noticeboard" (really a RevDel equivalent of RFO) designed as a central place for explaining how to make RevDel requests, elaborating some kind of system to make contacting admins by email more transparent (without making any info public) and less haphazard. Exactly how this would work can be hashed out later; the principles of this proposal are i) no info public and ii) a central place to explain and manage requests. This can be done in any number of ways (and would probably evolve over time, like everything else). For example it could be structured as a log with "request number # sent by email to Admin Y at time such and such", and after deletion the admin responds on the board with a link so other admins can review. Or, if we didn't even want that level of publicness (though that's hardly more than the existing log), we could devise some system involving requests going by email to several admins, so that the decision is reviewed entirely offline, and the log merely shows requests and the timeliness of fulfilment (not even who, since that would leave contribs checkable for Clues). The board could, for instance, provide a list of Currently Online Admins (who are willing to deal with RevDel requests). Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

1. As proposer. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Position 6: Oversight

Merge everything into WP:RFO, and have oversighters' mailing list deal with RevDel requests. The RFO page can present the "email admins directly" option, and leave the Oversight mailing list as a fallback. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, this is the only sane option. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Yep. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, though I think Option 2 is evolving towards handling this through email so it's going to be mostly the same. —Soap— 22:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sufficient consensus?

I think we have gotten sufficient consensus to create the noticeboard, so someone should go ahead and do it! Meanwhile, I'll be designing a header and editnotice in my userspace. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it's sufficient consensus for a draft to be helpful at this point; it may help overcome some reservations. Rd232^talk 10:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a little bit "cart before the horse", but those who oppose the board in principle seem to underestimate the range of design options available. Besides what I've already said above, you could design the board so that all that's seen publicly is a log of requests (with no useful information in the log, not even a link, least not whilst it's any use to non-admins). For example the log could be structured as "request number # sent by email to Admin Y at time such and such", and after deletion the admin responds on the board with a link so other admins can review. Or, if we didn't even want that level of publicness (though that's hardly more than the existing log), we could devise some system involving requests going by email to several admins, so that the decision is reviewed entirely offline, and the log merely shows requests and the timeliness of fulfilment. Rd232^talk 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for something sufficiently clever to avoid BEANS issues, that actually gets coded, actually works, and actually diverts traffic away from ANI. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I imagined that my idea you're replying to wouldn't require coding, just instructions to people on what to do, and a template or two. Rd232 ^talk 20:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Revisiting this, there's still a clear numerical majority favoring a new noticeboard, but at the same time there are also a number of pretty senior people saying it's a bad idea. I'm simply not seeing why it's a bad idea, given that we're already getting multiple requests at ANI, that the content in question will only last on-wiki as long as it takes an admin to RevDel it, and that it doesn't change Oversight at all. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • We need more input I think. Myself, a notice board that merely tracks that requests were made is preferable to one that gives links to the items in need of attention, and my opposition to it is softer. But a notice board to track this would be, in my view, fairly complex in operation so I'm not seeing the benefit. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here it is

User:Access Denied/RFRDHeader Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edited to make correct use clearer. Please edit further. FT2 ^{(Talk email)} 02:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfil RevisionDelete requests

Hopefully no-one can find any reason to object to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfil RevisionDelete requests, which can supplement any other approach. Please take a look. Rd232 ^talk 08:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For the Americans I think we should add a redirect at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfill RevisionDelete requests, and maybe even a redirect with a name like CAT:RFRD since people will probably want to browse the list more often than they would with most mainspace categories. —Soap— 22:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Actually I was thinking maybe it could have a userbox, which would have the advantage of being able to include a link to the instructions on the category page or elsewhere. In fact, it would be rather helpful if those more familiar with RevDel requests could construct a more detailed User Guide for RevDel requests, with fictional examples of what sort of thing probably does or probably does not qualify for the different RevDel criteria. (AFAIK this does not exist...) Rd232 ^talk 23:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)