위키백과:관리자 알림판/아카이브225

위키백과:삭제검토/로그/2011년 6월 6일

위키피디아에는 비공개 DRV가 있다.삭제 검토/로그/2011년 6월 6일말이 많은 긴 이야기인데, 아직 문을 닫지 않은 이유는 아마도 일반 DRV 클로져들 중 많은 사람들이 이미 그곳에서 견해를 밝혔기 때문일 것이다. 그리고 아마도 닫기에는 다소 골칫거리일 것이다.그러므로, 나는 이 DRV를 닫는 사람에게 어떤 식으로든 헛별을 제공할 것이다.고마워!—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 2011년 6월 18일(UTC)

금지된 편집자의 몇 가지 사례 삭제 추천서, 지침서?

선의의 공천으로 보이지만 금지된 사용자들의 양말로 만들어진 공천을 삭제하는 것에 대해 행정관이 어떻게 해야 할지 조언해 줄 수 있는지 궁금했을 뿐이다.문제는 기본적으로 이 문제를 자신들의 장점으로 볼 때 나쁜 명칭이 아니라 일부에서는 삭제 공감대가 형성되기도 하지만 그럼에도 불구하고 WP를 기반으로 빠른 조치를 취한다는 사람들이 있다는 점이다.금지된 편집자의 기고를 선의든 악의가 있든 추악하든 인정하지 않는 RBI 정책.내 우려는 이것들 역시 뒷문 붕괴일 수 있다는 것이다. 후속 지명은 삭제될 만한 가치가 있는 기사의 지명을 독살함으로써, 반복 지명이 부적절하다고 믿는 비실체적인 편집자들로 인해 성공할 가능성이 낮다.제 목표는 두 가지 입니다. 첫째로, 이 지명을 마치게 될 지도 모르는 관리자들에게 이것이 하나의 패턴으로 보인다고 알리는 것과 둘째, 특히 내가 편집자로서 무엇을 할 수 있는지 물어보는 것 입니다. 지명자가 양말처럼 드러나기 전, 나는 이미 기사의 장점에 대해 선의의 토론을 하고 있었다.호미니드마치네 (토크) 20:48, 2011년 6월 17일 (UTC) 할 수 있는 일이라도?

WP:BAN 및 WP:SOCK은 아마도 당신이 가장 잘 접하게 될 페이지일 것이다.그러나 간단히 말해서, 금지된 사용자들은 그 프로젝트에 어떤 식으로든 기여하는 것이 허용되지 않는다.금지된 "주제" 사용자는 금지된 주제와 관련이 없는 영역에 기여할 수 있다.일반적으로 특정 위반이 의심되면 WP의 참고사항:ANI 또는 WP:SPI는 당신이 염려하고 싶은 장소일 것이다.행운을 빌어요.— 체드 : ? 22:54, 2011년 6월 17일 (UTC)

참고 항목 WP:KEEP#Applicability, 항목 3: "후행 편집자들이 지명자의 금지된 지위가 발견되기 전에 선의의 실질적인 의견을 추가한 경우, 지명자의 의견은 폐쇄 결정에서 할인될 것이지만, 지명자는 신속하게 종결되지 않을 수 있다."두 번째 문장에서 당신이 묘사하는 것과 같은 경우, 사람들이 뭐라고 말하든 간에 빠른 보관은 올바른 선택이 아니다.AfD가 관리자에 의해 폐쇄되었고 삭제할 가치가 있다고 생각되는 경우, 당신은 직접 그것을 리노믹스할 수 있다.이런 리디노미네이션에 반대하는 합리적인 편집자는 거의 없을 것이다(그러나 2차 지명이 왜 이렇게 빨리 나타나는지 명확히 할 수 있는 상황을 언급할 수도 있다).Deor (대화) 23:49, 2011년 6월 17일 (UTC)

나는 이것을 금지된 사용자에 의한 어떤 기여를 하는 것처럼 취급한다: 만약 실질적인 기여가 뒤따른다면, 그것은 유지된다.AFD의 경우, 나는 '보조적'을 금지된 사용자에 의해 어떤 식으로든 탐문수사를 당하거나 부적절한 영향을 받은 것으로 보이지 않는 선의의 편집자도 삭제를 의결했다는 의미로 취급한다.만약 밖에 앉아 있는 모든 것이 "유지"되어 있거나 정말로 의심스러워 보이는 것이 삭제되어 있다면, 나는 절차상 가까운 것으로 그것을 닫는다.후속 조치가 전혀 이뤄지지 않았다면 G5를 적용할 수 있다.—Kww(대화) 00:00, 2011년 6월 18일(UTC)

나는 Kww의 의견에 동의한다. 이것이 내가 블록/반 탈주자들의 기여에 대응할 때 사용하는 접근법이고 나는 그것이 꽤 표준적이라고 생각한다.Nick-D (대화) 00:38, 2011년 6월 18일 (UTC)

위키백과:정책 금지는 정책이며 질문에 대한 구체적인 답변은 위키피디아로 나타난다.정책 금지#Ban은 좋든 나쁘든 모든 편집에 적용된다.WP:BAN은 계속해서 "누구나 금지령을 무시하고 편집한 내용을 되돌릴 수 있다"고 말한다.AfD(지명)의 새 페이지의 첫 번째 편집은 되돌릴 수 없으므로 대신 공백이나 타격을 입어야 한다는 점에서 기술적인 문제가 있다.물론 페이지의 유일한 편집인 경우 관리자는 페이지를 삭제할 수 있다.WP:KEEP#적용가능성 포인트 3은 지침이다.그것은 추가된 당시에 한 편집자에 의해 토크 페이지 토론 없이 추가되었고, 때때로 특히 !votes를 삭제하려는 사람들에 의해, AfDs가 계속 진행하기 위해 지명을 요구하지 않는다는 의미로 해석된다.그러나 삭제 논의가 시작되면 WP에서 정책을 지원하기 위한 해당 지침은 다음과 같다.BAN은 위키백과:Deletion_process#Procedural_closure, 즉 "해당 페이지의 장점보다는 삭제 지명 상황에 따른 무효 결과"로서, 이러한 폐쇄가 즉시 AfD 지명에 대한 편견 없는 것임을 분명히 해야 한다.미완성 (대화) 04:19, 2011년 6월 18일 (UTC)

당신의 해석은 WP에서 (다른 사람들과 나 자신에 의해) 반박되었다.삭제 검토/로그/2011년 4월 21일, DRV 클로저에 의해 거부됨.관련 Wikipedia Talk: WT와 같은 페이지에서 논의하십시오.삭제 프로세스.네가 원한다면 RfC 초안을 작성하겠다.플랫스캔(토크) 04:34, 2011년 6월 18일(UTC)

나는 이곳이 논의의 장이 아니라는 것에 동의하는데, 이 조의 저자가 요청한 대로 "지침"을 내리는 것은 어떨까?미완성 (대화) 16:37, 2011년 6월 18일 (UTC)

나는 Deor에 동의하고, Kw의 접근은 타당해 보인다.플랫스캔(토크) 04:45, 2011년 6월 19일(UTC)

이에 대해 기억해야 할 중요한 점은 금지된 사용자가 만든 편집(또는 다시 설치)을 되돌릴 경우에도 편집에 대한 책임이 항상 있다는 점이다.간단한 예를 들어, 만약 금지된 사용자(그들의 금지를 회피하기 위해 쏘는 것)가 공공 기물 파손의 일부를 되돌린다면, 그것은 자동적으로 되돌릴 수 있는 것이 아니다. 그때 당신이 공공 기물 파괴 행위를 복원하는 것처럼 말이다.다시 말해, 당신은 항상 당신이 누구로 되돌아가고 있는가를 볼 필요가 있는 것이지, 단지 당신이 누구를 되돌리고 있는가를 볼 필요가 없다.카차롯 (토크) 01:08, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

이 문제에 대한 나의 경험은 만약 당신이 금지되거나 차단된 사용자를 지지하는 것처럼 보인다면, 당신은 당신의 등 뒤에서 그 사용자의 가능성이 있는 양말 조각으로 논의되고 있는 자신을 발견하게 된다.그러니까 내 충고는 바지선으로 만지지 말라는 거야내 말이 씁쓸하게 들리니?그렇지 않길 바라지만, 나는 확실히 화가 났다.크리브 병장 (대화) 06:40, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

운반왕

자체 요청 블록?

나는 몇 분 전 템플 로데프 샬롬(버지니아주 폴스 처치)을 삭제 대상으로 지명했고, 크리에이터의 토크 페이지가 완전히 보호되고 있다는 오류를 얻었다.Crzushar(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)가 문제의 편집자다.그의 토크 페이지에 있는 메시지는 그가 자기 요구 때문에 끈덕지게 막혀 있다는 것을 보여주었다.우리가 그런 줄 몰랐어?블록 로그를 참조하십시오.내가 문제의 편집자에게 알리려고 한 적이 없다고 누가 화를 내면 여기에 메모를 할 줄 알았다.강아지 바구니 2011년 6월 19일 08시 52분(UTC)

WP:SelfBLOCK은 자주 하지는 않지만 할 수 있다고 말한다. re-TreasuryTag►stoppel-╢ 08:57, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

그들은 비록 그들 자신의 동의는 있지만 4년 반 동안 차단되어 왔다.나는 네가 그들에게 통보하는 어떤 나쁜 믿음의 가정으로부터도 안전하다고 생각한다.스스로 요구하는 블록(지금마다 올라오고 이득이 되는 것, 그리고 요청을 기꺼이 고려하는 관리자들의 범주가 있다)에는 문제가 없지만, 우리가 도울 수 있다면 사용자 토크 페이지를 완전히 보호해서는 안 된다.그럼에도 불구하고, 그것을 보호하지 않는 것은 의미가 없다. 왜냐하면 그렇게 오랜 시간이 지난 후, 그들이 그들의 토크 페이지를 추적할 가능성은 거의 없기 때문이다.HJ Mitchell Penny, 네 생각은 어때? 2011년 6월 19일 09:00(UTC)

프로퍼 태그

나는 압하지아 기사를 Talk에 나누자고 제안했다.2011년 6월 10일자 Abkhazia#Split_기사.아무도 반대하지 않았고 3명이 더 동의했다.내 제안서 위의 토론에 따르면, 더 많은 사람들이 이 분할을 제안했고, 동의했지만, 전혀 반대하지 않았다는 것을 알 수 있다. --WhiteWriter 10:52, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

위키백과 관련 중재안:중재/요청/사례/루사비아-바이오피스

위키피디아에서 투표한 동의서:중재/요청/수정:

위키피디아에서 Biophys(대화 · 기여)에 관한 주제 금지:중재/루사비아-바이오피스에 대한 요청은 즉시 해제되며, 즉시 효력이 발생한다.바이오피스는 이 사례와 관련된 추가적인 혼란으로 인해 주제 금지 또는 기타 구제책이 위원회에 의해 다시 적용될 수 있다는 점을 상기해야 한다.

중재위원회, Salvio 15:20, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

이 문제에 대해 논의하십시오.

위키백과 관련 중재안:중재 요청/마케도니아 2

위키피디아에서 투표한 동의서:중재/요청/수정:

위키백과의 25.3 교정:중재/마케도니아 2("Future Perfect at Sunlight at Sunlation")에 대한 요청이 해제되어 즉시 효력이 발생한다.Future Perfect at Sunlay(말·공헌·블록·보호·삭제·페이지 이동·권리·RfA)는 자신이 관여하는 지역의 행정행위를 지도하는 정책을 준수하고, 그리스·마케도니아 관련 분야의 충돌을 피하기 위해 특별히 주의할 것을 당부한다.

중재위원회, Salvio 16:51, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

이 문제에 대해 논의하십시오.

정리

이 TFD 토론은 지난 2일 동안 새로운 !보트가 없이 9일 동안 진행되었다.현 시점에서, 나는 그 합의는 템플릿을 부정하는 것이 분명하다고 생각한다 - 트윙클은 기본적으로 "합리적인" 필드를 추가하도록 수정되었지만, 이것은 여전히 이유 없이 수십억 개의 기존 정리 템플릿을 높이는 오랜 문제를 해결하지 못한다.대부분의 "유지" !보트는 WP:ITSUSEFURE 또는 기타 정책에 기반하지 않으며, 비호환에 대한 많은 주장은 {{expand}}이(가) 비호환되었을 때 제시된 주장과 매우 유사하다. 즉, 템플릿이 모호하고 거의 독점적으로 태그가 지정되어 있다는 것이다.분명히, 비호작용을 하는 사람들은 AWB를 가지고 있거나 손에 너무 많은 시간을 가지고 그것을 제거해야 할 것이지만, TFD의 선동자로서 나는 {{정리를}}하는 것을 돕겠다.10파운드 해머, 그의 수달과 단서박쥐 • 19:58, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

위키백과:중재/요청/케이스/레이스패킷 닫힘

레이스패킷과 관련된 중재 소송이 종결되었고 이제 위의 링크에서 최종 결정을 볼 수 있다.다음과 같은 구제책이 제정되었다.

1. 레이스패킷(토크 · 기여)은 위키백과에서 1년간 금지된다.
2. Hawkeye7(토크 · 기고)은 최근 편집 분쟁을 겪은 편집자들을 차단한 것에 대해 훈계를 받고 있다.
3. 로라헤일(토크 · 기여)과 레이스패킷은 서로 교류하는 것이 금지되어 있다.
4. 호크예7은 "로라 헤일에 관한 또는 그의 지시에 따라" 행정 조치를 취하는 것이 금지되어 있다.

중재 위원회의 경우, AGK [•] 21:40, 2011년 6월 19일(UTC)

이 문제에 대해 논의하십시오.

위키백과:코멘트 요청/필립 베어드 시어러

권한 없는 편집자가 위키백과를 닫을 것인가?코멘트 요청/필립 베어드 시어러?위키피디아 이후 30일 이상 경과:논평 요청/필립 베어드 쉬어러(Philip Baird Shearer)가 개시되었다.두 명의 참가자는 참여하지 않은 사람이 RfC를 닫아야 한다고 생각한다.위키백과 대화를 고려하십시오.의견 요청/Philip Baird Sheer#Proposed 솔루션 및 RfC 토크 페이지의 다른 나사산.고마워, 쿠나드 (대화) 00:34, 2011년 6월 11일 (UTC)

보관을 방지하기 위한 이후 타임스탬프.쿠나드 (대화) 23:59, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

난 지금 이 일을 하고 있어.읽어야 할 것이 많았듯이, 빠른 마감은 아니다! --Orady (토크) 13:42, 2011년 6월 16일 (UTC)

오레이디, 이 어려운 RfC를 맡아줘서 고마워.쿠나드 (대화) 22:47, 2011년 6월 17일 (UTC)

지금은 문을 닫았다. --Orady (대화) 21:31, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

오라버니, 토론 내용을 읽고 상세한 폐지를 쓰느라 시간을 내주셔서 감사하다.쿠나드 (대화) 01:14, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

안녕하십니까, 위키백과 동료 여러분

토크:2010~2011년 이보리안 위기에서 나는 제2차 이보리안 내전을 2010~2011년 이보리안 위기로 통합하자고 제안했는데, 그 기사들은 동일하고 내전이 아니었기 때문이다.내부 갈등이 모두 내전인 것은 아니다.다음 번에는 언제 또 합병을 제안할 수 있을까?B-Machine (대화) 17:24, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

지난 1년 동안 코트디부아르로 이사 간지 5번째 날이야(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:04, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

그다지 중립적인 음은 아니었지만, BWilkins (그리고 그 글의 역사에서 이전 3개의 RM만이 존재했던 것을 고려하면, 역시 정확하지 않다...)젠크스24 (대화) 02:35, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

다른 사용자의 샌드박스에서 내용 재사용

여기 사용자 웹로그의 샌드박스에 있는 많은 콘텐츠를 재사용하고 싶다 - 사용자:이 글의 Weblogan/Sandbox - Singaravelu Chettiar.Weblogan은 기사를 다시 쓰는 데 큰 공을 들였지만, 현재(2010년 6월 이후) 활동이 활발하지 않고, 내용을 기사 공간으로 옮기지 않고 있다.내 질문은 다른 편집자가 사용자의 사용자 공간에서 내용을 복사하여 기사에 붙여넣을 수 있는가 하는 것이다(편집 요약에서 원본 작성자를 수정).허용되나?그렇지 않은 경우, 내용을 문서 공간으로 이동하는 다른 방법이 있는가?메일 통지가 가능해진 만큼 사용자 토크 페이지에 메모를 남기려고 했는데, 사용자가 돌아와서 직접 할 때까지 기다리지 않고 할 수 있는지 묻고 싶었다. --소다보틀 (대화) 15:40, 2011년 6월 18일 (UTC)

괜찮아, 응.위키피디아의 콘텐츠는 무료 저작권 사용권 하에 공개되며, 기사 개선은 중요한 것이다!╟-TreasuryTag►Tellers의 지팡이-╢ 15:41, 2011년 6월 18일(UTC)

나는 기사 기록을 유지하기 위해 단순히 페이지를 옮기는 것을 제안하고 싶다.그래도 대화 페이지 쪽지를 보내줘.NW(Talk) 16:43, 2011년 6월 18일(UTC)

샌드박스에는 샤우캣 우스마니(올디드)와 슈리팟 아므리트 단지(올디드) 등의 작품이 들어 있다.역사가 분열되고 합쳐지는 것은 그 고생의 가치가 없을지도 모른다.플랫스캔(토크) 04:14, 2011년 6월 20일(UTC)

WP:Wipedia#Property attribution, List of writer에 따르면, 편집 요약의 크레딧은 충분하다.필수가 필요 없는 경우에도 미래의 편집자를 위한 원본 페이지에 대한 링크를 포함시키고 싶다.계속하기 전에 Weblogan에 연락하고 잠시 기다리십시오(개인적으로 한 달 정도 기다리겠습니다).플랫스캔(토크) 04:14, 2011년 6월 20일(UTC)

SPI 질문

WP:SPI는 정말로 모든 공개 사례에서 삭제된 것인가, 아니면 뭔가 잘못 된 것인가?비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 02:52, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

응, 그런 것 같아.그리고 나는 그것을 치울 수 없었다. :) –MuZemike 03:35, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

지정된 범주:SPI 케이스를 열어봐, 봇 문제인 것 같아.T. 캐넌스 (대화) 10:09, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

네 말이 맞아.봇이 일을 망쳤다.–MuZemike 10:10, 2011년 6월 20일(UTC)

섀도우복서즈

여보세요. 여기가 맞는지 잘 모르겠지만, 관리자한테 도움을 요청하고 싶었어.나는 그 기사를 WP로 태그했다.어젯밤 CSD#A7.이 밴드는 대학을 갓 졸업한 무표정한 밴드야빵과 버터 {{db-band}}} 입니다.토크 페이지는 단일 목적 계정에서 많은 관심을 끌고 있다.기사를 보관하는 명분은 그들이 점점 더 많은 팬층을 가지고 있고, 그들은 정말 훌륭하며, 이 페이지가 밴드가 인정받는 데 도움이 될 것이라는 것이다.같은 정책 페이지를 계속해서 인용하면서 나를 계속 반복해야 하는 것은 나를 궁지에 몰아넣고 있다.누가 좀 보고 나를 불행에서 벗어나게 해줄래?제발— Fly by Night (대화) 20:52, 2011년 6월 17일 (UTC)

이 밴드는 곧 주목을 받을 것 같지만 아직 WP를 만나지는 못한다.BAND. 삭제하되, 기사에 소금을 뿌려서는 안 된다. 레크리에이션은 허용한다.Binksternet (대화) 23:21, 2011년 6월 17일 (UTC)

완전히 보호된 리디렉션을 사용한 사용자 정의는?그게 먹힐까?Mjroot (대화) 18:18, 2011년 6월 18일 (UTC)

메인 스페이스에서 사용자 스페이스로 리디렉션한다는 말씀이세요?그것은 여러 가지 타당한 이유로 허용되지 않는다.프람 (대화) 08:22, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

CSD는 거부되었고, 현재 이 기사는 PROD2도 제자리에 놓여져 있다.위에서 언급한 것과 동일한 효과로 SPA/IP 해설을 여전히 보지만, PROD 헤더는 여전히 제자리에 있다.PROD 헤더가 사라지면 다음 논리적 단계는 기사를 AfD하는 것이다.여기서 필요한 행정 조치는 아마도 양말을 위한 토크 페이지를 주시하고 있는 것 외에는 보이지 않는다. --Alan the Robing Ambassador (토크) 13:12, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

두 번 무기한 차단된 사용자 Stubes99에 대한 사이트 금지 제안(1981)

키트 커닝햄 신부

방금 BLP의 우려로 키트 커닝햄 신부를 공격페이지로 삭제했는데, 그것은 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8199757/Father-Kit-Cunningham.html에서 꽤 정상적인 부고를 언급했지만 주로 아동학대에 대한 주장을 담고 있었다.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/19/kit-cunningham-child-abuse,은 누군가가 그것을 검토하고 필요에 따라 삭제 또는 승인을 되돌릴 수 있다(또한 St Eteldreda Church의 일부 내용).MilbonOne (대화) 21:51, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

나는 성 에델드레다의 교회 기사에서 그 진술자는 마치 그가 그런 범죄에 대해 결코 유죄 판결을 받지 않았거나 심지어 기소되지 않은 것으로 보일 때 마치 사실인 것처럼 보이는 발언을 삭제했다.Off2riorob (대화) 21:52, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

BLP의 우려 사항은 무엇인가?그는 죽었다.던컨힐 (대화) 21:57, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

참고 - 사용자가 diff를 대체함:필라델피아 2009는 보호자가 외부로부터 자유로운 것으로 인용되는 것 같다.Off2riorob (대화) 21:59, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

Tablet Rosminians는 남용 때문에 고소를 했다.던컨힐 (대화) 22:01, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

가디언의 의견 중 하나에 근거하여 커닝햄에 대한 공격으로 보이는 것을 분명히 하기 위해 나는 아마도 성급했던 것 같다. 그래서 나는 제정신을 점검하기 위해 커닝햄에 대한 공격을 삭제했다.비록 그들이 죽었을지라도 그들은 친척이 있을지도 모른다.따라서 만약 다른 사람들이 적절하다고 생각한다면, 내 삭제를 되돌리고자 하는 나의 요청은 다른 견해만을 찾아 2009년 필라델피아에 기꺼이 사과할 것이다.MilbonOne (대화) 22:10, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

나는 최소한 많은 주의를 요할 것이라고 말하고 싶다.법적 고발은 없었던 것 같지만 현재 민사소송의 주체가 3명 또는 관련자가 거주하고 있다.그것은 또한 모든 가능한 세부사항들이 피해자와 민사 소송 당사자에 의해 유출된 것처럼 들린다.Off2riorob (대화) 22:15, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

Fr Kitt는 살아있다면 기소될 것이지만, 나머지 세 명의 살아있는 신부에 대해서는 동의했다.또한 화요일에 BBC의 TV 프로그에서 더 많은 정보를 얻을 수 있을 것이다.필라델피아 2009 (토크) 22:23, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

내가 보는 시각은 (가디언에 기록된 대로) 키트 커닝햄 Fr Kit Cunningham은 학대 혐의를 부인하지 않고 사과문을 써서 OBE를 돌려준 것이다.그 기사는 결코 완성된 기사가 아니었고, 나는 런던에서 Fr Kit의 좋은 작품을 더 많이 포함시킬 계획이었다.필라델피아 2009 (토크) 22:19, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

타블렛은 커닝햄이 학대를 인정하는 편지를 썼다고 말한다.던컨힐 (대화) 22:20, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

사용자: Philadelphia 2009, 그는 부고자에서 주목할 만한 사람으로 보인다. (이 추가 이슈 이전에 아무도 그에 대한 기사를 쓰지 않았음에도 불구하고) 아마도 당신은 기사 공간에 출판하기 전에 당신의 사용자 공간에서 아버지를 위해 잘 다듬어진 BLP를 쓰고 싶은가?Off2riorob (대화) 22:46, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

만약 이것이 실행된다면 - 그리고 나는 특히 다른 살아있는 사람들이 민사 소송에 연루되어 있기 때문에 - 이 페이지에 NO_INDEX 템플릿이 표시되어 있는지 확인하여 검색 엔진 결과에서 높은 순위를 차지할 가능성을 줄이십시오.위험원 (대화) 03:53, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

아일랜드 인디펜던트지에 실린 이 기사에 따르면, 이것에 대해 내일 상영될 다큐멘터리가 있다.펜스&윈도우즈 22:34, 2011년 6월 20일(UTC)

Sockpuppetry 관련 질문

이것은 일반적인 질문이지, 양말 퍼피에 대한 비난이나 행동요청이 아니다.

만약 사용자가 그의 다양한 IP 등과 함께 삭스푸피트리 때문에 무기한 차단되었다가 거의 즉시 새로운 계정을 가지고 다시 나타난다면, 그는 즉시 새로운 계정에 대한 추가 차단을 책임질 것인가, 아니면 우리는 그의 행동이 차단을 정당화할 때까지 기다려야 하는가?방금 이런 경우를 발견해서 물어보는 건데, 아직 새 계정은 정말 잘못한 게 없어.내가 그에게 기회를 주느냐, 아니면 바로 쇼핑하느냐?브레톤반켓 (대화) 22:50, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

그건 탈옥이고 즉시 차단을 할 수 있다는 거야.이글스24/7(C) 23:56, 2011년 6월 19일(UTC)

고마워 :) 브레톤반켓 (대화) 21:14, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

2011년 메이저 리그 야구 드래프트

내가 잘못된 곳에 있으면 용서해 주고, 여기가 잘못된 곳이라면 제대로 된 곳으로 안내해 주지만, 좀 개입해 주었으면 좋겠다.

WP:BASEBAL에서는 50라운드의 과도한 목록이고 징집된 대부분의 개인들이 GNG를 결코 충족시키지 못할 것이기 때문에 아마추어 드래프트의 1차 드래프트(보상 라운드 포함)의 1차 드래프트를 나열하는 것에 동의한다. 실제로 많은 1차 선발은 GNG를 결코 충족시키지 못한다. 한 편집자, 사용자:카르타고44는 2011년 메이저리그 드래프트에 50라운드를 모두 추가할 것을 주장하고 있으며 그의 가장 최근의 편집 요약에서 알 수 있듯이 정중한 논의에 참여하기를 거부하고 있다.그는 완전히 파괴하지도 않고, 전쟁을 편집하지도 않지만, 그의 편집은 대화 페이지에 대한 합의를 구하지도 않기 때문에 파괴적이다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 00:38, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

이것이 WP였다면 이해하십시오.적절하지만, 우리가 여기 있는 동안 누군가 상황을 엿보고 싶어할지도 몰라.캐러티지는 이제 BAM!과 BAM!의 편집 요약을 가지고 포인트 게임으로 되돌아오고 있다.몇 달 전 비슷한 스포츠 드래프트인 AFD가 그의 뜻대로 되지 않았을 때 나는 이 사용자와 우연히 마주쳤다.그는 반대되는 관점을 다룰 때 자신을 잘 다루지 못한다, IMO. Tarc (대화) 18:46, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

사용자는 편집 요약에 따라 편집에 대해 토론할 의사가 없으므로 차단됨.Wizardman_{Operation Big Bear} 18:49, 2011년 6월 20일(UTC)

둘 다 고마워.내가 처음 시작할 때 말했듯이, 나도 그것이 꽤 AN 물질인지는 확신할 수 없었지만, 또 어디로 돌아가야 할지 몰랐다.– 무보슈구 (토크) 19:20, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

온전성 검사

문밖으로 나가는 길이지만, User talk:Dr.에서 교환을 봐줄 수 있는 사람이 있으면 고맙겠다. 블로펠드#오스트리아 호수 변전소들 그리고 내가 완전히 마블을 잃어버렸는지 내게 알려줘.(나는 더 이상 시간을 낭비할 생각이 없고 창조하는 데 시간이 걸리지 않는 '미술품'을 개선할 생각이 없기 때문에 행정적인 조치를 강구하는 것이 아니다. 단지 내가 더 이상 이치에 맞는 말을 할 수 있는지 알아야 할 뿐이다.)Deor (대화) 15:20, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

나는 위키피디아에서 이것을 추구하라고 행정관에게 말했다.마을 펌프(기타)A는 관리자 개입이 필요한 상황에 대한 것이다.나는 이 편집자들의 반응에 더 신경을 쓸 것이다.1911년 6월 20일 블로펠드 박사 15:33, 2011년 6월 20일(UTC)

• 이 줄기는 새로 생긴 위키백과의 좋은 후보인 것 같다.분쟁 해결 안내 게시판.–xeno^talk 15:49, 2011년 6월 20일(UTC)

당신이 더 걱정한다고 하는 반응은 공격적이지만 이해할 수 있다.관리 게시판에 이슈를 게시할 이유가 있다고 생각하는 사람은 누구나 그 게시물이 유일한 관련 편집자에 의해 삭제되는 것에 반대할 것이 분명하다. --Onorem♠Dil 15:51, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

그러나 나는 여전히 이곳이 이것에 대해 게시할 적절한 장소가 아니라는 것이 옳다.1911년 6월 20일 블로펠드 박사 15:52, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

일반적으로 나는 동의하지만, 사용자가 일반적인 관리자의 관심사라고 생각하는 주제에 대한 입력을 원한다고 생각하는 것은 불합리하지 않다.내가 보기에 그것은 그들이 관리자 개입을 원하는 문제가 아니라 관리자 입력을 원하는 문제인 것 같다. --Onorem♠Dil 15:56, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

블로펠드가 자신의 토크 페이지에서 교환을 삭제했기 때문에, 여기 내가 언급했던 것과 관련된 링크가 있다.확실히 하자:{{Expand 독일어}}}}}의 문서를 읽은 것이 완전히 틀린 것인지, 둘째로, 내가 (원래 내 직책에서) 두 가지 합리적인 요구라고 생각한 것이 내가 받은 응답을 받을 만한 가치가 있을 정도로 잘못된 메시지를 구성했는지 알고 싶을 뿐이다.Deor (대화) 2011년 6월 20일 18:31, 20 (UTC)

아무도 위키피디아에 대해 더 알지 못한다.위키프로젝트 인터트랜스위키는 나보다 더.나는 전체 프로젝트를 설정하고 캘리오페젠과 함께 현재 시행하고 있는 번역 템플리팅 시스템에는 "Expand Germany"가 포함되어 있다.그러므로 내가 직설적으로 말하는데 이 프로젝트 번역 분야에서 나보다 경험이 적은 관리자에게 당신은 지금 2년 동안 관례였던 것을 잘못 해석하고 있다고 말하는 것은 당신이 찾고 있는 결과를 낳지 못할 것 같다.만약 당신이 잘못 이해한 것이 미쳤다고 확신할 사람을 찾고 있다면, 나는 AN이 아니라 당신의 사람이다.사용자 동의 없이 이루어진 임시 수정사항을 우연히 발견한 것 같음:위키백과에서 논의되고 있는 실크토크:번역, 여기서 이 대화가 끝나야 할..이것이 당신이 그 규약이 대부분의 인증이 아닐 때 대화 페이지에 배치하는 것이라는 것을 읽은 이유일 것이다.그는 10일 전에 아무런 대화도 하지 않고 템플릿을 수정했다.〇 블로펠드 박사 19:07, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

위키백과:삭제 리뷰/Log/2011년 6월 10일 미국에서 가장 많이 팔린 앨범 목록 및 영국에서 가장 빨리 팔린 앨범 목록

관리자가 위키피디아를 닫으시겠습니까?삭제 리뷰/로그/2011년 6월 10일 미국에서 가장 많이 팔린 앨범 목록과 영국에서 가장 빨리 팔린 앨범 목록?고마워, 쿠나드 (대화) 2011년 6월 21일 01:30 (UTC)

NOW-Close 요청됨

안녕, 관리 마인드 스노우 클로징 위키백과:삭제/Lol@souffs에 대한 기사 – 상상력이 부족한 사용자 이름을 가진 단일 목적의 계정/소크에 의해 밀리고 있는 매우 명확한 사례.고마워요.╟-TreasuryTag►tortfeasor-╢ 07:26, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

비활동 및 보안

이번 주에는 도구를 보관하고 있는 비활동적인 행정가들에 관한 드라마도 있었다.나는 나블라에 대한 RfArb 요청에서 다음과 같은 제안을 언급했다.관리자가 일정 기간 동안 (관리자가 선택하는 것 중) 비활동적인 경우 언제든지 반환을 요청할 수 있는 관련 관리자에게 패널티나 수치심을 주지 않고 도구 철회를 요청할 수 있는 레지스터가 설치된다.나는 돈을 입에 넣고 3개월 동안 활동을 하지 않으면 옷을 벗게 된다는 취지의 글을 내 토크 페이지에 추가했다.나는 이렇게 함으로써 위키피디아에 생길 수 있는 피해를 예방하는 데 도움이 된다고 믿는다.Mjroot (대화) 12:39, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

참고 항목:위키백과:마을 펌프(제안)/비활동 관리자의 시스템 운영 권한 중단–xeno^talk 12:41, 2011년 6월 21일(UTC)

드디어 이런 일이 일어나게 되어 정말 기쁘다. - 버펠슨 AFB✈ 15:15, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

나는 닭들이 부화하기 전에 그것을 세지 않을 것이다.연계된 논의의 코멘트로 미루어 볼 때, 나는 여전히 이 영구적인 제안을 지속적으로 해오고 있는 비활동적인 관리자의 sysop 특권을 중지하는 것에 대한 어떠한 합의도 보지 못하고 있다. : TelCoNaSpVe : 16:17, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

컨센서스 갤로어가 보인다... - 버펠슨 AFBb 16:55, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

글쎄, 우리는 사물을 다르게 보는 것 같아... :-) : TelCoNaSpVe : 17:05, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

ACC도 비슷한 프로그램을 가지고 있다.toolserver.org에서 실행되는 계정 생성 인터페이스는 스크립트 또는 봇에 의해 업데이트되는 도구 관리자만 액세스할 수 있는 페이지를 가지고 있으며, 어느 페이지인지 확실하지 않으며, 45일 동안 인터페이스에 로그인하지 않은 사용자 또는 관리자가 사용자를 일시 중단시키기 위한 링크로 비활성 상태로 해당 페이지에 게시된다.편집 요약은 사용자에게 비활성 상태로 인해 계정이 일시 중단되었음을 알려주고 사용자가 계정을 활성 상태로 되돌리기를 원하는 경우 도구 관리자에게 문의하면 계정이 다시 활성화된다.이 프로그램은 아주 잘 작동한다.돌아오는 사용자는 중지되지 않으며 ACC가 좋은 아이디어가 아니라고 판단하거나 더 이상 관심이 없다고 판단되는 비활성 사용자는 정지된 상태로 남아 있다.Mlpearc Public (대화) 18:04, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

범위 블록 쿼리/요청

• 60.52.45.143 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)
• 60.52.43.139 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)
• 60.52.124.83 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)
• 60.52.45.53 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)
• 60.52.127.164 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)
• 60.52.121.13 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)
• 60.52.127.67 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)

난 레인지 바리케이드를 치지 않아이런 상황에서 레인지 블록이 실용적일지, 유용할지는 누가 알아봐 줄 수 있을까?고마워. --봉와리어 (대화) 01:48, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

나는 사실 블록을 메우는 것을 도울 수는 없지만, 이 IP가 말레이시아 ISP에 속해 있다는 사실은 거의 항상 동적인 IP 할당이기 때문에 이 문제를 어렵게 만들며, 결국 당신은 ISP 고객의 상당 부분을 차단하게 될 것이다.다만 말레이시아에는 우선 ISP가 많아 60.52.0.0/16에 있는 것과 같은 블록이 국가의 많은 부분에 영향을 미칠지 모르겠다.—류룽 (竜龙) 01:54, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

응, 범위가 좀 커.—GFOLEY Four—02:19, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

완료: 60.52.40.0/21 및 60.52.120.0/21 둘 다 3일 동안 범위가 차단됨.Elockid 21:03, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

소위키에 대한 반달 가능성

이 IP 사용자를 기록해 두십시오.두 번 페이지를 비운 후, 이제 그는 기사와 두 개의 토크 페이지를 만들었다.나는 언어를 읽을 수 없으니 한번 봐줘.- 고마워 - 벤MQ (대화) 2011년 6월 21일 19:29 (UTC)

이것은 몇 분 전에 내 벽에 남겨져 있었고, 나 역시 소말리아어를 읽을 수 없다는 점에 유의하십시오. -- Zanimum (대화) 19:37, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

벤 MQ는 몇 명에게 그렇게 통보한 것 같다.위키 관리자/편집자도 [16]Bob House 884 (대화) 20:28, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

IP는 영어 위키백과에서 편집되지 않았고, 우리는 소말리아 위키백과에 대한 권한이 없다.긴급한 경우 meta에서 지원을 요청하십시오.스튜어드 요청/글로벌. /2011년 6월 21일(UTC)

관리인 여러분, 만약...

WP:BEANS, 또는 도움이 되는 실이 아니다.어느 쪽이든, 지금은 그것으로 충분해, 고마워.Bencherlite 00Talk:36, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.
좋은 소식입니다, 행정관님들!우리 중재위원회의 상당 부분에 따르면, 로그아웃을 하고 합리적인 목표와 점을 염두에 두고 나중에 이 게시판에 분명히 밝히는 한, "형벌(폭행)은 범죄에 맞지 않는다"!적어도 6알(이 글의 현재)이 비관리적 범죄로 받아들인 것처럼, 나는 우리가 관리자들로부터 미묘한 반달리즘을 경계해야 한다고 생각한다.재미있게 보내!StrPby (대화) 00:23, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC) StrPby, 나쁜 상황을 더 악화시키기 위해 개인적으로 노력해줘서 고마워.Sven ManguardWha? 00:30, 2011년 6월 22일(UTC) (갈등 편집) - 나는 이것을 믿지 않는다. 내가 스벤과 동의한 것은 이번이 처음이다.Str please 우리는 더 이상 드라마의 분화가 필요하지 않다. 나는 그 사건 전체에 놀랐지만, 계속해서 모닥불 Mlpearc Public (토크)을 먹일 필요는 없다. 2011년 6월 22일 00:43, 추가되지 않은 코멘트가 추가되었다.

관리자와 반달이라고 주장하는 IP

새로 시작 요청

사용자: Jimmyson1991(토크+ · 태그 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 차단 · 로그 · 블록 로그 · CA · CheckUser (log) · 조사 · 쿠위키)

단편:

• 삭스마스터는 기사의 종교/이종성/국가성을 강조하면서 전쟁을 막았다.
• 비슷한 물건, 그리고 양말 착용을 위해 여러 번 양말과 막힘.
• 모든 토크를 달아서, 많은 편집이 괜찮았다.
• 나는 최신 양말을 모르고 환영했다.그는 막혔다.나는 그에게 이야기했다.
• 그는 새로운 출발을 원하고 오래된 패턴을 피하겠다고 약속한다.

• 주제와 토론
• 마지막 차단 관리자와 토론
• 양말 조사

내 의견:나는 그를 보증하지는 않지만, 그의 편집 내용을 지켜볼 것이다.배 모양대로 가면 지금의 상황과 다를 게 없기 때문에 새 출발을 허용하는 것은 논리적으로 보인다.게다가, 하나의 사용자 이름으로, 우리는 볼 수 있고, 결국, 그는 좋은 기여를 한다.이야기의 끝.안나 프로데시아크 (대화) 00:31, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

삭스마스터는 불과 한 달 전 17일에 가장 최근 양말이 막혔고...그가 6개월을 기다려 차단 해제를 요청하면 기분이 좋아질 것이다. - 버펠슨 AFB✈ 15:14, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

이것은 위의 실과 비슷하지만, 버펠슨 AFB가 지적한 바와 같이, 이와 같은 요구를 하기에는 너무 이르다. -- 아타마 17:22, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

중국 주식 관련 사기 혐의

이 기사는 벌써 몇 달째 계속되고 있다.문제가 있는 예전 명칭인 "중국 주식 사기"에서 이름을 바꿨어.좀 누그러지긴 했지만, 나는 여전히 이 회사들을 너무 넓은 "사기" 붓으로 소싱하고 칠하는 것에 대해 걱정하고 있다.나는 같은 편집자가 만든 P칩스 사기에 대해서도 같은 고민을 하고 있다.이 과목에서 기사를 보는 것은 좋지만 사기라는 단어를 사용할 때는 조심해야 할 것 같아.관리자가 그 기사를 숙독해 주면 고맙겠다.그림 9 (대화 • 기여) 21:04, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

WP:POVN은 아마도 도움을 요청하기에 훨씬 더 좋은 장소일 것이다.당신이 요구하는 것은 관리자가 필요한 것이 아니며, POV 알림판은 이런 상황을 위해 특별히 만들어졌다. -- Atama頭20:02, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

좋아, 내가 거기에 게시할게.그림 9 (대화 • 기여) 21:01, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

위키백과:관리자 게시판/아카이브225#위키백과:삭제 리뷰/Log/2011년 6월 10일 미국에서 가장 많이 팔린 앨범 목록 및 영국에서 가장 빨리 팔린 앨범 목록

관리자가 위키피디아를 닫으시겠습니까?삭제 리뷰/로그/2011년 6월 10일 미국에서 가장 많이 팔린 앨범 목록과 영국에서 가장 빨리 팔린 앨범 목록?위키백과의 이전 요청:관리자 게시판/아카이브225#위키백과:삭제 리뷰/Log/2011년 6월 10일 미국에서 가장 많이 팔린 앨범 목록과 영국에서 가장 빨리 팔린 앨범 목록이 보관되었다.쿠나드 (대화) 09:03, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

완료. Fram (대화) 09:28, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

이 어려운 논쟁을 끝내줘서 고맙소, 프람.하우스키핑 리뷰 태그가 있는 미국에서 가장 빨리 팔리는 앨범 목록과 영국에서 가장 빨리 팔리는 앨범 목록으로 삭제하시겠습니까?삭제 로그에 위키백과에 대한 링크를 포함하십시오.삭제 검토/로그/2011년 6월 10일고마워, 쿠나드 (대화) 09:37, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

그들이 DRV를 위해 임시로 만들어진 것을 눈치채지 못했는데, 나는 그것들을 지금 삭제했다.프람 (대화) 09:58, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

교활한 반달?

일반적인 clei(대화 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 핵 기여 • 로그 • 필터 로그 • 차단 사용자 • 블록 로그)는 의심스러워 보이고, 편집 절반은 일종의 교활한 파괴 행위처럼 보이며, 절반은 편집 기록을 쌓기 위해 행해질 수 있는 하찮은 편집이다.누군가는 그 계정을 검토하고 플래그로 태그를 달거나, 그런 경우 어떤 것이든 할 수 있다. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 17:09, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

이러한 편집은 "반달리즘"의 자격이 될 만큼 악의적으로 보이지는 않는다.그들 역시 특별히 도움이 되지는 않지만, 이것은 백과사전의 편집 기능을 시험하는 새로운 사용자일 가능성이 더 높다.샌드박스에 대한 문책과 소개가 충분해야 한다.~~로타 폰 리치토펜 (토크) 17:15, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

사용자:제프 딘 및 가능한 편집으로 돌아가기

작년 11월, 나는 제프 딘과 다른 많은 사람들을 양말질하는 것을 무기한 차단했다.그는 Whoami 24 (토크 · 기여)로 막 돌아왔지만, 그는 기본적으로 여기서 자신의 행동에 대해 사과하는 글을 올렸다. 게다가 그는 7개월 넘게 WP를 만나지 않았다.제안. 그가 기본적으로 양말 사용권을 소유하고 있고 꽤 오랜 기간 동안 그렇게 하지 않았다는 점을 감안할 때, 우리는 그가 이 경상 계정을 편집하고 사용할 수 있도록 허용해야 할까?–MuZemike 15:59, 2011년 6월 20일(UTC)

좋아, 다음번에는 좀 더 자세히 볼게.그 계정은 1월 1일에 만들어졌고, 현재와 그 사이에 정확히 3개의 수정사항이 있었다.–MuZemike 16:23, 2011년 6월 20일(UTC)

3월의 그 세 가지 편집이 이 사람(이 계정이 아닌 이 사람)이 위키백과에서 행한 유일한 활동인 한, WP의 정신은 다음과 같다.오퍼는 충족되었고, 보호관찰의 차단을 해제할 수 있도록 지원될 것이며, 우리는 재잠금할 수 있다. --Jayron32 16:48, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

Jayron32의 말을 지지한다.--SPHILbrickT 20:38, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

더 이상 '세나니건'은 없을 것이다.Whoami 24 (대화) 23:10, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

• 반대 He WP:EVADED가 다시 와서 질문하기 위해 유효한 블록을 만들었는가?말도 안 돼, 시계를 다시 맞춰.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:24, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)
  • 무슨 시계?그것을 무기한으로 만들려면 무엇을 더해야 하는가?이 블록의 목적은 처벌하는 것인가, 예방하는 것인가?예방하기 위해서인데, 그가 복귀해서 아무도 해치지 않는다면, 무슨 문제가 있는 것일까? --골베즈 (대화) 23:32, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)
    • 이것이 차단 회피라고 말하는 것은 관료주의일 뿐이다. 즉, 이 요청이 원래 계정으로 이루어졌을 때 보다 더 훌륭하거나 나쁜 믿음을 가지고 있다고 믿을 이유가 없으며, 그것을 다르게 취급할 이유도 없다.차단해제에 대해서는 의견이 없지만, 후아미 24와 제프 딘이 같은 사람이라는 점에서 이것은 마치 제프 딘이 요청을 한 것처럼 취급되어야 한다.나이튼드 (토크) 01:44, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

Per Jayron32, 그리고 더 이상 "세나니건"을 하지 않겠다는 약속, 이것은 해볼만한 가치가 있어 보인다.2011년 6월 21일(UTC) 벤첼라이트^Talk 08:57

• 위에 따른 지원.필요하면 언제든지 다시 잠글 수 있어.— 체드 : ? 10:28, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

• 신의 가호가 있기를.나는 내가 이 요청을 선의로 한다고 장담한다.위키피디아의 분산행정을 감안할 때 어떻게 해결될지는 모르겠지만, 나는 그것이 나에게 분명히 밝혀질 것이라고 생각한다.더구나 지금처럼 익명으로 목욕하는 일이 더 이상 없었으면 좋겠다.가능하다면 나의 사용자 이름은 "제프 딘"(자본 "D"), "제이딘" 또는 "제프리 딘" 중 하나였으면 좋겠다.여러분의 의견, 지지, 반대 등에 감사드린다.Whoami 24 (대화) 12:54, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

만약 우리가 여기서 계속 편집하기로 합의했다고 가정할 때, 우리는 또한 "제프 학장" 계정을 차단할 수 있고, 만약 당신이 원한다면, 당신이 대문자를 원한다면, 그것의 이름을 바꿀 수 있다.–MuZemike 19:00, 2011년 6월 21일(UTC)

• 지지 나는 행정관이 아니므로 나의 의견을 가치 있는 것으로 받아들이되, 이 사람에게 여러 번 맞서는 사람으로서 나는 여전히 선의/선한 의도를 갖고 팔을 벌리고 동료 (비커 비커) 오토바이 운전자를 환영하는 것이 행복하다. --Biker Bikeer (토크) 13:11, 2011년 6월 21 (UTC)
• 매우 구체적인 조건의 지원: Jeff는 자신이 사용하는 사용자 이름을 조정 관리자에게 보고해야 하며, 양말 사용은 절대 안 함(occasional WP:RFCU가 도움이 될 것이다.) 그리고 제프는 특히 COI 편집(웹사이트, 독창적인 연구, 예의 바르게 행동)을 통해 훨씬 더 세심하게 관찰될 것이라는 것을 알고 있다.테더 (토크) 13:39, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

• Tedder - 만약 당신이 관리자라면, 나의 조정 관리자가 되어 주시겠습니까?Whoami 24 (대화) 15:10, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

• 나도 동의해.위의 세 가지 익명 사용자 이름 중 하나를 사용하고 싶다.누가 나의 "조정 행정관"이 될까?내가 어떤 일이 있어도, 내가 그것을 만드는 즉시, 여기 그것을 사용하는 것을 중지할 것이다.Whoami 24 (대화) 13:51, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

• 그는 과거의 실수로부터 배운 것 같다.리퍼 이터널(토크) 19:16, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)
• 약한 사람들은 그들의 막힘 없는 토론에 참여하기 위해 대체 계정을 만드는 순전한 추즈파 때문에 반대한다.만약 그들이 이것을 하지 않았다면, 나는 WP를 지지할 것이다.제안. ╟-TreasuryTag►voice 투표-19:22, 2011년 6월 21일(UTC)
• 질문 제프 딘이 금지된 이유를 이해한다는 명확한 증거가 보이지 않기 때문에 나는 여기서 의견을 가지기 어렵다.'착하게 될 것을 약속한다'는 말은 다소 모호하고, 누구나 쉽게 할 수 있는 말이다.그는 어떻게 "그냥 일어나는 일"인지 설명하지 않고, 자신이 한 여섯 개 정도의 회계는 모두 무고한 실수였다고 주장한다.그 속임수의 자기 잇속만 차리는 이익은 명백하며, 속는 사람들은 그것을 고마워하지 않을 것이라고 상식적으로 말해줄 것이다.위키피디아의 양말풀이 정책은 비밀이 아니라는 사실 이외에도 말이다.그리고 파일 소유권에 대한 문제가 있다.내가 말할 수 있는 한 그는 CC-BY-SA라는 사진의 라이센스를 얻는 것이 무슨 의미인지 이해하지 못한다.위키백과:표준 오퍼에는 조건으로서 사과와 회개가 포함되어 있지 않다.그러나 그것이 무엇을 의미하는지 모른다면 '그 행동을 피하겠다는 약속'과 '생산적으로 나아가겠다는 의지'를 가질 수 있을까?우리가 먼저 차단을 풀고 나서 그들이 그 후에 어떻게 행동해야 하는지 알아내도록하자는 생각인가?

  만약 이 질문들이 범위를 벗어나면, 계속 차단선을 풀고 어떻게 될지 지켜봐라. --Dennis Bratland (토크) 20:34, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

• 지원 - 우선, 입장...나는 양말푸펫을 정말 싫어한다.나는 대체 계정을 남용하는 사람들에 의해 야기된 속임수 때문에 위키피디아에 대해 아주 나쁜 경험을 한 적이 있다.솔직히, 그들은 나에게 두통을 준다.나는 위키피디아에서 내가 할 수 있는 모든 것을 차분하고 중립적이며 추리력(WP:DGAF의 많은 양만큼)에 호소하면서 하려고 노력하지만, 때때로 나를 개인적으로 잘못된 방식으로 비벼댄다.그래서 나는 그런 행동에 관여하는 사람을 용서하는 것을 즐기지 않는다.하지만 나는 이것을 지지한다; 나는 정직한 회개라고 본다. 편집자는 오랜 시간 동안 합리적인 행동을 했다. (비활동이 좋은 행동으로 간주될 수 있다면), 그리고 나는 그 계정이 추가적인 정밀 조사를 받는 한, 나는 그들이 그 프로젝트에 다시 참여하도록 하는 것이 안전하다고 생각한다. -- 아타마 17:19, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

• 사용자에게 설명:제프 딘누구나 실수를 할 수 있고, 그런 실수들은 쉽게 용서받을 수 있는 경우가 많다.우리는 문제를 해결하고 싶다:) 하지만 당신은 공정한 경고를 해야 한다. 두 번째 기회를 얻어서 약속을 지킬 수 없거나 지킬 수 없다는 것을 보여주는 사용자들은 만약 그들이 미래의 이슈에 따라 차단되기를 원한다면 훨씬 더 어려운 장벽에 부딪히는 경향이 있다.당신은 "더 이상 셰나니거는 없을 것"이라고 말했다.그거 좋겠는데.그러나 공정한 경고가 있었다면, 많은 사용자들이 그것을 더 깊은 문제의 증거로 볼 수 있을 것이므로, 만약 여러분이 이 실의 결과로 차단을 받지 않았다면, 이 점을 명심하고 미래에 문제가 발생하지 않도록 정말로 주의하십시오.같은 이유로 향후 문제가 생기면 대응만 하지 말고 도움을 요청하라.이것이 너에게 도움이 되길 바라, 그리고 행운을 빌어!FT2 06:32, 2011년 6월 23일(UTC)

• 여론조사는 사악하지만 요약하자면 다시 한번 기회를 얻을 자격이 있는 편집자처럼 들린다.그는 그의 시간을 다했다. --causa Sui (대화) 19:18, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

나는 그것을 지원으로 받아들인다;) –MuZemike 21:22, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

• 관리 메모.이틀 안에 준 형식적 편집 제한 사항을 게시할 겁니다.제프는 이미 대부분 암묵적으로 동의했지만 여기서 검토해야 한다.테더(토크) 19:31, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

사용자가 대화 페이지에서 차단 알림 제거

Very Velvet Violet Best (talk · concerations)는 내가 공공 기물 파손으로 그들을 차단한 후 그들의 토크 페이지에 남긴 공지사항을 삭제했다.효과 블록에 대한 통지는 WP에 따라 "현재 시행 중인 검사"에 해당된다.블랭킹?래리 V (대화 이메일) 20:59, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

그래, 그들은 그렇다.나는 그들에게 활성 블록 템플릿을 제거하지 말라는 메모를 남겼어.이 문제가 다시 발생할 경우, 대화 페이지 액세스를 취소하십시오.Mjroot (대화) 21:57, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKING을 참조하십시오.거부된 차단 해제 요청만 대화 페이지에서 제거할 수 없으며 차단 통지는 제거될 수 있다.이글스24/7(C) 22:15, 2011년 6월 22일(UTC)

어차피 무기한 VOA블록인데 왜 걱정을 하십니까? --Taelus (대화) 22:48, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

오, 난 별로 걱정하지 않아.한 남자 혼자 내 토크 페이지에 그 얘기를 꺼냈는데, 그게 내 호기심을 자극했다.래리 V (대화 이메일) 00:00, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

• 이론적으로 말하면 이글스가 옳다.현실적으로 말하면, 태러스가 옳다. --플로켄빔 (대화) 22:56, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

하지만 이글스가 맞는지 잘 모르겠어.WP:블랭킹은 블록 통지 제거에 대해 명시적으로 말하지 않는다."현재 시행되고 있는 [엠피시스 광산] 등 제재는 차단되지 않은 요청, 금지, ArbCom이 부과한 편집 제한, 확인된 삭푸피트리 관련 공지사항 등을 거절했다"는 것이다.아마도 나는 여기서 위키리듬을 하고 있지만, 나는 거기에 열거된 것들만이 제거할 수 없다는 것을 나타내는 어떤 것도 보지 못한다."포함"은 "전체의 일부로 포함"을 의미하며, 이는 또한 제거할 수 없는 더 많은 제재 고지가 있음을 나타낼 수 있다.나는 블록, 특히 시행 중인 블록에 대한 통지가 "제제제"의 경계를 벗어날 이유가 없다고 본다.~~로타르 폰 리치토펜 (토크) 23:06, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

그러나 관리자가 제공해야 하는 블록 통지 제거는 언급하지 않고 거부된 블록 해제 요청을 명시적으로 언급하는 것을 알 수 있다.이것은 실수가 아니다.이글스24/7(C) 23:10, 2011년 6월 22일(UTC)

그럴 수도 있지만, 첫 번째 단락에서 논의된 내용은 "경고 및 논의"를 삭제해도 된다고 언급한다.나는 개인적으로 블록 고지가 그러한 두 가지 범주 중 하나에 해당한다고 생각하지 않지만, 나는 그것이 "제재"의 범주에 해당한다고 믿는다.어쨌든 이 중요하지 않은 질문에 대해서는 분명히 해석이 분분하기 때문에 더 큰 규모로 논의할 가치가 있는 문제라고 생각한다.~~로타 폰 리치토펜 (토크) 23:15, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

게다가, 에세이 WP:제재에는 일종의 제재로 블록이 포함된다.나는 이 에세이가 정책이 아니라 의견이라는 것을 깨달았지만, 이 에세이는 어떤 것을 대변한다.~~로타 폰 리치토펜 (토크) 23:18, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

(충돌 편집) 사용자 토크 페이지에 블록 알림을 남기러 가면 트윙클이 강제로 "Warn"을 클릭하고 드롭다운을 사용하여 "Blocking"으로 이동한다.트윙클은 블록 알림을 경고로 분류한다.어쨌든, WT에 실이 있어.이 문제에 대해 UP(여기)이니, 거기서 논의해야 한다.이글스24/7(C) 23:22, 2011년 6월 22일(UTC)

그 실속에는 사용자가 시행 중인 블록 고시를 삭제하는 것을 허용해서는 안 된다는 상당히 명확한 합의를 가지고 나온 오래된 논의와 연결고리가 있다.~~로타 폰 리치토펜 (토크) 23:31, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

내가 전적으로 동의하는 바인데, 왜 WP의 문구에 반영되지 않는가?UP? 어쨋든 나는 그 가이드라인의 토크페이지에서 문구 변경의 필요성에 대해 논평했다. -- 아타마頭 23:39, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

명료하게 열거된 항목들이 나열되어 있다고 생각한다. 예를 들어, 불차단 요청을 거절하는 것 자체가 제재가 아니라고 주장할 수 있기 때문이다.블록은 분명히 제재로, 특별한 설명이나 설명이 필요 없다.훌라발루 울포위츠 (대화) 23:39, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

여기서 토론을 보면 분명히 그렇다.~~로타르 폰 리치토펜 (토크) 23:51, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

금지가 종종 "제재"라고 불리는 것은 말할 것도 없고, 예를 들어 위키피디아:일반 제재에는 주로 한 가지 또는 다른 종류의 금지가 명시되어 있지만, 이 가이드라인에는 금지 통지가 포함되어 있다고 명시되어 있다.그렇다면 왜 금지 통지는 언급하고 차단 통지는 언급하지 않는 것일까? -- Atama頭 00:04, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

블록이 활성화되어 있는 동안 다양한 템플릿이 제거되어서는 안 된다고 명시되어 있다면 더 좋을까?Mjroot (대화) 2011년 6월 23일 19:00 (UTC)

• 이해가 안 가는 건 이게 왜 그렇게 큰 일인가 하는 거야.사용자가 제거하면 어떻게 하시겠습니까?나는 위키피디아에 해로운 결과를 그 제거에서 보지 않는다.블록이 만료된 후 사용자가 사용자 권한을 신청해야 할 경우 관리자는 블록 로그를 확인하고, 블록 로그를 다시 차단해야 할 필요가 있을 경우 관리자도 마찬가지로 블록 인터페이스에서 로그를 볼 수 있다.나는 이것이 문제가 아니라고 본다; 그들이 템플릿을 제거하기를 원한다면, 그들에게 맡겨라.Ajraddatz (토크) 20:23, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

현재 위키백과에서는 다음과 같은 논의가 이루어지고 있다.마을 펌프(정책)#사용자가 현재 블록 통지를 제거할 수 있어야 함.이것은 장기적으로는 실제로 관리자 공지사항 게시판이 아니다. --Onorem♠Dil 20:29, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

위키백과:비어 있지 않은 이미지 문제 해결

얼마 전 이 게시판에 ErrantX는 FUR 문제를 해결하는 방법에 대한 팁과 함께 무료 이미지가 삭제된 이유를 사용자들이 이해할 수 있도록 문서를 작성할 것을 제안했다.체드 데이비스와 나는 위키피디아에서 이런 문서를 작성했다.무료가 아닌 이미지 문제 수정.관심 있는 편집자들은 문서를 세밀하게 조정하는 것을 돕고, 질문에 대답하는 것을 기꺼이 도와줄 편집자 목록에 그들의 이름을 추가하기 위해 초대된다.고마워, 28바이트 (대화) 22:17, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

이미지 요청

나는 WP에 나 자신에 대한 이미지를 올리는 것이 금지된 주제다.관리자_noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#2._토픽_ban_of_TonyTeTiger_from_uploading_images_about_himself.2C_광범위하게_수립됨).내 유저 스페이스 바이오에서 사용할 수 있도록 허락된 이미지 중 하나가 어떻게 해서든 공유되었다.어쩌면 내가 무심코 공유지에 이미지를 붙였는지도 모른다.이제 커먼즈에서:공용:삭제 요청/파일:El Tigre PokerStars T-shirt.jpg 파일을 삭제하기 위해 실행 중이다.관리자가 복사본을 WP로 다시 이동할 수 있는가?--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:시카고/WP:4) 19:53, 2011년 6월 23일(UTC)

그냥 내버려두는 게 좋지 않을까?또한 서명에 "t"를 작성하는 다양한 방법을 보여주는 이미지를 삭제하는 것은 어떨까? --damiens.rf 01:15, 2011년 6월 24일(UTC)

그리고 당신의 전기 페이지에는 당신의 이름이 새겨진 검정 티셔츠의 사진이 그려져 있어야 한다. 왜냐하면...?나는 당신이 아직 그것을 설명하지 않았다고 생각하는데, 좋은 설명은 그것이 시작된 지 며칠 만에 당신의 주제 금지를 포기하는 것이 적절하다고 사람들을 설득할 수 있을 것이다.2011년^Talk 6월 24일(UTC) 01:20

(비관리자 의견)위키피디아가 블로그, 웹 공간 제공자, 소셜 네트워크 또는 기념 사이트가 아닌 것을 아십니까? 왜 더 많은 당신의 사진이 필요한가?
Mlpearcpowwow 01:26, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

AfD 폐쇄

이번 주에 두 번째로 나는 3일 이상 연체된 약 20개의 AfD를 통과하여 마감했다. (AfD 토크 페이지에서 토론이 진행 중이므로, 이 AfD를 열어둔 유일한 AfD는 바로 이것뿐입니다. 자유롭게 칩입하십시오!)그들 중 상당수는 분명히 "그것을 어떻게 닫아야 할지 모르겠다"라는 범주에 속했다.논란이 되고 있는 AfDs를 종료해야 하는 DRV 문제로 인해 불가피하게 지연되는 것은 개의치 않지만, WP는 더 많은 WP:BOLD 관리 눈이 좋음 : (t) (c) 00:51, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

히스머지

이것이 이것을 제기하기에 적절한 장소인지는 확실하지 않지만, 이 일을 하는 것이 가능한가?

• 책:뉴욕 뉴저지 전역
• 책:뉴욕과 뉴저지 선거 운동 <-- 좋은 버전이지만 책:뉴욕 뉴저지 전역

불가능할 경우 Book에서 db-move를 실행하십시오.뉴욕과 뉴저지 선거캠페인 및 이동서:뉴욕과 뉴저지 선거캠페인이 그 자리를 대신해서?고마워요.헤드폭탄 {토크 / 기여 / 물리학 / 책} 20:26, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

기존 버전을 새 버전으로 교체해야 하는 이유는?그들은 꼭 닮았다. — Edokter (대화) — 20:37, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

책:뉴욕과 뉴저지 캠페인은 원본이며, 2010-04-23이 만들어졌다.책:뉴욕과 뉴저지 캠페인은 2011-02-03년 편집 테스트로 만들어졌다. --Gyrobo (토크) 21:23, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

북:뉴욕 및 뉴저지 캠페인은 북으로 리디렉션됨:뉴욕과 뉴저지 선거 운동.– ukexpat (대화) 19:49, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

여기가 제대로 된 곳인지 잘 모르겠는데...WP 참조:수리 —DoRD (대화) 14:01, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

강아지 바구니 주제반 제안

WP:SWOW 등 /2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) /6월 24일 (UTC)
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.
강아지 바구니 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그) 진행 중인 스레드를 참조하십시오.위키백과:관리자 게시판/사고 #많은 회당 기사 삭제 제안 나는 이 편집자가 3개월 동안 회당 및/또는 다른 유대인 공동조직에 대한 기사를 삭제하려는 시도를 시작하는 것을 금지할 것을 제안한다.여기에는 신속한 삭제 태그 추가와 AfD 및 DRV에 나열이 포함되지만 다른 편집자가 시작한 토론에는 참여하지 않는다. 나의 근거는 다음과 같다: BoP는 지난 며칠 동안(정확한 시간 척도를 계산하지 않았지만 매우 매우 짧다) CSD 및/또는 AfD를 통해 17개의 Reformation Synagogues의 기사들을 삭제할 수 없다는 이유로 지명했다.내가 아는 바로는, 이 모든 기사들은 보관되어 있다.많은 AfDs는 명명자의 주장(예: 1, 사례 2) 이외의 만장일치 '유지' 주장으로 SOW를 폐쇄했다. 수많은 편집자들이 그에게 속도를 줄여달라고 부탁했다.예를 들어, 조슈아즈가 수요일에 남긴 매우 공손한 메시지들을 보라; 그리고 그들이 받은 지나치게 고약한 반응을 보라. 오늘 아침 일찍, 나는 이 모든 활동의 기초를 다졌다고 생각한다.내가 추측한 대로 의도적인 교란이 아니라 공신력 정책에 대한 오해다: BoP는 그가 한 특정 페이지를 (다른 모든 페이지들과 매우 유사하게) 삭제 대상으로 지명했다고 진술했지만, 현재 형태로는 공신력 한계를 극복하지 못하고 있다. 그래서 그는 주목할 만한 페이지를 지명했고, 구글이 매우 빠른 속도로 구글의 현재 상태가 그것을 반영하지 못했기 때문에 내가 많은 정보를 끌어낼 수 있도록 했다.이것은 보통 큰 문제가 되지 않을 매우 기본적인 역량 부족을 배반하지만, BoP가 많은 편집자들의 조언을 받아들이지 않고 있기 때문이다: 이것을 증명하기 위해서는 기사의 현재 상태가 노타비 개념에서 완전히 분리되어 있다는 사실에 대한 (생각해) 매우 명확한 설명을 읽어야 한다.BoP가 내놓은 답변에 이은 리트(lity)는 비정책적 에세이에 의지하고, 기사의 '현재 형태'는 호감을 보여주지 못하기 때문에 삭제해야 한다는 점을 반복하는 것이다. 그러므로 유감스럽게도 나는 그가 그런 시간 낭비적인 토론을 하는 것을 금지하는 주제 외에는 앞으로 나아갈 방법이 없다고 본다.그러나 나는 타협을 고려할 준비가 되어 있을 것이다(예: 일주일에 AfD를 1개 이상 만들 수 없는 한계).고마워요.╟-TreasuryTaguestoppel-13:19, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 제안자로서의 지원.╟-TreasuryTaguestoppel-13:19, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 나는 일주일에 AfD를 1개 이하로 제한하는 것이 매우 합리적이라고 생각한다.나는 주제 배닝에 반대한다.버스정류장 (토크) 13:26, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 그럴 만도 하다.나는 그것이 매우 합리적인 선택이라고 생각하기 때문에 별도의 논의를 위한 부제목을 시작할 것이다.╟-TreasuryTag►스피커-- 13:29, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 제안 1: 강아지 바스켓은 삭제하기 위해 회당 기사를 지명할 수 없다 – 토론 제안자로서의 지원.╟-TreasuryTag►most-silar-laughts 13:29, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 반대 내가 지명한 몇몇 기사들은 내가 느슨한 대포가 아니며 삭제 정책을 이해한다는 것을 증명하며 이미 삭제되었다.나는 인간이고 내가 우연히 주목할 만한 어떤 것을 삭제할 수도 있다는 것을 깨달았다.나는 그것에 대해 진심으로 미안하다.나는 이 제안된 주제 금지가 의견의 차이에 대한 부적절한 반응이라고 믿고 그것을 빨리 닫아 달라고 요청한다.강아지 바구니 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) BoP가 정책을 위반했다는 어떤 증거도 제공되지 않았거나, 선의 외에는 어떤 방식으로든 행동했다는 것에 근거하여 반대한다.Andy TheGrump (대화) 13:40, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 글쎄, 그는 두 가지 중요한 사실을 파악하는데 실패한 것 같다: 삭제는 정리되지 않는다.명성은 세계 어딘가에 존재하는 원천만을 필요로 한다.기사의 "현재 형태"는 주제가 공신력 기준을 충족하는지 여부와는 아무런 관계가 없다.나는 그것을 "정책" 위반이라고 부를지 확실하지 않지만, 그것은 그가 이 페이지를 넘기지 말아야 한다는 것을 암시한다.WhatamIdoing (대화) 17:39, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 내가 너의 논리에 따르는지 모르겠다.제안자가 이미 어딘가에 공신력을 위한 증거가 존재하지 않는다고 판단하지 않는 한, AFD는 제안되어서는 안 된다는 것을 정책에서 지시하고 있다는 말씀이세요?그 근거로, 어떤 AFD도 공신력을 근거로 제안될 수 없다 - 공신력을 위한 증거의 부존재를 어떻게 증명할 것인가?Andy TheGrump (대화) 17:46, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 실제로 정책이 지시하는 것은 명목사가 직접 "성실한 검색을 거쳐 적절한 출처를 찾을 수 없다"거나 WP가 다음과 같은 내용을 정하기 전에는 삭제 대상으로 지명해서는 안 된다는 것이다.FAILN이 말한다.╟-TreasuryTaginspectator-17:49, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 이를 위해 WP:FAILN은 "이 페이지는 영어 위키백과의 공신력 지침을 문서화한다"고 말하므로, "정책이 지시하는 것"은 아니다.또 다른 예로, 그것은 당신이 말하는 것을 말하지 않는다.--SerkOfVulcan (대화) 17:59, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 아, 또 왔어?WP로부터 직접 인용했다.FAILN은 내가 말한 것을 말해주는 것 같아.╟-TreasuryTaguar-constitutionals-18:26, 2011년 6월 24일(UTC) Per BoP의 명확하고 합리적인 설명과 아래의 Griswaldo에 반대하십시오.JoeSperrazza (대화) 13:47, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 반대, Andy TheGrump는 꽤 잘 말했다.--SerkOfVulcan (대화) 14:17, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 아, 난 네가 같이 있을 줄 알았어.╟-ReasuryTagufact in portfolio-14:27, 2011년 6월 24일(UTC) 맞아, 난 네가 관련 없을 때 절대 A에 글을 올리지 않기 때문이야. --SerkOfVulcan (대화) 15:03, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 반대 문제 보는 동안 일부는 유효하므로 올바른 접근법이 아니다. --SPHILbrickT 14:53, 2011년 6월 24일(UTC) 지금 이 시점에서 정당화 이상의 것을 요구하면 반대하라.BoP가 일상적으로 WP를 무시하는 것처럼 보이는 한 재무부 태그는 일리가 있다.그 전에, 특히 항목 4의 "소싱 또는 공신력 문제로 지명하기 전에, 그러한 출처가 존재하지 않는지 확인하기 위해 선의의 시도를 하라."이것은 그의 눈에 강하게 띄어야 하며, 만약 그가 계속 그렇게 한다면 이 문제는 다시 논의되어야 한다.—chaos5023 (대화) 15:21, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 원칙적으로 반대하다.게시판은 이런 결정을 내릴 장소가 아니다.우리는 Arbcom을 가지고 있다. --causa Sui (토크) 17:13, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 만약 ArbCom만이 편집 제한을 가할 수 있다고 생각한다면, 당신은 안타깝게도 잘못 알고 있는 것이다.╟-TreasuryTag►constablewick-- 17:17, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 슬프게도 정말. --causa Sui (토크) 18:01, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 제안 2: 강아지 바스켓은 7일 동안 AfD에 둘 이상의 유대교 회당을 표시할 수 없다 - 토론 제안자로서 컨텐츠.╟-TreasuryTag►most-silar-laughts 13:29, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 제안서 1의 내 설명에 따라 반대하라.강아지 바구니 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 위의 내 논평에 따르면 반대하라.Andy TheGrump (대화) 13:41, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) Per BoP의 명확하고 합리적인 설명과 아래의 Griswaldo에 반대하십시오.JoeSperrazza (대화) 13:48, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 반대, Andy TheGrump는 꽤 잘 말했다.--SerkOfVulcan (대화) 14:17, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 원칙적으로 지지하되 세부사항을 수정하도록 설득할 수 있다.예를 들어, 제안된 스로틀에는 CSD가 포함되어야 한다고 생각한다. 단순히 CSD로 지명을 전환하는 AfD 스로틀을 만드는 것은 역효과를 낳을 것이다.나도 일주일에 한 번 이상 받아 들이는 편이지만, 지역사회가 그것들을 신중하게 다룰 수 있도록 몇 가지 제한을 지지하고 있다.사실, 내가 BoP라면, 나는 너무 많은 것을 제안하면 무릎 꿇는 Keep 반응이 나오는 반면, 좀 더 온건한 흐름은 더 많은 고려가 될 것이라고 우려할 것이다.--SPHILbrickT 14:57, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 반대. WP에 따라 BoP가 시작되면 요율 제한이 필요하지 않다.이전. WP:BEX가 그의 주의를 끌게 되고 그가 그것을 계속 무시한다면, 요금 제한보다 더 심각한 조치가 적절해진다.—chaos5023 (대화) 15:22, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 원칙적으로 반대하다.게시판은 이런 결정을 내릴 장소가 아니다.우리는 Arbcom을 가지고 있다. --causa Sui (토크) 17:12, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 이건 통제 불능이 돼 나는 BoP의 후보 지명에 대해 그렇게 열심인 사람들은 그들 스스로 알아서 더 이상 WP를 고려하지 않을 것을 제안한다.이 문제에 관한 포럼쇼핑.이미 공개적인 AN/I는 존재하며, 지역사회가 BoP의 공천에 문제가 있다고 생각하는 징후는 없다.난 분명히 안 한다.그가 지명한 기사들은 소스가 부족하여 공신력을 확립하지 못했다.올바른 대응은 기사를 고치는 것이고, 주변에 서투른 기사들을 많이 가지고 있는 것 자체가 문제라는 것을 인식하는 것이다.어쨌든, 이제 과민반응은 그만하면 안될까?건배.그리스왈도 (토크) 13:37, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) ...오도되는 것은 "공신력을 확립하지 못한다"는 이 관념이다.주제가 주목할 만한지 아닌지는 위키백과 기사의 상태가 양호한지, 혹은 실제로 위키백과 기사의 존재 여부와는 완전히 무관하다.그곳이 BoP가 혼란스러워하는 곳인 것 같고, 그 혼란은 그것보다 더 넓게 퍼져 있는 것 같다! --TreasuryTaguar-constitution-abulary 13:39, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 이해가 안 가.모든 물품은 그 주제의 공신력을 확립해야 한다.그렇게 하려면 주제와 무관한 출처가 있어야 주제의 상당한 범위를 표시할 수 있다.WP:N을 참조하십시오.또한, 수많은 편집자들이 여러분과 의견이 다를 때, 그들이 혼란스러워하는 사람들이 아닐 수도 있다는 것을 고려해 보십시오.건배.그리스왈도 (토크) 13:44, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 나는 우리가 기본적으로 동의하지만 서로 다른 입장을 취하고 있다고 생각한다.그렇다, 모든 기사는 반드시 그 명성을 표현해야 한다.그러나 기사가 그렇게 하지 않는다고 해서 주제가 눈에 띄지 않는 것은 아니다.출처를 찾아 추가할 수 있을 가능성이 상당히 높다.따라서 현재 출처를 찾지 않고 출처를 나열하지 않는다는 이유만으로 기사를 삭제하는 것은 부적절하다.╟-TreasuryTag►acting Return Officing Officiency 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) BoP는 어떤 기사도 삭제하지 않았고, 그 사실이 당신의 주장과 관련된 문제의 핵심이다.그의 지명이 자네와 같은 요구를 방해한다는 것에 지역사회가 동의할 때까지 그건 가짜야.그걸 얻어야 해.그렇죠?마치 평결이 시작되기 전에 양형을 요구하는 것과 같고, 실제로 평결이 반대로 진행되는 것처럼 보이는 상황에서 양형을 요구하는 것과 같다.그리스왈도 (토크) 13:54, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) WP에서 공신력이 작용하는 방식 때문에 (GNG를 통해서든 SNG를 통해서든) 기사에 공신력에 대한 증거가 전혀 없다면, 공신력이 주제에 정통한 누군가에 의해 입증되기 쉽더라도 완전히 유효한 삭제 대상이다.시작부터 완벽함을 요구하는 것은 아니지만, 새로운 기사를 만들고 있다면, 주제가 주목할 만한 이유를 설명하기 위한 몇 가지 출처만 포함하면, 그 기사가 나쁜 상태에 있다고 해도 즉시 그 주제가 주목받는 것은 아닐 것이다.그것은 새로운 페이지 작성에 대한 조언이기도 하다. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 아니, 미발행 기사는 자동으로 삭제 대상이 아니다.어떤 잘못된 사람이 암의 모든 인용구를 제거한다고 해도 암은 결코 유효한 삭제 대상이 될 수 없을 것이다.그러나 (명확하지 않게 주목할 만한 주제에 대한) 비논문은 삭제 논의의 대상이 될 가능성이 높은 주제, 즉 주제가 주목할 경우 "유지"로 유효하게 끝나는 토론이다.WhatamIdoing (대화) 17:48, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 틀렸다.모든 기사 제목은 반드시 주목할 필요가 있다.적절한 출처의 존재 또는 비존재 여부는 관심의 문제지, 기사에 그들의 존재가 아니다.예를 들어, 만약 우리가 "Thing XYZ"에 관한 기사가 있고 XYZ에 관한 것을 다루는 믿을만한 출처가 십여 개 있지만, 기사에 링크된 것이 없다면, 우리는 그것을 삭제해서는 안 된다.이 모든 것은 우리가 종종 서투르게 쓰여진 기사들을 삭제하기 때문에 혼동된다. 그리고 기사의 소싱의 최소 수준이 포함 기준과 연관되어 있다고 믿는 편집자들이 많지 않기 때문이다.그러나 삭제 방침과 공신력 지침은 비교적 명확하다.프로톤크 (대화) 17:26, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 이 스레드를 닫고 WP 위반에 대해 TT에 경고하십시오.포룸쇼핑.적극적인 ANI 실이 있고 이것은 부적절한 과잉반응이다.강아지 바구니 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 나는 포룸쇼핑을 위반하지 않았다. 주제반 토론은 WP에서 관례적으로 이루어진다.WP가 아닌 A:ANI. 또 다른 페이지에서 진행 중인 대실패의 열기를 피해 이 토론을 하는 것이 (당신들을 포함한) 모두에게 좋을 것이라고 생각했다.╟-TreasuryTag►senator-2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 동의 - 이 스레드를 닫으십시오.그만해, 이미...Andy TheGrump (대화) 13:43, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 강아지 바구니—글이 삭제될 만하다고 어떻게 확신할 수 있는지 모르겠다.나는 최근에 삭제 대상으로 한 기사를 지명했는데, 나는 여전히 쓸만한 정보가 물거품이 되도록 만든 것에 대해 약간 착잡한 심정을 가지고 있다.나는 그것이 삭제되어야 한다는 것을 알고 있고, 다른 사람들도 동의했지만, 많은 경우 그러한 결정은 명확하지 않다.그리고 삭제를 결정할 때도 좋은 자료의 손실은 종종 있다고 생각한다.이것은 서둘러서는 안 된다.버스정류장 (대화) 13:47, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 버스정류장, 바로 이 문제에 대한 현재의 ANI 실이 있기 때문에 나는 여기에 대답하는 것을 삼가야 할 것이다.당신은 진행중인 AFD에 대한 이 토론을 통해 깨달음을 얻을 수 있을 것이다.강아지 바구니 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 이것은 다시 고등학교의 논쟁이다.ˉˉanetode╩╩ 15:57, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 설명할 수 있는 경우 링크를 제공하십시오.고마워요.그리스왈도 (토크) 15:59, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 아, 5, 6년 전만 해도 이런 공천이 난무하면서 임의 삭제를 'NN'으로 간청했다.위키피디아에서 그 뒤치다꺼리는 최고조에 달할 때까지 계속되었다.그 후 위키피디아와 같은 몇 편의 에세이를 만들어 낸 공신력(학교):고등학교.요점은, 모든 사람들이 그 문제에 대해 논쟁하고 있고 간단한 해결책이 없다는 것이다.드라마에 기여하기보다는 각 지명을 양심적으로 고려하고, 명성에 대한 명확하지만 유연한 가이드를 개발하는 것이 좋다.쉬운 해결책이 없기 때문에 우리는 논쟁에 시간을 낭비하지 않고, 강력한 송어로 경박한 집단 지명자들을 때리고, 계속해서 지명된 각 주제에게 정당한 대가를 지불하는 것이 좋을 것이다.ˉˉanetode╩╩ 17:23, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC) 나는 WP에 의해 이것을 끝냈다.스노우 하지만 재무부 태그도 내가 그 제안에 반대했기 때문에 나를 되돌렸다.다른 사람이 나서서 이 일을 끝장내고 싶은 사람? --causa Sui (토크) 18:01, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

AIV에서 백로그

고마워 얘들아.자이언트 스노우맨 15:40, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

A 아카이브의 불변성

Tjprochazka는 User talk에서 무심코 좋은 점을 지적한다.Ncmvocalist#위키백과:관리자_noticeboard/IncidentArchive703.AN(I) 기록 보관소는 토론을 다시 진행 중인 포럼으로 옮기는 것 외에는 편집하지 말라는 점을 분명히 하지 않는다.각 아카이브의 상단에 그렇게 말하는 일종의 배너를 추가하는 것이 좋을까?래리 V (대화 이메일) 17:13, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

기록물을 편집하지 않을 경우, 완전한 보호는 편집하는 것을 막을 수 있지만, 소스 코드를 복사할 수 있게 된다.배너, 페이지 공지 또는 둘 다 가능한 해결책이다.Mjroot (대화) 19:33, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

토론이 뒤로 옮겨지면 단순히 복사만 하는 것이 아니라 문서보관소에서 삭제해야 할 것으로 추정된다.그렇지 않으면 아카이브에는 동일한 스레드에 대한 중복 섹션이 있게 된다.자펠루브 (대화) 12시 20분, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

토크 페이지 기록물은 드문 경우를 제외하고는 편집할 수 없다.99%는 그렇지 않다.그리고 나머지 대부분은 아무도 신경쓰지 않는다.만약 당신이 공지를 추가하거나 그들 모두를 보호하고 싶다면 나는 그렇게 하는 것에 반대할 이유가 없다고 생각하지만, 나는 둘 다 귀찮게 해야 할 설득력 있는 이유를 찾을 수 없다.프로톤크 (대화) 03:47, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

일반적으로 나는 자료실의 선제적 보호에 반대한다.템플릿 업데이트, 토론 링크 등과 같이 편집하려는 이유는 여러 가지가 있다.자동 보호는 이것을 필요 이상으로 더 큰 번거로움으로 만든다.누군가는 AN에 대해 특별한 고려가 있었다고 주장할 수도 있지만, 나는 가끔 되돌아가야 하는 편집 말고는 보호의 필요성이 별로 없다고 본다.기록물 상단에 있는 통지는 충분한 IMO. 헤드폭탄 {토크 / 기여 / 물리학 / 책} 06:46, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

절대 명시적인 보호가 필요해서는 안 된다. 아카이브는 단지 그것일 뿐이다.기록 보관소를 조작하는 것은 절차적으로나 윤리적으로나 잘못된 일일 것이다.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:50, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

상단의 템플릿이나 WP:편집 통지가 적절할 것이다.누군가 파이프로 연결된 링크에서 페이지에 도착하여 페이지 이름에 주의를 기울이지 않을 수 있다.

나는 그들을 선제적으로 보호하지 않을 것이다.우리는 때때로 변화를 만들어야 할 정당한 이유가 있고, 그 능력이 남용된 적은 많지 않다.WhatamIdoing (대화) 17:30, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

기록 보관소에서 감시 목록을 작성한 편집자는 몇 명인가?아카이브 페이지의 무작위 반달리즘에 누가 대응할 것인가?내가 여기서 보관소가 파괴되는 것을 알아차린 유일한 이유는 그 반달의 편집 기록에 있는 다른 항목들을 추적하고 있었기 때문이다.만약 그 공공 기물 파손 행위가 기록 보관소만을 대상으로 했다면 나는 결코 그것을 알아차리지 못했을 것이다.나는 기록물들이 당연히 완전히 보호되어야 한다고 생각한다.Binksternet (대화) 17:42, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

이것은 봇이 유용하게 쓰일 수 있는 경우일 것이다.아카이브가 아카이빙 봇이 아닌 다른 계정으로 수정되었는지 확인하기 위해 아카이브를 가끔 검색하도록 하고, 수정되었으면 WT에 메모를 게시하십시오.AN 또는 WT:ANI 언급. 28바이트 (대화) 21:16, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

• 물론 수동으로 보관 목록에서 항상 '관련 변경사항'을 클릭할 수 있다(예: Special:최근 ChangesLinked/Wikipedia:관리자 알림판/InsidentArchives.╟-TreasuryTag► 최고 카운트 책임자-- 21:18, 2011년 6월 24일(UTC)

위키백과 관련 중재안:중재 요청/Ed Poor 2

위키피디아에서 투표한 동의서:중재/요청/수정:

2009-12-10[17]년 위키백과의 1.1 교정조치 시행 결과, 카프지엘(대화 · 기여 · 블록 · 보호 · 삭제 · 페이지 이동 · 권리 · RfA)에 의해 Ed Poor(대화 · 기여 · 차단 · 보호 · 삭제 · RipA)에 부과된 주제 금지 범위:중재/Ed Poor 2에 대한 요청은 "분류와 관련된 모든 조항:통일교회는 관련 토크 페이지 미포함"이 즉시 효력을 발휘한다.Ed Poor는 이 주제와 관련된 추가적인 혼란으로 인해 주제 금지 또는 기타 구제책이 위원회에 의해 다시 적용될 수 있음을 상기한다.

2011년 6월 24일 10대 0으로 통과.

중재위원회를 대표하여 란키베일 08:33, 2011년 6월 25일 (UTC)

검토 게시판을 차단하시겠습니까?

그래, 알아, 알아, 다른 드라마 보드 맞지?정확히 우리가 필요한 것이다.조금만 참아 :)

AN/I see a tan of craffics.나는 우리가 모두 동의할 수 있다고 생각한다.기록 보관소를 검색해보니 AN 게시판에서 369건의 "블록 리뷰" 조회수가 나왔다.작은 부분은 잘못된 긍정으로 보인다.그러나 여전히 350개 이상의 블록 검토 스레드를 검토 중이거나 AN/I의 아카이브 2개당 1개씩입니다.차가 많이 막히네.그래서 나는 WP와 같은 어떤 종류의 블록 리뷰 게시판을 분리하는 것이 좋을지도 모른다고 생각한다.A/BR.

생각? --Hammersoft (대화) 20:21, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

아니, 블록 리뷰는 너무 중요해. 누구나 알 수 있는 1차 게시판에 속해 있어. --SarekOfVulcan (토크) 20:28, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

나는 SarekOfVulcan의 의견에 동의한다. 차단된 편집자와 차단된 관리자 모두에게 이익이 되는 것은 블록을 중요한 장소에서 검토하는 것이다. 이는 토론의 투명성을 더 높여주기 때문이다(그러나 때로는 ANI에서 관리자들을 집단 괴롭히는 것은 문제가 되었지만).닉-D (대화) 10:36, 2011년 6월 25일 (UTC)

그건 창피한 일이야...

내가 6시간 전에 샤이암 랄 칼리지에 카피비오라고 태그했는데 아직도 안 지워졌어?도대체 관리자들은 다 어디 갔지?섬몽키 15:52, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

현재 CSD 대기 시간은 46:44:21. ΔT 15:54, 2011년 6월 26일(UTC)

PS의 전체 대기열 세부 정보는 도구: ~betacommand/reports/CATCSD.html을 참조하십시오.ΔT 15:55, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

138명의 신속 삭제 대상자를 보유하고 있는 것을 고려하면, 현재로선 적시에 삭제해야 할 모든 것을 삭제하는 것은 좀 어렵다...미안. 살비오 16^{Let's talk about it!}:05, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

Santorum 기사가 대량으로 다시 작성되어 일시적으로 더 느슨한 편집 규칙을 요청함

오늘 아침 편집자 겸 관리자인 SarekOfVulcan은 나의 페이지에 "santorum" 신학주의 기사를 위한 캠페인과 내가 어떻게 엄격하게 해석된 3RR 규칙에 맞닥뜨리게 되었는지에 대해 상기시켜주는 것을 떨어뜨렸다.여기서의 나의 요청은 정말로 관리자들이 이 특정 기사에 관한 엄격한 편집 횟수 이상의 편집 톤을 당분간 주의 깊게 살펴보는 선취적인 요청일 뿐이다.

싸인포스트에 보도된 바와 같이, 이 기사는 최근 엄청난 관심을 받고 있으며, 전반적으로 나는 우리 대부분이 이 기사를 개선하기 위해 노력하고 있다고 말하고 싶다.

단지 엄격한 3RR로 가는 것은 자연적인 주고받기 및 흐름을 방해할 가능성이 가장 높다.또한 대부분의 편집자들은 자주 토크 페이지에서 체크인을 하고 활기찬 볼드, 리턴, 토의 사이클에 맞춰 편집에 대해 토론하고 있다.그래서 전반적으로, 나는 우리가 좋은 흐름을 가지고 있다고 생각하는데, 나는 그것이 과정을 위해서 열성적인 행정 집행 과정으로 인해 망치는 것을 보고 싶지 않다.확실히 하자면, 편집 전쟁을 무시하거나, 3RR을 무시하는 것이 아니라, 단지 많은 편집이 일어나고 있고, 사람들이 기사를 앞으로 나아가고 향상시키고 있으며, 현명한 집행은 현재로서는 가장 잘 될 것이다. -- Avanu (talk) 06:25, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

• 하하, 지금 그 페이지가 그렇게 불리지?어느 기능장애 위원회가 그런 걸 생각해 냈지?최악의 기사 제목 에바.검은 연 (t) (c) 06:48, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

• 그 페이지가 가장 웃긴 토크 페이지인 것은 말할 것도 없다.하지만 나는 규칙을 느슨하게 하는 것이 도움이 될 것이라는 것에 동의하지 않는다.사실, 1RR 규칙은 대화 페이지의 실제 내용 토론을 장려할 수 있고, 어떤 웹 크롤러나 다른 규칙이 특별히 어색한 것을 포착할 가능성을 낮출 수 있다.일이 좀 늦어질 수도 있지만, 내일까지 모든 것을 고칠 필요는 없다.PhGustaf (대화) 06:59, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)
• 제목이 나온게 "위원회"가 아닌 건 확실해.걱정할 필요 없어— Ched : ? 09:02, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)
• 산토룸이 있는 곳에 보관하고, 별도의 기사로 '산토룸' 신학주의를 위한 캠페인을 할 수 없을까?전자는 그 단어를 묘사하고 후자는 그 단어를 받아들이기 위한 캠페인을 묘사할 것이다.여러분은 또한 "산토룸" 신학 이론에 대한 논쟁 - 논란의 보도와 함께, 자기 설명, 그리고 물론 대중 문화에서 그것의 출현을 나열하는 별도의 "산토룸" 신학 이론을 다룰 수 있다.아마도 정치인 자신에 대한 기사일 것이다.몇 년 뒤면 몇 개의 짧은 문장이 몇 개의 기사에 묻힐 겁니다."Year에서 상원의원의 정책에 대한 항의로 Y는 상원의원의 성(SURNT)이라는 외설적인 재정의를 통해 구글의 검색 순위를 장악하려고 시도했다. 이것은 언론 BBC NYT Guardian에서 광범위하게 다루어졌다.자, 그 문제를 해결해주면 다음 문제야.-Ashley Pomeroy (대화) 15:02, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

말이 되네, 애슐리그러나 이것은 위키백과 :) -- 아바누 (대화) 15:05, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

아니, 그렇지 않을 것이다.우리는 이 주제에 대해 더 이상의 기사가 필요하지 않다.산토룸-구글 폭탄/신학주의/캠페인/오늘의 어떤 것이든 간에 이미 동성애에 관한 산토룸 논쟁의 불필요한 포크가 되어 있다.Fence&Windows 22:53, 2011년 6월 24일(UTC)

그것은 실제로 말이 아니기 때문에, 아니, 그런 것에 대한 기사는 무의미할 것이다.Tarc (대화) 23:08, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

아니, 지난 몇 주 동안 이 기사에 대한 합의를 둘러싸고 위키와 다른 종말론들이 충분히 있었다.원칙의 문제로서 이 조항이나 다른 조항에서 우리의 정상적인 규칙의 완화에 반대하라.란키베일^{(speak to me)} 11시 12분, 2011년 6월 25일 (UTC)

그 소위 "말"은 빌트인 BLP 위반이다.기껏해야 그것을 발명한 사람의 페이지에만 해당된다(그는 위키피디아에 존재할 만큼 충분히 주목할 만하다고 가정한다).『야구 벅스 당근→ 22:22, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

BLP는 우리가 누구에 대해 나쁜 말을 할 수 없다고 말하는 것이 아니라, 단지 우리가 말하는 것은 출처를 찾아야 한다고 말할 뿐이다.출처가 있는 한 BLP 위반은 없다.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

BB - 전적으로 동의해!그것은 BLP vio이다.'피디아'에서 당장 빼내야 해!

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 00:01, 2011년 6월 27일(UTC)

금지된 사용자 항목:프루네스퀄러

나는 최근에 나의 감시 목록을 살펴보고 있었는데, 내가 Prunesqualer (talk · concernes) 수행된 리턴 프루네즈퀄러를 우연히 발견했을 때, 나는 이 사용자가 그들의 토크 페이지를 보기로 결심하기 전에는 그 기사에 종사하는 것을 본 적이 없었다.나는 사용자가 이스라엘과 팔레스타인의 분쟁과 관련된 어떤 것도 금지된 주제라고 지적했다.나는 사용자들의 대화 페이지에서 유튜브 링크를 여러 개 발견했고, 사용자들이 링크를 클릭해야 한다는 것을 암시하는 헤딩이 다소 이상하다는 것을 발견했다. 나는 유튜브 동영상을 하나도 보지 않았다.링크를 제거하고 사용자에게 다음과 같이 지시하는 표준 경고로 교체했다.Prunesqualer는 그들이 허용되지 않았다고 말했다[18].사용자가 왜 내가 그것들을 제거했는지에 대해 연락했고 나는 내 토크 페이지에서 사용자에게 대답했는데, 처음에 나는 그들이 링크를 계속/사용하기를 원하는지, 사용자 하위 페이지를 만들어야 하는지, 그리고 그들이 어떤 링크가 있는지 그리고 그들이 어떤 비디오를 보여줬는지 분명히 말하라고 제안했다.6월 25일(호주 시간) User:사용자가 다음과 같이 말한 Prunesqualer

"안녕 동물원 프로

나는 현재 아랍/이스라엘 분야에서 무기한 편집을 금지하고 있으며, 최근 이 금지가 심지어 대화 페이지까지 확장된다는 것을 알게 되었다(이 메일을 승인하다).에 연결된 대부분의 비디오가 그 분야와 연결되어 있기 때문에, 당신의 조언에 따른 행동 방침은 더 이상 선택사항이 아니므로, 나는 내 페이지를 그대로 둘 것이다(대단하고 좋은 것은 내가 다시 현장에 들어갈 수 있도록 적합하게 볼 때까지).어쨌든 시간 내줘서 고마워

프루네스퀄러."

물론 나는 사용자들이 주제 금지를 위반한 것처럼 보이는 것에 대해 다소 놀랐다.나는 이 사건을 보고하고 최선의 방책이 무엇인지 행정적인 도움을 요청하기 위해 이곳에 왔다.ZooPro 13:25, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)에 관한 호의적 고찰

나는 주제 금지를 위반하기 위한 공동의 노력을 보지 못했다.Prunescaler가 그 금지가 대화 페이지를 포함하고 있다는 것을 알고 있고 명확히 하기로 동의한다는 것을 그들이 확인한 이상, 우리는 더 이상의 위반이 없는 한 행동할 필요가 없다.Mjroot (대화) 15:19, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

고마워. 동물원 23:57, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

돌아왔어!

이것이 상서롭고 오랫동안 기다려온 귀환이라는 것은 의심의 여지가 없다.내가 연설을 마칠 때까지 박수 좀 참아줘.최근 나의 온전하고 즉각적인 관심을 필요로 하는 가족 병 후에, 나는 당신의 사랑스러운 포옹에 다시 합류하게 되었다, 위키피디아 사람들.나는 위원회를 위한 적절한 시기에 도착했고 내가 다시 사물의 정신으로 돌아올 때까지 잠시 동안 고급 도구들을 보류할 것이다. 그러나 나는 지금 나의 이메일 메시지에 회신할 것이다.천천히.3000명 다.돌아오니 좋다.기병대 (메시지 미) 22:24, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

돌아온 걸 환영해, 놓쳤어.가족 상황이 이제 나아졌으면 좋겠고, 다시 도전으로 돌아왔지만 알고 있는 것 같아 아쉽다.--SPHILbrickT 23:23, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

*vmx*vmx*vmx*vmx*vmx*

나도 가족의 병이 긍정적으로 해결되었으면 좋겠어.그것들은 항상 시험이다.

이제 일터로 돌아가자! 8-) 조지윌리엄허버트(토크) 23:37, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

위키백과:중재/요청/사례 나블라 닫힘

User:Nabla에 관한 중재 요청이 이제 종료되었으며 여기서 결정을 읽을 수 있다.다음과 같은 동의가 제정되었다.

(가) 중재 위원회는 관리자가 위키피디아에 참여하는 동안 모든 해당 정책을 준수하고, 부적절한 편집을 피하고, 성숙도와 전문성을 가지고 행동할 것이라는 기대와 지역사회의 기대를 재확인한다.관리자가 완벽할 것으로 기대되지는 않지만, 정책과 지역사회 규범에 대한 심각하거나 반복적인 위반은 최대 탈소(disysooping)를 포함한 적절한 제재로 이어질 수 있다.

(나) IP로 편집하면서 몇 가지 비생산적인 편집을 한 나블라의 행위는 유의미하고 정당한 비판을 받아왔다.중재위는 이러한 행동에 대해 불찬성하는 데 동참하지만, 프로젝트의 측면에 대해 선의의 우려나 좌절감을 표명하기 위해서라도 앞으로 이를 되풀이하지 않을 것이라는 나블라의 확신을 받아들인다.

(다) Nabla는 ANI 토론과 이 중재 요청을 통해 IP 편집과 활동 불능으로 인해 효과적인 관리자 역할을 할 수 있는 그의 능력에 대한 일부 편집자들의 신뢰가 약해졌다는 것을 알고 있다.나블라가 관리자로서의 적극적인 업무를 재개하려면 먼저 적용 가능한 모든 정책을 숙지해야 하며, 처음에는 논란이 덜한 행정업무에 집중하는 것이 좋다.이러한 권고사항은 장기간 활동을 하지 않고 돌아온 모든 관리자에게 적용된다.

(라) 나블라의 상황과 직접 관련되지는 않지만, 중재위원회는 비활성 관리자 계정과 관련하여 진행 중인 지역사회 논의를 인지하고 있으며, 합의가 결정되면 필요할 경우 제 역할을 수행할 준비가 되어 있다.2011년 6월 27일 기권 1회로 13대 1로 통과.

중재위원회의 경우 --Dougweller (대화) 13:21, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC)

이 문제에 대해 논의하십시오.

정보 제공 OTRS 대기열에 필요한 관리자

정보 제공 OTRS 대기열은 지난 몇 달 동안 만성적으로 백로그되었다.줄을 계속 주시하던 전임 행정관들 중 상당수가 자리를 뜨면서 공백이 생겼다.BLP 기사에 초점을 맞춘 관리자들이 가장 필요하지만, 도움이 될 수 있고, 허가증과 일반 도움말 대기열도 관심 부족으로 어려움을 겪고 있다.meta에서 가입할 수 있다.OTRS/자원봉사.브랜든 (토크) 08:39, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

제발, 제발.이것은 긴급한 문제다개인 경험(사용자:Moonedgirl), 당신이 그곳에서 가장 할 수 있어야 하는 것은 사람들에게 위키피디아가 어떻게 작동하는지 인내심 있게 설명하는 것이다.가끔 OTRS 티켓에 근거하여 기사를 직접 편집하기도 하지만, 종종 나는 사람들에게 일을 처리하는 방법을 알려줘야 한다... 혹은 그들이 원하는 일이 왜 이루어지지 않는지.내 생각에 유용한 기술은 짜증을 간과하고 문제의 핵심에 집중하는 능력이다.OTRS를 쓰는 사람들은 종종 스스로 문제를 해결하려는 나쁜 경험을 했다.때로는 인간처럼 그들과 대화하는 것만으로도 그들이 원하는 모든 것을 얻지 못하더라도, 그들이 이곳에서 경험한 것에 대해 더 긍정적으로 느끼도록 도울 수 있다.정말 중요한 일이고, 도와 주는 사람이 더 필요하다. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (토크) 14:26, 2011년 6월 20일 (UTC)

우리는 5월, 4월, 그리고 그 이전까지 가는 표를 가지고 있다.우리의 개인 고객 서비스가 공공 서비스보다 더 나쁘다는 것은 끔찍하다.간단한 (흔히 보일러 판 :P) 설명이나 빠른 편집으로 많은 문제를 해결할 수 있다.I 세 번째 브랜든의 요청. /ƒETECCOMMS/18:19, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

과거에 내가 이 일에 자원했을 때 두 번이나 거절당했다는 의심스러운 명예가 있었으므로, 나는 당신이 실제로 찾고 있는 것이 무엇인지 메타 페이지에 분명히 해 줄 것을 제안하고 싶다.(내가 하는 대로, 바라건대, 옳게!) 내가 지원 당시 결정을 내리는 사람들에 의해 개인적으로 미움을 받지 않았다고 가정한다면, 나는 내가 읽은 것으로 보아 유용하거나 해를 끼치지 않는 방법으로 도움을 줄 수 있었을 것이라는 모든 믿음을 가졌고 지금도 가지고 있다.당신이 분명히 그런 경우를 믿지 않았기 때문에, 나는 당신이 'OTRS 허가'를 받는 신비로운 엘리트 관리자 그룹에 누구를 받아들일지 결정하기 위해 어떤 기준을 사용하는지 훨씬 더 명확하게 해야 한다고 생각한다.피터 21:33, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

그 결정은 OTRS 관리자에 의해 내려진다.유감스럽게도 나는 그들이 찾고 있는 것에 대해 내가 아는 것이라곤 그 페이지에 쓰여 있는 것밖에 없다.:/ --Moonedgirl^(talk) 21:38, 2011년 6월 21일 (UTC)

나는 기술적으로는 정보 제공 팀에 속해 있지만, 최근에는 별로 기여하지 못했어.몇 개 더 해보려고 노력하겠지만 한 개는 당신과 링크 교환을 하지 않을 것이고 삭제된 당신의 스팸 기사를 복구하지 않을 것이라고 수십억번 설명한 후에 약간 지쳐버린다.만약 보일러플레이트 반응이 위키처럼 즉각적으로 편집이 가능하다면 도움이 될 것이다; 일부 나는 다소 미흡하고 너무 많은 수동 개선이 필요하다고 생각한다. Sandstein 19:22, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

그것들은 쉬운 것이다. :D 보일러 플레이트 반응은 즉시 편집이 가능하지는 않지만, 당신은 아마도 OTRS 위키에서 편집이 가능하다는 것을 알고 있을 것이다.변경사항(동의된 경우)은 대개 매우 빠르게 구현된다. : (또한 OTRS wiki 사용자 페이지에 "템플릿"의 일종인 "sofixit"를 만들었는데, 이 사용자 페이지에 붙여넣을 수 있다.) --Moonedgirl^(talk) 20:39, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

(어떤 주제에서 벗어난 논평) 당신의 소픽시트 템플릿은 훌륭하다. 그것은 여러 개의 개별적인 템플릿의 관련 포인트들을 하나로 묶는다.나도 이렇게 하는 데 너무 많은 시간을 보냈는데, 아마 메인 템플릿 페이지에 추가할 수 있을까? --제즈벨의 포뇨^{bons mots} 14:16, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

마음에 드셨다니 기뻐. :) OTRS 위키 카페에 올렸는데, 새로운 보일러를 어떻게 제안해야 할지 잘 몰라서. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (토크) 14:38, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)

응답:포털 공간, Response:en-foobar 페이지를 생성하여 {{응답 헤더 제목 = foobar id = lang = en status = created }} 텍스트 {{응답 footer }}}}}}을(를) 사용하며, admin requests 페이지를 찔러 검토한다.키건 (토크) 05:30, 2011년 6월 25일 (UTC)

• 가입했다.도와줘서 기쁘다. --causa Sui (토크) 17:11, 2011년 6월 23일 (UTC)
• 내가 행정관이 아니라는 사실을 무시한 채 가입(그리고 조금 전 허가 신청을 생각)하려 했지만, 스스로 신분을 밝히기를 거부한다.내 대화를 통해, 나는 그것이 다른 사람들에게도 걸림돌이라는 것을 안다.가장 쉬운 자가 확인 방법은 운전면허증을 스캔하는 것이지만, 그것은 낯선 사람에게 내 전체 이름, 집 주소, 그리고 내가 다른 사람의 손에서 신뢰하지 않는 다른 개인 정보를 주는 것을 의미할 것이다.나에게 서비스를 제공하는 회사에 그런 정보를 주는 것도 한 가지지만, 내가 자원 봉사자일 때 그리고 WMF는 만약 내가 여기서 일하는 것이 나의 명예나 명예에 해를 끼칠 수 있는 잠재력을 만든다면 그들은 내 등을 두거나 내 이익을 돌볼 의무가 없다는 것을 분명히 했다.내 사람WMF는 그들이 정보를 저장하지 않고, 오직 한 사람만 보고, 그리고 나서 삭제된다고 주장하지만, 그렇다고 해서 정보를 주는 것이 더 편하지는 않다.OTRS 액세스를 위한 요구 사항으로서의 자체 식별은 OTRS 일관성 있는 인력 문제를 야기할 것이다.스벤망구아르화?08:51, 2011년 6월 25일 (UTC)
  • 내가 가입했을 때, 사람은 그 당시에 실제로 신원을 확인하는 것이 아니라 자기 정체성을 스스로 확인하려고만 하면 되었다.그러나 그 정책이 새로운 ID 정책에 대한 일종의 최근 논의로 인해 바뀐 것인지는 확실치 않다(또한, 그것에 대한 상태는 어떤가, 누구라도?)./1911년 6월 25일 (UTC)
    • 오늘날의 이벤트는 OTRS/WMF가 사람들이 스스로 식별하도록 설득하는 것을 더욱 어렵게 만들 것이다.혹시 본인 확인 대신 다른 조치가 필요한 건 아닐까?스벤망구아르 Wha? 00:17, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)
    • 이 때, 사용자들은 필요할 경우 신분증을 제공하는 자원봉사에 기꺼이 참여하지만 필요하지 않은 정책을 유지하고 있다.사용자는 OTRS 관리자에게 자신의 실명을 제공하도록 요청된다.이것은 공개적으로 나타나지 않을 것이다.OTRS 요원들은 실명 또는 가명으로 대답한다.우리는 사용된 이름이 사실인지 아닌지는 알 수 없다.키건 (대화) 05:00, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)
      • 에러... OTRS 봉사 페이지에서는 전혀 그런 식으로 읽지 않아.또, 방금 '본명을 우리에게 알려줘야 하지만 우리는 그것이 진짜인지 아닌지는 상관하지 않는다'고 말하는 것을 읽었는가?그건 마치...이상. 스벤망구아르화? 05:15, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)
        • OTRS 관리자에게 실명을 알려야 하지만 티켓 인터페이스를 검색하거나 쿼리에 회신할 때 나타나는 이름은 사실적으로 들리는 가명일 수 있다.NW(Talk) 05:34, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)
          • 그리고 OTRS 관리자들은 실명을 어딘가에 저장해 두는가 아니면 그냥 보고 던져 버리는가?나는 그들의 실명이 첨부된 엄청난 계좌들의 목록이 특별히 매력적이라고 생각하지 않는다.책임의 필요성은 이해할 수 있지만, 사생활이 나에게 더 큰 문제야.스벤망구아르 Wha? 18:57, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)
• 나는 WMF가 현재 OTRS 에이전트에 대한 식별을 요구하지 않는다는 것을 확인할 수 있다.당신은 온 디맨드를 확인하고 싶겠지만, 우리는 현재 그것을 요청하고 있지 않다.만약 당신이 자발적으로 (어떤 사람들이 그러하듯이) 그것을 OTRS를 위한 것이라고 말한다면, 나는 당신에게 내가 당신을 일반적인 방법으로 식별하도록 하는 선택권을 주겠다. (정보는 보안상자에 가서 검토되고 파괴되어 나중에 식별하는 번거로움을 덜게 된다.) 또는 보이지 않는 ID를 파괴하도록 하는 선택권을 주겠다.Philipe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (대화) 00:21, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

편집으로 돌아온 Jeff Dean: 편집 제한

컨텍스트:위키백과:관리자 알림판/Archive225#사용자:Jeff_dean_and_possible_return_to_edit

제프 딘이 편집으로 복귀할 수 있는 충분한 공감대가 형성되었다.그는 다음과 같은 사용자 이름을 선택했다.

• 사용자:제프리 M 딘 (토크 내역 링크 감시 로그 편집)

(기대했던 것보다 조금 더 빨리 아카이빙된) 위의 논의를 바탕으로, 나는 이른바 '조정 행정관'의 역할을 하게 될 것이다.다시 말해, 나는 정기적으로 그의 기여를 지켜볼 것이고, 문제가 발생하는지 그의 토크 페이지를 볼 것이다.다음은 관심 영역에 따른 매우 느슨한 편집 제한 사항이다.

• 추가 계정은 절대 없다.
• COI를 피하십시오. Jeff Dean이 작성한 콘텐츠 또는 웹 사이트에 대한 링크나 참조도 없고, 이를 회피할 수 있는 원본 연구도 없습니다.
• WP의 정신을 따르십시오.시민적인.
• 콘텐츠 및 이미지에 대한 소유권 동작은 피하십시오.(과거 예)

관리자와 커뮤니티의 의견을 듣고 싶다. 실이 보관되기 전에 이 문제에 도달하지 못한 것에 대해 사과한다. 테더(토크) 03:27, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

--Dennis Bratland (대화) 05:22, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

ditto. --Biker Biker (대화) 07:29, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

확실한 . Island Monkey^{talk the talk} 15:54, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

지지하다.그러나 개인 웹 사이트에 대한 링크가 가득 찬 사용자 페이지는 편집으로 돌아가기 위한 최선의 방법이 아닐 수 있다.2011년 6월 27일 03:23 (UTC)

• 카테고리에 대해 이 토론에 대한 통지가 없는 이유:제프 딘의 위키백과 삭푸펫 조사를 시작하기 전에 확인했던 위키백과: 위키백과:Sockpuppet 조사/제프 학장?그것이 내가 먼저 확인한 것이다.필요에 따라 조사를 중지하거나 삭제하십시오.내 생각에, 그리고 윌 베백과 동의하는 것은, 그의 사용자 및 사용자 토크 페이지에는 이미 너무 많은 자기 홍보가 이루어지고 있다.나는 AGF를 하겠지만 단 한 번의 위반이라도 또 하나의 즉각적인 무기한 차단을 의미해야 한다.ww2censor (대화) 02:19, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

• SPI 건당 이 계정을 차단했는데, 지금 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 보니 차단 해제했어.미안하다.— 헬로앤용 02:33, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

관리자 권한의 니텐드 및 남용

안녕하십니까. 관리자인 Nyttend의 행동과 그의 행동에 대해 알려드리고자 이 글을 씁니다 템플릿:조지아 주 콥 카운티와 뷰포드 하이웨이 인터내셔널 커뮤니티.나는 애틀랜타에 거주하고 있으며, 특히 위키피디아를 통해 애틀랜타 및 그 주변환경과 관련된 페이지를 개선하는 데 전문적으로 종사하는 편집자다.위키프로젝트 조지아(미국 주)/아틀란타 태스크포스(TF)나는 주로 지리에 초점을 맞추지만 조지아주 콥 카운티에서 비법인 공동체로 조지아 주 이스트 콥의 지위에 대해서는 이 편집자와 문제가 있다.이스트 콥의 이름은 콥 카운티의 동부에 위치한 곳에서 유래되었기 때문에 혼란스러울 수 있다.그러나, 내가 커뮤니티 페이지에 기록했듯이, 그것은 실제로 정의된 커뮤니티의 이름이다.만약 당신이 알아차린다면, 내가 포함한 복수의 언급은 모두 이스트 콥이라는 공동체를 가리키는데, 이 두 단어는 모두 대문자로 쓰이고, 적절한 장소를 가리킨다.만약 그것이 단지 지역이었다면, 참고문헌들은 그것을 동 콥이라고 지칭할 것이다.이 공동체는 도시가 되는 것을 고려하고 있으며, 이 도시는 "이스트 콥, 조지아"와 같은 스타일이 될 것이다.그러나 니텐드는 미국 정부가 편찬한 인구밀집지역 등록부에 기재되어 있지 않기 때문에 템플릿에 대한 허용을 거부하고 있다.

이것은 매우 불공평하다.이스트콥은 등재기준에 포함되지 않아 포함시킬 수 없다는 공감대가 형성되더라도 예외를 둬야 한다.그것은 그저 어색한 이름을 가지고 있다.또한, 인구 밀집 지역의 등록은 항상 변경되고 갱신되고 있으므로, 모든 비법인 공동체를 포함할 수 없다.어쨌든 니텐드는 그 모든 과정을 강하게 무장시켰고 그것에 대해 토론하기를 거부한다.다른 애틀랜타 편집자들은 지역사회의 합법성을 대신하여 영향력을 행사하고 있지만, 니튼드는 계속해서 지시하고 있다.지금, 그는 내가 이스트 콥이 템플릿에 포함된 것에 대해 내 주장을 펴지 못하게 하기 위해 나를 반달이라고 부르고 있다.

뷰포드 하이웨이 인터내셔널 커뮤니티와 관련하여 니튼드는 더 이상 편집이 되지 않도록 페이지를 옮기고 페이지를 보호했다.국제 사회는 조지아 주 13번 국도와 동일하지 않지만, 그는 계속해서 그 페이지로 그것을 리디렉션한다.다시 한번 그는 자신의 결정을 내리기 전에는 토크 페이지에 아무도 참여시키지 않았고, 그것을 보호함으로써 그것이 도전받는 것을 막았다.

나는 이것을 어떻게 고쳐야 할지 모르겠다.이것은 편집자가 단순히 3회 반전을 회피하는 것에 의해 치부되는 권력의 남용이라고 느낀다. --Mmann1988 (토크) 02:35, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC)

이것은 당신이 단지 알고 있는 것 대 검증할 수 있는 것의 경우인 것 같다.Mmann1, 나는 당신이 이 주제에 대해 "그냥 알고 있는" 많은 것을 "그냥" 알고 있다.사실 나는 뷰포드 하이웨이 인터내셔널 커뮤니티에 살고 있다. 비록 전에 구글에 따르면 나는 그것이 그렇게 불리는 것을 들어본 적이 없지만, 다른 사람들도 마찬가지라고 한다.(WP 미러에 가장 많이 23회 적중).그 기사의 더 좋은 이름은 Buford 고속도로 복도였을 수도 있지만, 당신은 뚜렷한 공동체로서 내 "집"을 논할 믿을 만한 출처가 필요할 것이다."이스트 콥" "웨스트 콥" 등을 위한 디토.단지 지도상의 방향만이 아니라 그들을 뚜렷한 공동체라고 설명하는 원천이 필요하다.자본을 투입하는 것만으로는 그만둘 수 없다.참고로 이것은 뾰족하고 전혀 요구되지 않았다.니튼드, "Mmann1"을 SPA로 묘사하는 건 완전히 공평하지 않을 수도 있어.너는 그가 단지 애틀랜타와 관련된 주제에 관심이 있다는 것을 고려해야 한다.

BTW Wikia는 한동안 별다른 활동을 보지 못했던 애틀랜타 위키를 가지고 있다. --Ron Ritzman (토크) 13:43, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC)

Mmann1988은 원래 User Talk에서 다음과 같이 게시했다.Redex, 그가 2년 동안 어떠한 기록적인 행동도 편집하거나 수행하지 않았다는 것을 관찰하지 못했다.이 문장 이후와 나의 첫 서명 전 모든 것이 그 토크 페이지에서 복사된다.Mmann은 본질적으로 경박한 AFD를 만드는 것과 함께 이 두 기사를 위해 끊임없이 싸워온 SPA이다.Mmann과 mitpuppet 외에 이 문제에 관련된 유일한 사용자는 Student7뿐인데, Student7 역시 Mmann을 막기 위해 노력했는데, Student7은 위의 두 번째 단락에서 볼 수 있는 바와 같이 Mmann이 허용된다고 주장하는 것을 계속 되돌리려고 노력한다.합의를 일방적으로 배제하는 것.이 두 편집자가 말한 것과는 달리, 후자 기사의 출처에서는 이것이 콘텐츠 포크라는 것을 분명히 밝히고 있기 때문에, 나는 그 정책을 시행하려는 시도로 보호해 왔다.나는 수많은 정책을 위반하고 그들이 원할 때마다 그들을 무시할 자격이 있다고 계속 주장하는 이 두 명의 사용자들에게 상당히 싫증이 났다.Nyttend (토크) 02:21, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 원문의 최종 문장을 "..."로 변경하십시오.그렇게 느끼고 그들의 예외를 종교적으로 지켜주길 기대한다고 말했다.어디서 봤는지 기억이 안 나지만, 행정가 학대 사례라는 점에서 '행정가 학대'라는 외침이 대체로 옳다고 하는 경우가 많다는 것을 알고 있다. 이것도 다르지 않다.나이튼드 (토크) 02:45, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC)

이것은 콘텐츠 분쟁이지 관리자 권한 남용이 아니다.콘텐츠 분쟁을 다루는 적절한 장소는 위키백과:코멘트 요청.편입 지역의 일부가 아닌 지역의 명칭에 관하여 다른 인구 밀집 지역 기사에는 몇 가지 선례가 있어야 한다.하지만 나는 그것이 조지아에게 어떤 의미일지 모른다.예를 들어, 뉴욕의 행정 구역은 한 카운티의 모든 부분이 마을로 나뉘고, 그 다음엔 보통 도시의 하위 구역이지만 마을을 가로지를 수 있는 마을들이 있다고 지적한다.반면에 성당을 가로질러서.내가 사는 곳 크로익스 강 위스콘신 주의 정치 분과에서는 카운티가 있으며, 도시와 마을은 하나 이상의 카운티에 걸쳐 있을 수 있는 자치 통합 지역이라고 한다.통합되지 않은 카운티의 모든 부분은 읍의 일부분이다.미네소타는 비슷하지만, 더 이상 마을과 같은 것이 없고, 주 북부의 인구밀도가 희박한 몇몇 카운티 지역은 읍으로 조직되지도 않았다.자, 만약 누군가가 조지아의 행정 구역(미국 주)을 썼다면, 그것은 단서를 제공할 수 있지만, 그것에 대한 기사는 없다.어쨌든, 이런 종류의 일은 누군가가 관리자 권한을 남용하지 않는 한 관리 방식이 아니다.관리자 게시판에 가는 대신 RFC를 시도하거나 위키피디아의 누군가에게 다음과 같이 물어보십시오.위키프로젝트 조지아(미국 주)의 이름 짓는 법아니면 다른 모든 것이 실패하면 마리에타에 있는 빅치킨에서 점심을 먹으며 이야기를 나누도록 하라. --Elkman^(Elkspeak) 03:28, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC)

나는 이 문제에 있어서 이전에 입장을 취했던 적이 있는 중립적이지 않다.내용상 다툼인 것 같다.이곳은 모두 함께 달릴 수 있는 대도시권이다.일부분을 씹으며 "웨스트 콥" 또는 "노스 콥"이라고 말하는 것은 나에게 제멋대로인 것처럼 보였다.그곳의 대부분의 사람들은 그러한 형용사를 "방향"으로 간주하며, "장소"와 전혀 관련이 없다.

이 페이지를 요약하면, 내용 불일치인 것 같다.학생7 (대화) 12:04, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC)

콘텐츠 불협화음으로 시작했을지 모르지만, 니튼의 행동은 그것을 훨씬 뛰어넘었다.그는 타협하기를 거부했다.그것은 미국 전역에 걸쳐 있는 수천 개의 템플릿 중 하나이지만 그는 그것을 놓아주려 하지 않는다.엘크만, 그는 조지아 출신도 아닌데, 어떻게 이스트 콥이나 그 주의 지리적 분열을 알 수 있을까?모든 페이지 출처는 이스트 콥을 적절한 장소(WITH BOY WORD COVITIED)로 언급하고 있지만 니튼드는 이를 인정하지 않는다."노스 콥"이나 "웨스트 콥"이나 메트로 애틀랜타에 있는 다른 방향명들에 대한 언급도 마찬가지라고 말할 수 없기 때문에, 학생 7에 의해 만들어진 그 주장은 무뚝뚝하다.닉튼은 편집 전쟁을 피하기 위해 의도적으로 3번 편집을 피하고, 다른 편집자들이 말하는 것을 듣지 않는다.뷰포드 하이웨이 인터내셔널 커뮤니티를 보호해 별도의 기사가 되지 않도록 한 그의 행동도 마찬가지라고 할 수 있다.

게다가, 관리자가 다른 편집자를 "고기 인형"이라고 지칭해도 괜찮을까?

마지막으로, 나는 Student7과 Nyttend 사실 두개의 다른 사람들이다;IP확인, 누구 없어요?--Mmann1988(이야기)03:27, 6월 28일 2011년(CoordinatedUniversalTime)확신이 서지 않습니다.

내 RFA를 보고 "반대" 섹션의 이름과 링크를 응답으로 보고 싶을 것이다.관찰자들은 이것을 Mmann이 단순히 그들의 머리에 내 말을 뒤집어놓고 내가 그를 비난한 것을 증거도 없이 하고 있다고 말하는 또 다른 예라고 주목하라.Nyttend (대화) 04:06, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

나는 니튼드가 권한이 없는 관리자에게 페이지 보호를 요청하는 것이 가장 좋은 방법이었다고 생각한다. 즉, 그것은 보호가 정당화되었기 때문에 관리자 권한을 남용하는 것이 아니었다.Mmann1988은 이 문제를 죽게 내버려두고 변화를 만들고 나서 그것을 개인적인 것으로 만드는 것에 대한 합의를 도출해 낼 필요가 있다.몬티₈₄₅ 04:18, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

'보호의 정당성'은 관련 관리자가 옳든 그르든 논쟁에 휘말린 후 자신이 선호하는 버전으로 페이지를 보호하는 것을 용서하지 않는다.위키백과:의견/Nyttend 요청은 빨간색 링크가 아니다.SandyGeorgia (토크) 04:26, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

조지아 주 13번 국도는 50마일 길이의 고속도로지만, 그 중 34마일만이 국제 사회로서의 지위를 유지하고 있다.이 확장을 통해 데칼브 군에서 "국제 회랑 공동체"로 지정되었다.여기 출처가 있다. 15페이지 참조(출처 이름은 "아틀란타 근린가이드"이며, "버포드 고속도로"로 알려진 인근 지역을 포함한다): http://clatl.com/neighborhood_guide/CL_neighborhoodGuide1.pdf --Mmann1988 (토크) 04:42, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

나는 고기의 꼭두각시가 아니다.니튼드, 메트로 애틀랜타 기사에 대한 나의 기고 목록만 보면 돼.나는 복수의 참고자료를 통해 뷰포드 하이웨이 코리더와 이스트 콥이 모두 비포장된 공동체라는 것을 보여주었다.Nyttend는 이 두 곳이 소유하지 않는 비법인 공동체를 정의하는 것에 대한 어떠한 기준도 제시하기를 거부한다.나는 니텐드가 콘텐츠에 대한 자신의 관점을 입증하지 못한 것과 (b) "고기 꼭두각시"와 같은 모욕적인 말을 던지는 것에 대해 신뢰할 수 없다고 생각한다.키이저 (대화) 13:15, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

니튼의 입장에서 좀 판단을 내려야 할 것 같아반달리즘과 비협조적인 편집으로부터 보호하는 것과 콘텐츠 분쟁에서 자신의 이익을 위해 관리 도구를 사용하는 것의 차이는 미미하며 보는 사람의 눈에 보일 수도 있다.그렇긴 하지만, 니튼드는 기사가 그런 지위를 가지는 동안 완전한 보호를 통해 편집하는지를 묻는 것뿐입니다.이 글은, 특히 니튼드(Nyttend)에 의해, 완전한 보호가 해제될 때까지, 다시 편집되어서는 안 된다.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

위키백과:기사_for_deletion/Firefox_7

누가 이 AFD 좀 닫아줄래?하루 늦었다.섬몽키 07:27, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

누군가 때가 되면 알게 될 것이다. 인내심을 가져라. --Rschen7754 07:44, 2011년 6월 28일(UTC)

나는 파이어폭스의 역사에서 세 가지를 모두 합병하면서 그것을 닫았다.Dcoetzee 08:47, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

주장을 평가해줘서 고마워.쉽지 않은 마무리.다행히도 사람들은 시간이 지날수록 현명해졌고, 예를 들어, Fedora 15에 대한 기사는 없다.FuFuEd (대화) 21:43, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

야프락 보호 요청

안녕!

관리자 중 한 명이 내 요청을 위해 시간을 할당해 주길 바란다.나는 현재 터키어로 지정된 이름들을 연구하고 있다.야프락을 만들고 싶다.그러나 2007년에 삭제되어 보호된다.그것은 -내 생각엔- 처음으로 저널에 대해 창조된 것 같다.터키어 이름으로 만들고 싶다.관리자 중 한 명이 보호해 주지 않으면 기쁠 것이다. 미리 고맙다. --폴리시냅틱 (대화) 21:49, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

자_그거야What_I_Call_Music!_79_(UK_시리즈)

관리자가 내가 이 기사에서 삭제한 참조 링크를 다시 배달할 수 있는가?그것은 불법 다운로드 사이트에 해당하는 것과 연결고리로서, 우리는 그것을 역사를 둘러싸고 둘 수 없다. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:16, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

옛 참고문헌이 남용되고 있는가?역사 속에 그것을 가지고 있는 것에는 아무런 해가 없다; 만약 우리가 나쁜 고리의 모든 사례들을 재평가한다면 우리는 정말로 바쁜 행정가일 것이다.역사에 남을 수 없도록 만드는 이 나쁜 연결고리의 특이한 점은? --Jayron32 19:58, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

그 점에 동의하고, 게다가 이 링크는 그 역사 초기에 그 기사에 추가되었다.이를 제거하려면 거의 모든 편집 내용을 revdel해야 한다. --RL0919 (토크) 20:02, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

내가 말했듯이, 그 링크는 해적판 링크에 해당하며(누군가가 불법으로 앨범을 다운받을 수 있는 곳), 이 역사에서 볼 수 있는 그런 링크가 있다는 것은 WP가 음악 저작권 침해를 묵인하고 있다는 의미로 받아들여질 수 있기 때문에 좋은 일이 아니라고 생각했다. ArcAngel (토크) ) 02:10, 2011년 6월 29일 (UTC)

그래, 하지만 역사는 일반 독자들이 파헤치는 것이 아니야.그들은 그 기사의 현재 버전만 읽었다.따라서 누군가가 역사를 교란적으로 사용하지 않는 한(그런 일은 드물지만) 위키백과 정책의 일반적이고 일상적인 위반에 대해 역사에서 수정본을 삭제하는 것은 종종 유용하지 않다.단순히 기사를 편집하고 불쾌감을 주는 글을 삭제하는 것만으로도 99.9%가 훨씬 넘는 사례에서 충분하다.Rev Delete는 정상 편집으로는 충분하지 않을 때 1000번 이내에 1번 미만으로 존재하며, 여기에는 이미 수행한 것보다 위와 그 이상의 조치를 필요로 한다는 증거가 없다. --Jayron32 02:20, 2011년 6월 29일(UTC)

그 설명 고마워, 주변에 양이 없을 때 내가 늑대한테 전화했었나 봐.:) ArcAngel (talk) ) 02:27, 2011년 6월 29일 (UTC)

매우 오래된 레인지 블록

현재 800여개의 레인지블록이 있는 것으로 보인다.2005년과 2006년의 모든 레인지블록은 결코 만료되지 않을 변명이며 2007년부터는 대부분 역시 마찬가지다.범위를 재빨리 세어 보니 총 몇 백만 개의 IP 주소가 나와, 생각했던 것보다 훨씬 많다.이들 중 다수는 개방형 프록시로 차단된다.Zzuzz는 최근에 차단된 많은 프록시들이 더 이상 프록시가 아닐 가능성이 높다고 언급했다.우리의 차단방침은 또한 열린 대리점들은 대개 세심한 생각 없이 외설되어서는 안 된다고 말한다.이 블록을 세웠던 관리자 몇 명이 잊어버린 게 아닐까.정말 오래된 것들 중 몇 가지를 검토하는 것이 가치가 있다고 생각하는 사람이 있는가? - 하이드록소늄 (T•C•V) 03:44, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

물론이지. 끝나면 알려줘.:)프로데고^talk 04:06, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

하하, 하지만 난 동의해.가장 정적인 IP들도 몇 년 후에 바뀌기 때문에, 언더그라운드 차단은 보통 멍청한 짓이다.심하게 남용된 단일 IP를 사용하면 좋은 사용자가 편집하지 못하도록 차단할 때까지 이러한 IP를 지속적으로 차단할 수 있지만 그 중 일부는 1,000개 이상의 IP를 가진 범위?사양하겠습니다포트 체크를 하고 테스트해봄으로써 프록시 IP를 평가하는 것을 기꺼이 돕겠다(mwahahah... er...) 아즈라다츠(talk) 04:09, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

그것이 이것을 촉발시킨 것인가?—류룽 (竜龙) 04:08, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

ACC I에서 툴 서버 관리자로 지원.잠재적으로 수백만 개의 IP에 대한 재평가는 우리의 프로세스를 많은 시간을 절약할 수 있고 새로운 사용자들이 그들의 계정을 더 빨리 받을 수 있도록 도울 수 있다.범위 블록이 있는 계정 생성에 제출된 새로운 계정에 대한 모든 요청은 계정을 생성하기 전에 일반적으로 통관을 위해 CheckUser로 연기되어야 하며 알려진 반달 및 삭푸펫 IP 범위를 확인해야 한다.이걸 치우는 데 이틀은 걸릴 거야정체된 범위 블록을 제거할 수 있다면, 이것이 ACC에서 이러한 프로세스의 속도를 높일 것이라는 것은 의심의 여지가 없다.Mlpearc wow 04:41, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

내가 먼저 가서 풀카운트를 했는데 생각보다 훨씬 많아.이 표는 범위, 각 범위의 크기, 해당 범위의 개수 및 총합이 있는 표입니다.

범위	범위의 크기	카운트	합계
/16	65,536	63	4,128,768
/17	32,768	34	1,114,112
/18	16,384	52	851,968
/19	8,192	81	663,552
/20	4,096	89	364,544
/21	2,048	42	86,016
/22	1,024	41	41,984
/23	512	35	17,920
/24	256	199	50,944
/25	128	23	2,944
/26	64	20	1,280
/27	32	34	1,088
/28	16	32	512
/29	8	44	352
/30	4	5	20
/31	2	3	6
합계		797	7,326,010

730만 대의 컴퓨터에 대해 포트 스캔을 실행하는 것이 좋다고 말해야겠습니다. - 하이드록소늄 (T•C•V) 05:29, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

포트 스캔이 열린 프록시를 확인하는 정확한 방법이 아니라는 점을 언급한 적이 있는가?위에서 언급한 나의 코멘트는 특히 CAT의 개별 IP에 관한 것이었다.OP는 대부분 차단되지도 않고 더 이상 개방되지 않으며 3분의 1 정도가 동적 범위에 있는 것으로 알려져 있다.아마도 처음에 그것들을 다루는 가장 좋은 방법은 그들이 차단되었는지, 그리고 그들이 동적 범위에 있는지 확인하는 것이다.레인지 블록은 별개의 문제인데, 나는 그것들을 재검토해야 한다는 것에 동의한다.그러나 가끔 프록시를 사용하여 프록시를 확인하는 사람으로서, 이전 범위 블록 중 많은 부분이 여전히 유효하다는 것을 확인할 수 있다.프리코프누르트나 류룽의 블록 고지를 보는 것은 드문 일이 아니지만, 사실 류룽의 블록은 여전히 흔하다.나는 그들을 막으려고 경솔한 짓은 하지 않을 것이다.범위 블록은 차단된 것과 동일한 방식으로 처리되는 것이 가장 좋다. 즉, 차단된 블록이 누구에 속하는지, 호스팅에 샘플이 사용되는지 여부를 확인하십시오.만약 그들이 호스팅 회사에 소속되어 있다면, 그들은 종종 연속 블록을 위한 공정한 게임이다. -- Zzuzz 05:47, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

레인지블록은 또한 종종 체크 사용자들에 의해 욕설적인 양말 퍼피에 반응하여 가장 자주 배치된다. 이러한 경우 대부분 범위가 차단된 이유에 대해 공개적으로 볼 수 있는 이유는 없을 것이다. 그 이유는 대신 다수의 계정을 단일 범위에 연결하는 사용자 데이터를 검사하기 때문이다.이러한 사항을 검토할 때 차단 관리자는 조치를 취하기 전에 항상 상의해야 하며, 실패하면 적어도 한 명의 체크유저가 있어야 한다. (편집: 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC) 12:38일자 편집: 그래, 나는 실제로 목록을 보지 않았으므로 어느 정도 수정되어 있다.내가 예상했던 것보다 훨씬 더 많은 것들이 프록시와 사이언톨로지를 향하고 있다.내 잘못이야.어느 쪽이든, 내 충고는 여전히 유효하다. 만약 당신이 무언가를 보고 있고 그것이 당신에게 완벽하게 괜찮아 보인다면, 누군가 그것을 확인할 수 있도록 하라.)허스폴드^(t/a/c) 12시 34분, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

CoS IP와 범위는 이미 이와 같이 태그가 붙어야 하지 않을까?–MuZemike 15:04, 2011년 6월 14일(UTC)

상기 열거된 페이지의 나의 레인지블록의 대부분은 당시 처리되고 있던 IP가 장기간 학대 편집자에 의해 활용되고 있었고 IP상의 WHOIS는 그 범위가 인터넷 서비스 제공자가 아닌 웹호스트에 속한다는 사실을 밝혀낸 사실에 근거하고 있다는 점을 지적하고 싶다.범위가 더 이상 이 웹 호스트에 의해 소유되지 않으면 차단 해제되어야 한다.하지만 이 사람이 베이징 기차역 와이파이 신호에서 어떻게든 튕겨 나왔기 때문에, 이 원치 않는 편집자들이 접근하지 못하게 하는 것은 분명히 도움이 된다.—류룽 (竜龙) 19:46, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

AOL 범위블록은 더 이상 개방형 프록시가 아니기 때문에 차단 해제한 것뿐인데, AOL은 2007년부터 우리에게 XFF 헤더를 주기 때문이다.~앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈레스) 14:04, 2011년 6월 15일 (UTC)

또한, 나는 WHOIS가 우리에게 유용한 정보를 제공하고 그들이 현재 누구에게 등록되어 있는지 확인하기 위해 기존의 장기 및 무기한 블록을 살펴보고자 자원한다.지금 회사라서 더디겠지만, 집에 돌아가면 확실히 많이 확인할 수 있어.~앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈레스) 14:11, 2011년 6월 15일 (UTC)

Alison C.가 나서줘서 고맙고, 이제 필요한 것은 팀워크에 맞는 CheckUser(s)만 있으면 된다.Mlpearc wow 14:41, 2011년 6월 15일 (UTC)

[outdent] 웹 호스팅/전용 서버/VPS 범위가 많은 것을 알 수 있다. 이를 차단하기 위한 공식적인 정책이 있는가?아마도 지금이 공식적인 정책을 제안하기에 좋은 때일 것이다; 나는 종종 공공 터미널에서 검열기를 피하기 위해 VPS를 통해 ssh를 하는 것을 알고 있으며, 여러 사용자들과 aon들도 그렇게 한다고 생각한다.~앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈레스) 16:55, 2011년 6월 15일 (UTC)

이걸 프로젝트 페이지로 옮길까?나는 이것이 보통 하는 일이라 생각한다. 알림판Mlparcpow 00:08, 2011년 6월 16일 (UTC)

그것은 우리가 유용한 정보를 잠재우고 싶을 때만 가능하다;) 앨리슨, WP의 정책:프록시는 이러한 호스팅 범위에 대해 꽤 명확하다: "열리거나 익명으로 처리되는 프록시는 차단될 수 있다."그들은 일반적으로 그들이 남용된 후에 차단되지만, 일부 제공자들은 또한 개방형 프록시를 호스팅하고 헛소리를 내뱉는 것으로 상당한 명성을 가지고 있다.의심스러운 개방형 프록시 범위 블록이 발견되면 WP에 해당 블록을 나열하십시오.검토를 위한 OP.난 최근 것들은 신경 쓰지 않을 거고, 내가 차단한 것들은 네가 원한다면 다음 달에 위키리크에서 돌아올 때 내 자신을 복습할 수 있을 거야.관리자가 CAT를 순찰하는 경우 이러한 유형의 블록은 대개 자체 삭제된다.UNBLOCK은 그들이 나타날 때 그들을 검토하도록 한다.내가 본 거의 모든 요청은 피할 수 있는 익명 프록시를 사용하는 사람들에게서 온 것이다. -- zzuzz 08:18, 2011년 6월 16일 (UTC)

좋아, 내가 잘 모르는 카테고리인 RFU에서 다루기 때문에 호스팅 범위 블록은 그대로 둘게. 204.232.90.150 (대화) 15:12, 2011년 6월 16 (UTC) 로그인 후 서명 ~앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈레스) 15:15, 2011년 6월 16 (UTC)

개별블록

이 섹션은 내가 더 많은 블록을 검토할 때 업데이트될 것이다. 다른 모든 사용자도 여기에 블록을 게시할 수 있다. - 앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈) 17:27, 2011년 6월 15일(UTC)

• 4.247.128.128/25 CoS IP로 차단되었지만, rDNS는 탬파의 다이얼업 애드레스임을 시사한다.차단 관리자 ~Alison C. (일명 크레이지탈) 17:14, 2011년 6월 15일(UTC)
• 12.146.202.16/28 CoS IP로 차단되었지만 WHOIS는 AT&T 12.0.0/8 블록보다 더 구체적인 것은 보이지 않는다. rDNS는 SERVFAIL로 실패한다. ~앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈) 17:14, 2011년 6월 15일 (UTC)

  12.149.223.160/28

  12.153.64.80/28

• 64.60.234.160/29가 CoS로 차단되었지만 WHOIS는 캘리포니아의 종양학자인 "R S 바산 MD R-S-VASAN-MD (NET-64-60-234-160-160-1) 64.60.234.160 - 64.60.234.167"을 보여주고 있다.~앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈레스) 17:27, 2011년 6월 15일 (UTC)

• WHOIS 정보를 그렇게 심각하게 받아들이지 마십시오. WHOIS는 종종 매우 좁거나 제한된 정보만 제공한다.CoS 범위 블록의 경우, 체크 사용자에게 각 범위를 확인하도록 하십시오.웹 호스트 또는 VPS 범위인 웹 호스트 또는 VPS 범위인 경우, 확인을 위해 체크 사용자 없이 차단을 해제하지 마십시오. 이러한 차단은 거의 항상 금지된 편집자 및 기타 삭스마스터에 의해 사용된다.체크 사용자 블록을 실행 취소하지 마십시오. 차단 CU가 만료된 경우 이를 적용한 체크 사용자나 활성 체크 사용자에게 다시 문의하십시오. 차단 해제 전에 체크 사용자와의 상담이 기본 관례임.Risker (talk) 05:23, 2011년 6월 16일 (UTC)

  어쨌든 차단 관리자에게 먼저 알리지 않고 블록을 처리하려고 했던 건 아니었어AOL 레인지 블록으로 하는 걸 깜빡했네. 이제 돌아가서 할 거야, 컬파야.그리고 체크유저 블록을 엉망으로 만들 방법이 없었다. 204.232.90.150 (대화) 15:12, 2011년 6월 16일 (UTC) 로그인 후 서명 ~앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈) 15:15, 2011년 6월 16일 (UTC)

AOL은 아마 괜찮을 겁니다. 그 중 어떤 것도 체크유저 블록은 아닐 겁니다. 그리고 그것들은 AOL이 XFF 헤더를 제공하기 전으로 거슬러 올라갑니다.나는 가장 중요한 말을 하는 것을 잊었다.앨리슨 씨, 이 일에 참여해줘서 고마워.체크 유저가 검토해야 할 숫자를 제한하는 당신의 작업은 정말 도움이 된다.위험원 (대화) 22:32, 2011년 6월 16일 (UTC)

레인지블록을 검토해줘서 고마워, 앨리슨나는 그들 중 몇몇을 직접 훑어보았고 많은 사람들이 여전히 사이트 등을 주최하고 있다는 것을 발견했다.그렇지 않은 것을 우연히 마주치면, 나는 그것을 꺼낼 것이다.고마워 - 하이드록소늄(T•C•V) 02:10, 2011년 6월 18일(UTC)

아그네스.이번 주말이 될 거라고 생각했던 것보다 바빠서, 일요일 밤이나 월요일까지 복습하지 못할 수도 있어.보관을 방지하기 위한 이후 타임스탬프.~앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈레스) 02:10, 2011년 6월 22일 (UTC)

오, 이런, 다시 현실 생활이 방해가 되다니.......*옷 렌즈* 좋아, 늦어도 이번 주말 >> ~앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈) 00:00, 2011년 6월 24일 (UTC)

나는 내가 가지고 있는 약간의 자유시간 동안 천천히 그러나 끈기있게 그들을 헤쳐나가고 있다. 이번 주말은 나에게 완전히 미친 주말이었다.아래 섹션도 참조하십시오. 호스팅 범위 차단 정책을 코드화해야 함 - 앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈) 03:01, 2011년 6월 27일(UTC)

호스팅 범위 차단 정책

호스팅 범위 차단에 대한 구체적인 정책은 없어 보이고, 스탠더드 실습은 그 효과에 대한 메모로 장기간 차단되는 것으로 보인다. 나는 이것에 대해 아무런 문제가 없다. 그것은 단지 어디에 기록되어 있지 않다.그래서 나는 WP에 부록을 제안한다.블록 또는 WP:IPBLOCK은 다음과 같은 내용을 나타내는 IPBLOCK:

호스팅 회사에 속한 IP 범위는 악용될 경우 장기간(최대 5년) 차단될 수 있다.합법적인 사용자가 블록의 선처를 요청할 수 있도록(로그인된 사용자가 편집할 수 있도록 허용) 또는 ipblock-expire 권한을 자신의 계정에 요청할 수 있도록 이 효과에 대한 참고 사항이 블록 사유에 포함되어야 한다.

아래 주석:

• 내가 제안한 대로 이 격언을 지지한다. ~앨리슨 C. (일명 크레이지탈레스) 03:01, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC)
• 제안: WP 검색:IP 차단을 해제하기 전의 LTA(예: 특수:검색/203.56.233.122+프리픽스:위키백과:장기_abuse(입력 항목을 찾는다고 해서 IP가 물론 차단 해제될 수 없는 것은 아니지만, 가능한 부작용을 나타낼 수 있다.)조누니크 (토크) 07:20, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC)
• 이것은 괜찮아 보이지만, 나는 블록 길이를 명시적으로 말하는 것에 반대한다.나는 호스팅 범위를 광범위하게 다뤄왔고 합법적인 사용자 대 오픈 프록시의 트래픽 양을 고려하면 5년은 그리 길지 않다.2005-06년 이후 범위가 차단된 개별 IP를 많이 차단했던 기억이 난다.많은 호스팅 회사의 경우 공개 프록시 트래픽과 비교할 때 개인 서버에서 합법적으로 편집하는 경우가 매우 드물다. 몇 가지 예는 사용자 대화:67.159.0.0/18, 사용자 대화:208.53.128.0/18, 사용자 대화:72.46.128.0/19를 참조하십시오.따라서 합법적인 사용자가 있다면, 범위를 차단한 채로 IP 블록을 면제하거나 단순히 소프트 블록을 허용하는 것이 좋다.스펠캐스트 (토크) 08:55, 2011년 6월 29일 (UTC)

만료된 RfC의 닫기를 요청하기 위해 전원이 공급되지 않은 관리자 요청 중

RfC의 30일이 경과한 만큼 합병 논의를 종결하고 합의점을 결정할 수 있도록 무임승차한 관리자의 도움을 요청하고자 한다.나는 합병을 찬성하는 의견이 매우 명확하다고 믿고 그것을 진행할 준비가 되어 있다.나는 RfC를 요청한 편집자였기 때문에, 내가 직접 RfC를 닫는 것은 적절하지 않을 것이라고 생각한다. 그리고 위키피디아의 포인트 IV:병합#Proposing_a_merger, 나는 이 RfC를 닫는 권한 없는 관리자가 최선의 행동 방침이라고 믿는다.RfC는 이것이다.Jfgslo (대화) 03:29, 2011년 6월 29일 (UTC)

YDone. Sandstein 09:37, 2011년 6월 29일 (UTC)

논란이 많은 RfC를 닫기 위해 용감한 관리자에게 요청

9.11 음모론에 대한 부분을 기사에 다시 추가하기로 합의했는지에 대한 논란이 일고 있는 RfC를 9.11 테러 공격 때 우리는 책임 없는 행정관을 사용하여 종결시킬 수 있다.토의는 두 군데에 있다.그것은 여기서부터 시작해서 여기서 새로운 실로 재개된다[20] RfC를 닫기 위해 관리자가 필요하지 않다는 것을 알지만, 문제가 얼마나 논쟁적인지 고려한다면, 관리자가 하는 것이 최선이라고 생각한다.고마워요.지식 탐색 (대화) 03:01, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

여기서 가까운 RfC가 보이지 않는다.{{rfctag}}}, (적어도 2부에서는) 진짜 구조는 없고, 그저 사람들이 서로 말을 듣지 않고 길게 파고드는, 그저 늘 무의미하게 뒤엉킨 실타래일 뿐이다.분명한 합의도 없다.표준 RfC 태그와 몇 가지 구조로 다시 시작해 합의를 도출할 것을 권고한다. Sandstein 21:05, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

PS: 여기에는 구조적인 논의와 비슷한 것이 있지만, 아직 30일 동안 논의되지 않았다.거기에 RfC 태그를 달고, 토론에 처음 온 사람들이 헤더를 더 잘 이해할 수 있도록 개선한 후, 30일 동안 기다리시겠습니까? Sandstein 21:09, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

{rfctag}이(가) 있었지만 RfC가 만료된 후 봇이 제거했다.[21] 문자의 거미줄이 엉켜서 미안해.내가 말했듯이, 그 문제는 논쟁의 여지가 있다.나는 다른 RfC를 열지 않는 편이 낫겠다. 그렇게 되면 이 문제에 대한 우리의 세 번째 RfC가 될 것이기 때문이다.지식 탐색 (대화) 21:39, 2011년 6월 14일 (UTC)

미안, 이 페이지가 이틀마다 보관되는 줄 몰랐어.RfC가 아직 마감되지 않아서 다시 추가한다.지식 탐색 (대화) 04:11, 2011년 6월 17일 (UTC)

토크에서 보다 쉽게 읽을 수 있는 토론에 기초하여:9월 11일 공격#일반적인 합의로 넘어가면서 옵션 1에 대한 합의로 RfC를 닫는 쪽으로 기울지만, 적극적인 논의를 짧게 끊지 않도록 의견이 더해지는 것을 멈출 때까지 기다리는 것이 좋을 수 있다. 샌드스타인 06:12, 2011년 6월 17일 (UTC)

나는 옵션 1이 분명히 지금 일반적인 합의사항이라는 것에 동의한다.나는 지금까지 비자발적인 사람들의 양 때문에 아무것도 변하지 않을 것이라고 본다.뜸(토크) 01:04, 2011년 6월 19일 (UTC)

보관하지 않으려면 타임스탬프를 선택하십시오.쿠나드 (대화) 2011년 6월 21일 01:30 (UTC)

보관을 방지하기 위한 이후 타임스탬프.쿠나드 (대화) 23:59, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

관리자(또는 숙련된 편집자)에게 이 RfC를 닫게 할 수 있는가?옵션 1은 이미 약 일주일 전에 시행되었고 그 이후로 옵션 1에 대한 추가 편집 전쟁이나 이의 제기는 없었다.옵션 1의 주 반대자는 합의가 자기 뜻대로 되지 않았다는 것을 받아들인 것 같다.이 RfC는 내가 처음 이것을 올렸을 때만큼 논쟁적이지 않다.누가 좀 닫아줄래?나는 관여가 심해서 내가 직접 하고 싶지 않다.지식 탐색 (대화) 01:17, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

휴관. 2011년^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 6월 29일 09:02 (UTC)

고마워! 지식탐구 (토크) 19:44, 2011년 6월 29일 (UTC)

UAA가 심각하게 백로그됨

11개의 사용자 보고서가 기다리고 있고 신은 얼마나 많은 봇 보고서가 있는지 알고 있다.섬몽키 09:45, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

낙태 주도형 선고 - 밀짚 여론 조사 합의

기사: 낙태(대화 기록 편집 보호 로그 보기 보기 삭제 링크)

최근 낙태에 대한 지푸라기 여론조사가 실시되었는데, 몇 명의 편집자들은 낙태에 대한 간단한 다수를 간단히 집계한 후, 낙태에 대한 여론조사가 주형을 "죽음"에서 "생존"으로 바꾸는 강제적인 합의라고 믿고 있다.

• Jmh649 (토크 · 기여) diff
• ArtifexMayhem (토크 · 기여) diff
• 오렌지마린(토크 · 기여) 디프

다른 사용자도 이에 관련됨:

• 핵전쟁료 (토크 · 기여)
• JJL (토크 · 기여)
• Michael C Price (토크 · 기여)
• DMSBel(토크 · 기여)

나는 이것이 위키피디아가 잘 확립된 합의와 어렵게 얻은 타협을 뒤엎을 수 있는 민주주의라고 주장하기 때문에 잘못된 것이라고 믿는다. - RoyBoy 22:01, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

합의는 나머지 시간 동안 구속력을 갖기 위한 것이 아니다: 때때로 합의는 바뀐다.잘 확립된 합의는 때때로 다시 성립될 필요가 있다.나는 이것이 관리자 도움이 필요한지 잘 모르겠지만, 나는 내 의견을 제안했고 다른 경험 있는 사용자들도 그렇게 하도록 초대했다.기병대 (메시지 미) 22:16, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

그래서 나는 단순한 다수가 어떤 합의도 바꿀 수 있다는 것을 이해해야 하는가? - RoyBoy 23:16, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC)

현실은 그래, 그들은 할 수 있다는 것을 보여주었다.그건 너를 위한 위키백과야.『야구 벅스 당근→ 03:08, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC)

콘텐츠 분쟁 논의
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.
그것은 낙태 찬성 족제비 말이고, 또한 불필요하다."유능"은 본질적으로 "태생"을 의미한다.그래서 "태어나기 전에 죽인다"는 거지그래, 쓸모가 있네.←베이스볼 버그스카르당What's up, Doc?→22:18, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC) 실행가능성/활용성은 의학용어, 과학용어다.반여성 지지자들은 종종 그것 때문에 혼란스러워 한다.그리고 이곳은 이 토론을 위한 별도의 장소가 아니다.Dave Dial (대화) 22:57, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC) 나는 "유능하다"는 말이 무슨 뜻인지 잘 알고 있다."반여성 지지자"가 무엇을 의미하는지 정의하라.한 마디로, 말이 안 된다.『야구 벅스 당근→ 03:08, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) (비관리노트) 어떤 경우든 이것은 이미 일정한 관리안목 아래 페이지의 내용 분쟁이다.여기서 할 일이 아무것도 없어.벅스, 콘텐츠에 문제가 있으면 기사 토크 페이지에 (출처와 함께) 올려라.여기서 고래고래 소리지르는 것은 아무 소용이 없다.PhGustaf (대화) 23:55, 2011년 6월 26일 (UTC) 그것은 변호사가 의뢰인에게 유언장을 작성하지 않고 죽으면 유언을 남기지 않고 죽을 것이라고 엄중한 경고를 하는 것과 좀 같다! 오, 그 공포! ← 베이스볼 버그스카로틱스What's up, Doc?→03:06, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 벅스, 늙은 위키버디, 나는 단지 여기서 당신의 논평이 영리하긴 하지만 도움이 되지 않는다고 말하고 있었다.PhGustaf (대화) 03:30, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 적어도 문제가 뭔지 알아내려고 애쓰는 건 내게 도움이 돼.그리고 '반(反)여성 지지자'와 '지지자'가 대립하는 것 같아 '반(反)여성 지지자'가 무엇을 의미해야 하는지 여전히 궁금하다.←베이스볼 버그스카르당What's up, Doc?→03:54, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 오래 전에 나는 소규모의 오랜 역사를 가진 회사에 대한 기술 지원을 담당했고, "기술 서포터즈"라는 저널을 출판할 뻔했다.내가 디자인한 로고가 마음에 들었을 거야.하지만 이것은 주제와는 맞지 않는다. 우리는 정책을 준수하는 것에 대해 이야기해야 한다. 그리고 콘텐츠는 그것과 아무런 관련이 없다.PhGustaf (토크) 예를 들어, 특정 PC 표현을 강요하는 것과 같이, 소그룹에서 어떤 목적으로든 본질적으로 기사의 소유권을 가져가는 것에 관한 정책이 있는가?『야구 벅스 당근→ 05:09, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 어떤 일이 일어나든, 관리자 가치 있는 욕설의 속도는 기사의 토크 페이지에서 해결되어야 한다.그리고 논쟁을 "PC"로 치부하는 것은, 나 자신을 반복하는 것은 도움이 되지 않는다.PhGustaf (대화) 05:45, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 좋아. 그럼 말해봐, "반여성 지지자"가 영어로 뭐라고 번역하는지?『야구 벅스 당근→ 05:53, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 2005-06년 합의 도출에 참여했던 사람들이 압도적으로 '바이빌리티'를 선호하는 새로운 소스를 참여시키고 가능한 문구 변화를 고려하도록 하는 것은 어려운 일이다.짚풀 여론조사는 현재 그곳에 게재하고 있는 대다수의 편집자들이 토론을 막기 위한 돌담으로 인식되는 것을 끝내기 위한 시도로서 변화를 선호한다는 것을 보여주려는 의도였고, 실제로 보여주었다.이것은 단지 첫 문장에서 '죽음'이라는 단어를 없앨 수 있는 토론을 막기 위한 오랜 시도의 또 다른 전술처럼 느껴진다.JJL (대화) 00:28, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 새로운 정보는 없다.없어. 광범위한 기록 보관소는 2006년 이래로 유지되어 온 합의가 현재 모든 점에서 고려되고 있다는 것을 증명해.이것은 결코 합의된 지지를 얻지 못하는 동일한 낡은 주장을 재탕한 것이다. 71.3.237.145 (대화) 00:37, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 네, 이것이 내가 언급했던 것이다.JJL (대화) 01:06, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 당신은 당신이 2006년에 이미 고려되지 않은 새로운 아이디어를 제안하고 있다고 가정하고 그 토크 페이지에 거짓으로 접근했다.그리고 당신은 또한 낙태에 관한 어떤 것도 배울 수 없는 토크 페이지에 접근했다.WP가 있다.2006년도의 모든 단어에 대한 MEDRS.최근 논의된 자료 중 2006년도의 내용을 반박하는 자료는 없다(이 2006년도의 내용은 계속해서 복수의 WP에 의해 검증된다).MEDRS 및 기타 WP:RS. 최근에 논의된 소스 중 실제로 새로운 정보를 포함하고 있는 것은 없다. 71.3.237.145 (대화) 01:29, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 이것은 여전히 내용상의 문제로, 특별히 문서화된 정책 위반이 없는 이 곳에는 속하지 않는다.어쨌든 AN/I에 있어야 한다. 71은 많은 편집자들이 IP SPA 탐방자들로부터 아주 가볍게 양해를 구한다는 것을 알아야 한다.PhGustaf (대화) 05:03, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC) 나는 PhGustaf의 의견에 동의한다. 이것은 여기에 속하지 않는다.제안된 변경사항에 대한 의견요청서를 열고 최소 일주일(진행 중인 의견이 있는 경우 최대 30일) 동안 토론이 진행되도록 하십시오.그러면 이 게시판에 와서 RfC를 닫을 사람을 찾으면 된다.그 사이에 편집-전쟁 또는 다른 편집자의 잘못된 행동이 있을 경우 WP로 이동하십시오.ANI. 문구 자체의 장점에 대해 토론하는 자리도 여기에서도 없다. --RL0919 (대화) 06:51, 2011년 6월 27일 (UTC)

나는 내가 몇 년 동안 해온 콘텐츠 논쟁에 대한 화보보다는 위키피디아가 민주주의가 되는 것에 대한 더 많은 의견을 초대한다.고마워. - RoyBoy 01:03, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

나는 내가 모자 쓴 자료에서 한 말을 반복하겠다: Request for Comment를 열어라.여기에는 관리자 조치가 필요하지 않으며, 이곳은 일반적인 "위키피아가 민주주의가 되는 것에 대한 논평"을 위한 장소가 아니다.만약 정규 토크 페이지 참여자들이 의견 일치를 보지 못하거나(그리고 지푸라기 여론조사에서의 근소한 다수가 의견 일치를 보지 못한다), 또는 만약 당신이 토크 페이지에 참여하는 편집자들이 더 넓은 지역사회를 대표하지 않는다고 생각한다면, 어느 쪽이든 가장 좋은 접근방법은 같다: 더 많은 편집자들이 의견을 말할 수 있도록 하는 것이다.RfCs는 그렇게 한다. --RL0919 (대화) 16:19, 2011년 6월 28일 (UTC)

그것을 옮기는 것이 적절할지도 모른다.그러나 위키피디아는 원칙적으로 투표 과정을 통해 내용을 결정하는 것이 아니라, 신뢰할 수 있는 출처에 근거한 토론과 합의를 통해 내용을 결정하는 것이라고 나는 분명히 말하고 싶다.근본적인 문제는 위키피디아가 민주주의인지 아닌, 이미 합의가 이루어졌을 때 새로운 합의가 진전되는 방식과 근거에 관한 것이다.특히 어느 시점에서는 옵션의 상당한 논의와 검토에 근거한 이전의 합의가 이루어진 후에 합의가 이루어지지 않는다.편집자가 기사의 측면에 동의하지 않기 때문에 우리가 의견 일치를 보지 않는 쪽으로 이동했다고 간단히 주장할 수는 없다.나는 어떤 새로운 합의도 이미 충분히 검토되지 않은 새로운 정보나 추론이 있다는 것을 먼저 이전의 합의와 관련된 모든 편집자들이 아닌 일부 편집자들을 납득시킬 필요가 있다는 견해를 가지고 있다.나는 우리가 지금 여기에 새로운 편집자들이 있기 때문에 단순히 변화를 통해 강요하지 않고 새로운 정보나 추론을 제시하기 위해 새로운 합의를 진전시키려는 어떤 편집자들의 어깨에 책임이 있다고 믿는다.여론조사의 사용은 특정 지점에서 적절할 수 있지만 새로운 합의를 진전시키는 데 관여하는 사람들에 의해 설정되지 않는다.여론조사를 사용할 때 기간을 미리 명확하게 표현해야 하며, 편집자가 여론조사가 얼마나 오랫동안 열려 있는지를 알 수 있다고 가정해서는 안 된다.그러나 논쟁적인 문제에서는 RFC가 더 낫다.목표 합의로 모든 여론조사는 토론의 재분석을 피해야 한다.DMSBel (대화) 23:01, 2011년 6월 29일 (UTC)

코멘트는 고맙다. 위키피디아의 정책을 수정하기 전에 반드시 더 많은 청중을 구할 것이다. 하지만 나는 특히 동료 행정관이 이것에 대해 확고한 입장을 가질 만큼 대담했는지 아닌지 궁금했다. - RoyBoy 04:03, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

네, 일반적으로 관리자 권한에 영향을 미치는 이슈에 대한 공지사항 게시판이구나...기타 일반적인 관리자 관심 사항. 단순한 투표로 내용이 결정되는 것처럼 보이는 분쟁에 Administration 시간이 얼마나 소비되는지 확실하지 않지만, 나는 그것이 사려 깊지 못할 것이라고 상상할 수 없다.그래서 나는 그것이 여기에 속한다고 생각해, 적어도 그것이 어떻게 범위를 벗어나게 될지는 알 수 없다.DMSBel (대화) 11:18, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

낙태 정치에 발을 들여놓지 않고서는 설사 개폐 사건이라고 하더라도 합의 내용을 검토하고 아직도 유효한지 심사하지 않고서는 이런 합의는 실제로 1, 2년 이상 지속되어서는 안 된다.예를 들어, 2006년 1월에 나의 RfA를 지원했던 사람들 대부분은 프로젝트에서 떨어졌다.내용이 정체되어서는 안 되며, 새로운 출처와 증거로 갱신되어야 한다.2011년 6월 29일, 23:41(UTC)

동의한다, 새로운 출처와 증거를 추정하는 것은 실제로 제안된다.검토는 괜찮은데, 옆으로 밀면(두 번) 안 돼. - RoyBoy 04:03, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

사용자의 태그팀 위협:재무부 태그 및 관리자:빠르게

이 내용을 읽는 모든 사람이 알고 있을 수 있으므로, 사용자는 다음을 수행하십시오.재무부 태그는 최근 편집자 리뷰에 자신을 제출했다.코멘트는 종종 호의적이지 않았다(그리고 분명히, 나의 코멘트는 첫 번째 것 중 하나였다.그가 검토 중에 그의 연마적인 성격을 누그러뜨렸더라면 좋았을 텐데, 분명히 그렇지 않았다(코멘트는 ER에 있다).

가장 최근의 것 중 하나가 끝난 후, 그는 사용자들을 상대로 다음과 같이 대응했다.Puppies의 바스켓은 얼마 지나지 않아 자신의 토크 페이지로 넘어갔다.이러한 비난은 어떤 커뮤니티 포럼도 아닌 자신의 토크 페이지에 가해졌다.그렇다면 다른 편집자에게 얄팍하게 베일을 씌운 공격 말고 무슨 의미가 있겠는가?이것은 RFC/U, WQA, 심지어 사용자가 불평한 이야기가 아니다.이제 나는 이것을 별로 좋아하지 않는다(그리고 페이셜리의 이익을 위해서, 나는 그것을 좋아하기 시작할 생각은 없다).그것은 우리의 실없는 방법 중 하나로 어떤 해결책을 찾는 솔직한 논평이 아니다. 그것은 단지 배꼽을 잡는 것이다.BoP의 '토크페이지에 들어가지 마라'는 요청에도 일리가 있지만, 이렇게까지 할 수 있는 방법은 아니다.

여기서의 나의 논평은 이 두 사건의 묘한 우연의 일치에 관심을 끌었다.위장 편집 요약본 "수정"과 함께 잠시 후 차례로 삭제되었다.코멘트를 삭제하는 것은 모든 편집자의 권리지만, 요약의 가장 이상한 선택이다 - 어떤 솔직한 코멘트보다 페이지를 보는 사람들에게서 흥미로운 것을 숨기려는 시도다.

재미있는 것은 다른 편집자, 사용자:SerkOfVulcan은 바로 전에 매우 비슷한 사이클을 겪었다.오직 그의 것만이 반달리즘의 반전으로 제거되었다.이걸 칭찬으로 받아들여야 할까?

다음 에피소드는 사용자로부터 다음과 같은 경고를 받는다는 것이다.User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Careful with "Careful.다시는 그러지 마."아니면 뭐?요약 차단을 빠르게 수행하시겠습니까?결국, Fastily는 재무부 태그를 매우 존중하고 있으며 User_talk에서 바로 직전에 그의 지원이 매우 도움이 된다는 것을 알았다.Fastly#File:Dalekhybrid.jpg 다른 세 명의 편집자들이 그에게 그렇게 인상 깊지 않게 된 후, 그는 편집자 리뷰에 참여하고 싶은 의욕을 느꼈다.

만약 내 행동이 너무 지나쳐서 비난받아 마땅하다면, 나는 다른 행정관이 그것을 지적할 것이라고 확신한다.그러나 나는 Fastily 행정관으로부터 협박을 받은 것에 대해 감사하지 않는다. 단지 그의 파일 삭제에 대한 그의 동맹이 비난받았고, 그가 협박을 할 수 있는 버튼들을 가지고 있기 때문이다.앤디 딩리 (대화) 00:02, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

말해봐, 대체 내가 널 어디로 막겠다고 했지?물론, TT는 그 메시지를 게시한 것에 대해 잘못되었을 수 있지만, 그것이 WP를 위반할 권리를 당신에게 부여하지는 않는다.답례로 Civil.내가 마지막으로 확인한 바로는, 두 개의 잘못은 결코 옳게 되지 않았다. -FASTYY^(TALK) 00:31, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

"친절하다"는 말은 무슨 뜻인가?미래의 위험으로부터, 혹은 정말로 위협으로부터 나 자신을 보호하기 위해 내가 주의를 기울여야 한다는 것을 확실히?

당신은 "당신은 나쁜 편집자" 또는 "이러지 마, 그것은 부도덕한/불법적인/살찌는 거야"라고 말할 수도 있었을 것이다."잘 지내"라고 말하지 않았잖아.뭘 돌본다고?이전에 언급되지도 않았고, 능력도 없는 관리인이 블록을 위협한 것이 아니라면, 보기맨이 나를 기다리는 것은 무엇인가?앤디 딩리 (대화) 00:37, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

나는 정중히 진정해 달라고 부탁할 것이고, 내 말에서 의도하지 않은 의미를 과장/그리는 것은 자제할 것이다.그럼 얘기하자.캐피시? -FASTILLY^(TALK) 00:42, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

마피아를 인용해서 당신의 메시지에서 의도하지 않은 위협을 인식하지 말라고 누군가에게 부탁하는 겁니까?앤디 딩리 (대화) 00:46, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

누가 마피아에 대해 말했어?"capisce" == "이해?"내 요점을 강조하기 위해 사용하고 있다.카피스? -FASTYY 00:50, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

이건 마치 사람들이 가지 말았어야 할 곳에 코를 박고 있는 것 같은 느낌이야.앤디 딩리, 재무부 태그의 토크 페이지는 그냥 놔뒀어야지.빠르게, 당신은 아마도 재무부 태그의 변호에 뛰어들 필요가 없었을 것이다.어쨌든, 그건 정말 사소한 일이지, 어떤 정책을 위반하는 게 아니야. 그리고 우리는 싸워서 그것에 대해 A의 실타래를 시작해서는 안 돼.그것은 모두의 시간을 낭비하는 것일 뿐이다.

여기에 관련된 모든 사람들은 좋은 트라우마를 겪는다.그 이상, 다음으로 넘어가라.일렉트리크쇼스 00:44, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

나는 일렉트릭 슈스에 동의하지 않을 수 없다.나는 재무부 대화 페이지에 대한 논평이 도발적이라고 생각한다. 그러나 그것은 우리가 사람들에게 "경고" 해야 할 수준에는 훨씬 못 미친다. 특히 그러한 비정형적인 방식으로.그것은 쉽게 위협적인 것으로 인식된다.나는 또한 #Fastily에서 경고의 경고가 경고의 위협에 더 가깝다는 것을 발견한다. 경고:경고, 정의:위협 우리는 "관리자"가 될 때 수동적인 목소리를 사용한다. 왜냐하면 그것은 말에 대한 권위의식을 모두 부여하고 행동으로부터 "워너"를 분리시키기 때문이다.하지만 그 이후에는 말을 아끼고 칼칼한 흰 장갑을 끼자. - 애런 브레네먼(토크) 01:24, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

• 관리자가 아닌 사람에 의한 코멘트.나는 여기서 묘사된 논쟁에 흥미가 없지만 행정관이 "다신 그러지 마"라는 명령을 내릴 수 있는 위치에 있다고 느끼는 것에 대해 걱정한다.이제 관리자들도 그렇게 할 수 있을까?크리브 병장 (대화) 06:32, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

오, 모든 관련자들에게는 시간 낭비야.앤디의 내 토크 페이지에 대한 언급은 유치하고, 나쁜 믿음을 가졌으며, 실제로 부정확했다(BoP의 내 편집자 리뷰에 대한 언급은 내가 그를 WP 위반으로 고발한 지 11분 후에 나왔기 때문이다).AfD에서의 별도의 분쟁에 대해 지적하면, 누군가는 그가 앙심을 품고 있다고 말할지도 모르지만, 나는 그렇게 하지 않을 것이다. 하지만 앤디는 분명히 모든 것 안에서 동기를 찾고 있다...) 그리고 만들어지지 말았어야 했다.어쨌든.술래잡기팀의 주장이 우스꽝스러울 정도로 터무니없다는 것을 알아차리겠지만, 나는 더 이상 이 허튼소리에 시간을 낭비하지 않을 것이다.╟-TreasuryTag►Syndic General-╢ 07:01, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

• OP용 송어:진짜...Fastily가 한 모든 것은 당신이 더 조심해야 한다는 충고를 한 것이었다.바로 그겁니다.잠재된 위협은 없다.가봐, 아무것도 안 보여.급서 (대화) 2011년 6월 30일 14시 30분 (UTC)
• 송어에 레몬을 첨가하는 것 - 나는 편집자들에게 비슷한 통지를 했다.나는 그것에 아무 문제가 없다고 본다.크립브 경사에 대해서는, 행정관이 누군가에게 정책을 따르라고 말할 수 있는가?물론 우리는 할 수 있다.그리고 관리자가 위반을 수행하는 경우 관리자가 아닌 관리자가 정책을 따르도록 지시할 수 있다.우리는 심지어 사람들이 다른 편집자들을 대하는 방식(Fastily가 말한 것보다 훨씬 더 공격적)에 너무 지나쳐서 "위협"하는 템플릿도 가지고 있다.패스트리가 특별한 말을 한 것 같지는 않다. -- 아타마 17:26, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)
• 나는 단지 그들의 "악성적인 성격"보다 편집자의 "악성적인 행동"을 말하는 것이 훨씬 더 생산적이라는 것을 덧붙일 것이다.—chaos5023 (대화) 17:39, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

페이지 이동을 되돌려야 함

마이 리틀 포니 우정은 매직이다. 마이 리틀 포니: 우정은 매직이다.그것은 합의에 어긋나고 논의 없이 움직였다.2011년 6월 30일(UTC) 10파운드 해머, 그의 수달과 단서박트 • 04:02:30

다 했는데, 직접 ({db-move}를 올리기 전에) 움직일 수도 있었다.관리자 이외의 관리자는 리디렉션의 작성만 편집한 경우 리디렉션 위로 이동할 수 있다.다른 관리자들. 내가 틀렸으면 고쳐줘.—GFOLEY 4—04:07, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

보통, 예. –xeno^talk 14:32, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

페이지 이동 스팸에 기반하여 MoveProtected 페이지를 얻을 수 있는가?기사의 역사를 살펴보면 세미콜론 위치에서 생활하게 하고 제목과 역사를 가지고 노는 사람들이라는 공감대가 형성되어 있는 것 같다.급서 (대화) 20:58, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

파일 복원 요청

2009년 12월 8일, 나는 여기에 이 파일을 복원해 달라는 요청을 받았는데, 그 때는 사용자 공간 초안이었다.그 이후로, 나는 초안을 작성했고 그것은 현재 메인 스페이스에 있다.이렇게 많은 시간이 지났는데도 이것이 여전히 가능한가? ArcAngel (토크) ) 18:46, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

완료. 28바이트(대화) 18:55, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

고마워! ArcAngel (토크) ) 19:21, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

위키백과:삭제/Wikipedia용 miscellany:영국과 위키백과의 위키프로젝트 음악:삭제/Wikipedia용 miscellany:위키프로젝트 마이크로소프트(2차 지명)

관리자가 위키피디아를 닫으시겠습니까?삭제/Wikipedia용 miscellany:영국과 위키백과의 위키프로젝트 음악:삭제/Wikipedia용 miscellany:위키프로젝트 마이크로소프트(2차 지명)?고마워, 쿠나드 (대화) 20:07, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

내가 한번 볼게.카차롯 (토크) 22:19, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

나는 아무런 합의도 없이 둘 다 닫았다(결국, 닫는 지시를 찾아내고 MfD 메인 페이지에서 왜 연계가 되지 않았는지 궁금해 한 후, 오른쪽 상단 모서리에 '숨겨진' 링크를 찾아냈다).나는 또한 토론에 참여하는 사람들을 MfD 페이지에서 제공하는 지침, 즉 다음과 같이 가리켰다.

위키프로젝트 및 그 하위 페이지 - 일반적으로 비활성 위키프로젝트를 삭제하지 않고, 관련 위키프로젝트로 리디렉션하거나 상위 위키프로젝트의 태스크포스(TF)로 변경하는 것이 바람직하다.

그러나 MfD에서 진행중인 다른 토론들을 살펴보니, 많은 위키프로젝트 페이지들이 후보자로 지명되었고 사람들은 다른 선택권이 있다는 것을 모르는 것 같다.지침이 오래된 것인가, 아니면 사람들이 지침을 보거나 읽지 않는 것인가?일반적으로 다른 옵션을 선호하여 삭제를 방지한다는 지침이 명시되는 경우 Wiki Project 페이지에 대해 모든 삭제 논의를 하는 것은 다소 시간 낭비인 것 같다.아니면 이것은 일반적으로 무시되는 그런 지침 중의 하나이고, 그렇다면 수정할 필요가 있는가?카차롯 (대화) 23:13, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

MfDs를 폐쇄하는 방법을 연구하고 논의를 마무리해줘서 고맙다.MfD의 대부분의 편집자들은 그 지침이 따를 가치가 있다고 믿는다.내 생각에 지명자들은 그들의 지명이 가이드라인을 위반한다고 생각하지 않는다.위키백과 대화에서 관련 토론을 참조하십시오.삭제에 대한 미스셀라니#유명자와 위키백과의 선의에 대한 질문:MfD의 삭제에 대한 miscellany#Scope-creep 중요하지 않은 비응용 작업.쿠나드 (대화) 00:16, 2011년 7월 1일 (UTC)

용감한 피해자 관리자 한 명 필요

우리는 용감한 행정관이 나서 다음의 논의를 마무리 지을 수 있을까?

• 위키백과:파일_for_deletion/2011_6월_15#파일:NY_Times_Best_Seller_List_May_25_1980.jpg
• 위키백과:파일_for_deletion/2011_6월_21#파일:Sussecoatoparms.jpg

고마워, FASTILY 02:29, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

거의 NYTimes 1을 지울 뻔했는데, 왜냐하면 나는 계속 논쟁에 부정적인 무게를 두고 싶었기 때문이다.만약 내가 그것들을 읽지 않았다면 나는 그 파일을 보관하고 싶은 마음이 더 강했을 것이다.정책에 대한 이해를 보여주는 주장에만 무게를 두는 것에 대해 내가 무슨 심각한 위험을 감수할 거라고 생각하는 사람?—Kww(대화) 04:24, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

NYTBSL 이미지가 WP를 명백히 위반하므로 삭제했다.NFCC#8. 다른 사람은 보지 않았고, 이제 자야겠어.····日本語?········································································

Kww, 나는 당신이 정책 중심의 !보트에 실질적으로 더 많은 비중을 두지 않는 것에 대해 정책을 위반하고 있다고 생각한다.투표는 아니야.그 결정은 논쟁의 강도에 기초하도록 되어 있다.정책과 관련된 이유는 어떤 수의 비정책(및 상식적이지 않은) 투표보다 훨씬 더, 훨씬, 훨씬 더 강력한 주장이다.WhatamIdoing (대화) 16:08, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

실제로 위키피디아가 NW(Talk) 16:11, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)에서 그러한 방식으로 운영되었다면

'페디아'에서 보고 싶은 변화가 되시겠습니까?:) 위험 (대화) 17:45, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

WP:관리/Kw에 대한 요청, WP:관리/Kw 2 및 WP:관리/Kw 3에 대한 요청을 읽어 보십시오. 삭제된 AFD를 닫는 것을 꺼리는 이유를 알 수 있을 것 같습니다, WhatamIdoing.너무 많은 사람들이 내가 삭제를 강행할 것이라고 믿었고, 나는 몇몇 사람들이 여전히 그것이 시작되기를 기다리고 있다고 의심한다.—Kww(토크) 02:29, 2011년 7월 1일 (UTC)

그들이 분명히 "삭제"로 결정된다면, 당신을 지지할 사람들이 얼마든지 있다(나까지 포함).그들이 확실히 "삭제"되었는지 먼저 확인해라.····日本語^? · 日本語 · 日本語 · 日本語 · Niki Project Japan 가입! 04:00, 2011년 7월 1일(UTC)

WikiLove 필터 편집

위키러브에 편집필터가 있는 이유가 있는가?편집 요약에는 이미 "새로운 위키러브 메시지"라고 쓰여 있다.일반적으로 편집 필터는 문제 표시기인데 왜 "On" WikiLove인지 모르겠다.상주 인류학자(토크)•(기증) 22:35, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

웅변은 어떤 이유로 태그로 설정했지만, 태그는 이제 꺼졌다. 28바이트 (대화) 13:20, 2011년 7월 1일 (UTC)

마이 리틀 포니

누군가 마이 리틀 포니: 우정은 마법이고 모든 하위 페이지들을 감시할 수 있을까?그들은 계속 의견 일치를 무시하고 움직인다. 누군가가 결장을 제거하고 I를 소문자로 만드는 것은 모든 명명 규칙에 어긋난다.2011년 6월 30일(UTC) 20:59, 10파운드 해머, 그의 수달과 단서박쥐

Steple로 이동, Dabomb87로 보호됨. 28바이트(대화) 21:01, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

나는 여전히 그것과 그것의 하위 페이지들이 적절한 대문자로 유지되도록 하기 위해 그것과 그 하위 페이지들을 좀 더 자세히 보고 싶다.2011년 6월 30일(UTC) 21:05, 10파운드 해머, 그의 수달과 단서박쥐

어떤 하위 페이지가 있는가?마이 리틀 포니: 우정은 마법이야, 다른 건 없어?28바이트(대화) 21:11, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

오 더프, 바로 그거야.내 생각엔 MLP:FIM은 자체 캐릭터 리스트를 가지고 있었지만 분명히 그렇지 않다.2011년 6월 30일 10파운드 해머, 그의 수달과 단서박트 • 21:12, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

우리 모두 그것이 하이픈이나 대시가 아닌 결장이라고 감사하자.비록 ArbCom 사건이 My Little Pony 시리즈를 중단하는 것은 엔터테인먼트 가치가 없는 것은 아닐 것이다.28바이트(대화) 21:20, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

글쎄, 그 쇼가 어떻게 인터넷을 들불처럼 휩쓸고 갔는지 생각해보면, 그것은 곧 일어날 거야.2011년 6월 30일(UTC) 21:22, 10파운드 브론니, 그의 수달과 단서박쥐

오, 맨 처음 ArbCom 케이스를 MLP 클립으로 동기화한 사람에게 헛별이군.EVULA// 통화 // ☯ // 22:48, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

날 믿어, 누군가 방법을 알아낼 거야. (Twilight's sleep party, to start....) --MASEM (t) 22:57, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

헷갈리는데, 왜 자본이 미국 자본금 기준을 어겼는데 MOS를 따르는 거지?야수의 표식 (토크) 22:44, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

"Is"는 동사다.동사는 대문자화: [...] 모든 형태의 동사 (be, am, is, are, was, been, been); 28바이트 (talk) 22:45, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

고마워. 내 이해가 틀린 것 같아, 문법 사이트 몇 군데를 다시 확인해봤는데 28바이트가 맞네.야수의 표식 (토크) 23:19, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

경고: 현학적인 논평--그것은 문법이 아니라 스타일이다.Drmies (토크) 04:45, 2011년 7월 1일 (UTC)

…야수의 표식 (토크) 18:51, 2011년 7월 1일 (UTC)

MTVN HD는 현재 MTV Live HD이다.

오늘 아침 채널 이름이 바뀌면서 MTVNHD를 MTV Live HD로 옮길 수 있는지 궁금했는데--Superlightoftruth (토크) 18:12, 2011년 7월 1일 (UTC)

그렇지 않다.그 변화는 일어나지 않았다.비록 나는 MTVN HD가 이벤트성 있게 변할 것이라고 확신하지만, 그 순간에는 여전히 MTVN HD라고 불린다.그러나 명칭이 변경될 때까지 이동해서는 안 된다(Ruth-2013(이야기)18:36, 2011년 7월 1일(CoordinatedUniversalTime).

Wikibombing MFD의 역사

여기가 적당한 장소가 아니라면 미안해.우리는 MFD에서 삭제를 위한 에세이를 토론하고 있는데, 일부 편집자들은 이 에세이가 특정 편집자에 대한 공격이라고 우려를 표명했다.에세이의 역사와 MFD 토론의 역사를 언급된 편집자와 공격적인 어떤 것에 대해서도 숙청해야 한다는 제안이 있었다.그것이 적절한 조치인가, 그렇다고 가정할 때, 권한이 없는 관리자가 그 일을 맡을 수 있는가? --누진 (대화) 23:02, 2011년 6월 30일 (UTC)

나는 그것에 반대할 것 같아.Revdelete는 "엄청나게 모욕적이고, 모욕적이고, 모욕적인 물질" 또는 "순수하게 파괴적인 물질"을 위한 것이다. 여기서 기준을 참조하십시오.(여기) 참조하는 자료는 최근의 "위키보밍" 우려를 촉발시킨 편집에 대한 정확한 설명이었다.편집자의 이름을 붙이지 않고, 누구인지는 쉽게 알 수 있겠지만, 외출이나 부적절한 것은 없었다.어차피 합의점을 얻지 못했기 때문에 그 자료는 이제 없어졌지만, 그것은 도구 사용보다는 정기적인 편집이 필요한 문제다.SlimVirgin 23:18, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

나는 이것에 대해 SV의 의견에 동의한다.XFD에 대한 일반적인 접근 방식은 XFD가 닫힌 후에는 수정본을 삭제하지 않고 비워두는 것이다. --RL0919(토크) 23:22, 2011년 6월 30일(UTC)

3점:

• 나는 이 에세이를 가장 책임지고 있는 사람 중 한 사람이 마치 그녀가 아무런 관심도 받지 않은 것처럼 속이는 사용자에 대한 공격이었다는 것에 대해 문제가 있다.사실 그녀는 현재 내가 그 공격의 명백한 연속이라고 보는 외부적 연결고리를 유지하기 위해 계속 논쟁하고 있다.
• SV 링크는 "합의를 얻지 못했다"는 것이 아니라 공격으로 인식되었기 때문에 제거되었다[22].
• 나는 개인적으로 해당 공격의 대상이 요청하지 않는 한 에세이에서 삭제 이력 삭제를 논할 필요조차 없다고 생각한다.

어쨌든, 나는 여기서 문제의 MfD의 개시자로서 관여하고 있고 일반적으로 내가 보는 에세이를 사용하여 사용자를 공격하기 위해 사용하는 사람들에 대해 화가 나 있다...호빗 (토크) 03:16, 2011년 7월 1일 (UTC)

나는 내가 "이세이"에 삭제 정서를 표현하고, 상당한 사용자 공간을 다시 쓰고, 위에 열거된 정확한 이유로 이 에세이의 저자가 그것을 그들의 사용자 공간으로 옮기는 것을 고려하도록 격려하는 방식에 관여하고 있다는 것을 완전히 공개한다.적대적인 에세이 단계에서 사람들이 그것을 볼 수 있게 해주는 중요한 역사가 있기 때문에, 나는 여전히 재기하는 것이 가장 좋은 해답이라고 생각한다.급서 (대화) 12시 56분, 2011년 7월 1일 (UTC)

그리고 나는 MfD에서의 나의 코멘트가 (여기서 RevDel에게 제안된) 자료의 삭제를 유지의 조건으로 처음 제안했던 것이고, 그 접근방식은 결국 합의된 결정으로 최종 관리자에 의해 인용될 정도로 관여하고 있다.MfD 논의에서 삭제된 자료가 인신공격(현재 RfC/U의 대상이 된 유저에 대한)에 해당한다는 공감대가 형성되었다고 생각한다.내가 여기서 제안하는 것은 RevDel에게 찬성하는 것이고, 이것이 일반적인 절차의 사용인지 아닌지에 대해 너무 까다롭게 구는 것에 반대할 것이다. --Tryptofish (대화) 17:25, 2011년 7월 1일 (UTC)

나는 rev가 그 자료를 삭제하는 것이 관련 편집자들에게 영구적인 당혹감을 주는 원천으로 더 낫다고 생각하기 때문에 반대한다.위키피디아의 실제 이야기를 전혀 모르는 상태에서 기꺼이 타르를 하려는 사람은 누구나 그 실수에 대해 부끄러워해야 한다.내가 확실하게 말할게.WP를 작성하는 편집자:BOMB는 훌륭한 사람들이다.그들은 다작의 콘텐츠 편집자, 위키의 수호자, 그리고 일반적으로 계급적인 행위들이다.그러나 그들이 이 에세이를 쓰고 AN/짐보의 토크 페이지/우편 목록/ 등에 대한 잘못된 논의를 조장하는 집단적인 실수는 우리 모두에게 상기시켜 줄 알아야 한다.프로톤크 (대화) 20:07, 2011년 7월 1일 (UTC)

재미있는 지적이야, 내가 마음을 바꾸고 싶을 만큼 좋아. --Tryptofish (대화) 21:58, 2011년 7월 1일 (UTC)

그래, 그건 내 생각이야.그러나 공격의 대상이 이것을 요구하면 (위에서 말한 바와 같이) 제거해야 한다고 말하고 싶다.좋은 예를 위해 그것을 참고 있는 것이 그런 요구를 능가해서는 안 된다.아직 그런 요청은 오지 않았으니, 나는 그것을 곁에 두고 싶다.호빗 (토크) 10:20, 2011년 7월 2일 (UTC)

+1, 말이 된다. --누진(대화) 10:29, 2011년 7월 2일 (UTC)

RFD 백로그

잠시 시간을 내어 위키백과에 참석할 수 있는 사람:토론/로그/2011년 6월 20일, 거의 2주 동안 열린 여러 토론이 포함된 리디렉션.고마워요.╟-TreasuryTag►directorate-14:45, 2011년 7월 2일 (UTC)

판사는 ISP에게 페이코너블을 비난한 위키피디아 포스터의 이름을 공개하라고 명령했다.

여기 봐.아이블리스 카운트 (토크) 16:08, 2011년 7월 2일 (UTC)

그들은 실제 피해나 심지어 그 논평이 거짓이라는 것을 증명하지 못했다. 이것은 명예훼손의 입증에 매우 중요하다.그것은 검토 중에 폐기될 것이다.나이트 레인저 (대화) 22:49, 2011년 7월 2일 (UTC)

게다가 ISP는 그 포스터가 누구였는지 모른다. 단지 어떤 계정인지.게다가, 나는 그들이 단지 사실이 아닌 알고 있는 사실의 모습을 보여줄 필요가 있다고 생각한다.후자였다면 거의 모든 매체가 폐업했을 것이다.우리에게 이 흥미로운 정보를 알려줘서 고마워.North8000 (대화) 22:57, 2011년 7월 2일 (UTC)

위키피디아의 더 많은 관심사는 이러한 주장이 신뢰할 수 있는 출처에 인용되었는지 아니면 OR/오피니언이었는지 여부다.만일 출처에 인용된다면 ip의 제3자의 인용에 대해서는 문제가 없다; 그렇기 때문에 부상당한 것으로 알려진 당사자가 WMF가 아닌 ISP에 접근하고 있다는 것이 흥미롭다. LessEnard vanU (대화) 23:03, 2011년 7월 2일 (UTC)

• 여기 그 기사가 전에 어떤 모습이었는지 복사본이 있다.하지만 분명히 적절하지 않은 것은 아니지만, 나는 당신이 그것으로부터 어떠한 피해도 있었다는 것을 증명할 수 없다고 생각한다.나는 파손나블라와 헤즈볼라의 소유주들 사이의 가능한 연결고리를 논의하기 전에 정보원을 본 적이 있다.그들은 사실이 아닐 가능성이 높지만, 정보를 추가한 IP들은 갑자기 그것을 만들어 내는 것이 아니었다.분명히 의제가 있었을 테지만, 그들은 여전히 이러한 출처에 근거하여 그들의 정보를 찾고 있었다(그들은 인용되지 않은 것 같지만.진심으로, 회사가 우리에게 그 기사를 고쳐달라고 부탁하기만 하면 우리는 기꺼이 그렇게 했을 것이다.이 모든 법정을 하는 건 그들에게 연쇄반응을 일으키는 거야. 그때 우리랑 조용히 해결할 수 있었을 텐데.실버스렌^C 23:13, 2011년 7월 2일(UTC)

명예훼손 혐의 게시물 중 당시(2011년 3월 1일)의 수정 이력이 모두 삭제돼 IP가 인용한 것이 있는지 알 수 없다.--Bb23 (대화) 23:27, 2011년 7월 2일 (UTC)

너 어때?

제2차 이보리아 내전에서 누가 합병 논의를 재개할 수 있을까?그 기사는 2010~2011년 이보리안 위기로 합쳐져야 하는데, 서로 다른 이름을 가진 같은 기사들이기 때문이다.B-Machine (대화) 23:20, 2011년 7월 2일 (UTC)

페이지 이동/이름 변경

분명히 나는 아직 자동 확진을 받지 않아서 내가 직접 할 수 없는 것 같아. 그래서 여기 온 거야.나는 헨리온테임스의 남작 조나단 마크스를 "조나단 마크스 (Baron)"로 개칭해 달라는 것인데, 나는 현재의 제목이 너무 길고 그다지 위키같지 않다고 믿기 때문이다.

건배!

누구였어?전화 (대화) 15:45, 2011년 7월 3일 (UTC)

이 경우 가장 좋은 방법은 WP에서 설명한 대로 이동 논의를 시작하는 것이다.RM. 또한 "위키와 같은" 제목이 무엇인지 알고 싶다면, 위키백과:기사 제목 --Jayron32 17:42, 2011년 7월 3일 (UTC)

제목이 비록 단어일지는 몰라도, 그것은 그러한 사람들을 위한 일반적인 명명 규칙을 따른다.Mjroot (대화) 18:09, 2011년 7월 3일 (UTC)

페이지 리디렉션

2년 전 한 편집자가 로버트 버논 스피어스를 {리처드 스피어스"로 리디렉션했다.불행히도 리디렉션은 틀렸다.로버트 버논 스피어스가 정확한 이름이다.여기에 그의 부고가 있다.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690503&id=GP0NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yHsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5150,1886847

지금 로버트 버논 스피어스에 있는 기사를 어떻게 리차드 스피어스 기사로 옮깁니까?난 네가 알게 될 대로 방향을 바꾸려고 했어 윌리엄 22:57, 2011년 7월 3일 (UTC)

너에게 필요한 것은 역사 병합이다.내가 처리할게. --RL0919 (대화) 00:00, 2011년 7월 4일 (UTC)

역사 숙청.내가 제대로 하고 있는 거야?

나는 행정관은 아니지만, 내가 하려고 했던 것은 (저작권 콘텐츠가 있던) 구사를 제거하고 그것을 새로운 역사로 대체하는 것이었다.내가 먼저 한 일은 페이지를 Synecynchronic에서 Synecronic*으로 옮긴 다음 Synecronic*에서 Synecronic*으로 비침해 콘텐츠를 복사하여 붙여넣어 리디렉션을 콘텐츠로 대체했다.마지막으로, 나는 역사 숙청 때문에 (트윙클 사용) Synercic*을 삭제해 줄 것을 요청했다.이 말이 맞기를 바라며 내가 이 일을 제대로 해냈으면 좋겠지만, 주된 요청은 (시네시기에 있는) 옛 역사를 삭제해 달라는 것이다.Minima© (대화) 08:08, 2011년 7월 2일 (UTC)

개별 개정은 이제 WP를 사용하여 삭제한다.수정기호 삭제.{{copyvio-revdel}}}을(를) 사용하여 특정 개정판의 삭제를 요청할 수 있다.플랫스캔(토크) 04:30, 2011년 7월 4일(UTC)

개정 삭제는 가능할 때마다 선호되어야 한다.Minimac, 유감스럽게도 당신의 접근방식은 (rev deletion이 실현 불가능한 경우에도) 귀속성이 사라진다.비침해 콘텐츠를 한 페이지에서 다른 페이지로 복사하여 붙여넣을 수 없는 경우. (예를 들어, 모든 콘텐츠를 한 사용자가 배치한 경우, "사용자가 만든 이 편집의 모든 콘텐츠:편집 요약의 예")또는 기여자의 전체 목록을 작성하여 안전한 장소에 보관할 수 있다.

나는 rev 삭제가 영향을 받을 편집 횟수로 인해 실질적으로 불가능하게 될 때에만 선택적 삭제를 사용한다.최근의 예를 들어, 리처드 라미레즈 기사에 2007년에 엄청난 카피비오가 삽입되었다.그 후, 그 기사는 1,283건의 편집을 했다.수정사항 1,283개를 삭제하는 것은 상당히 비현실적이다.나는 역사를 분할하고 삭제된 수정본을 배치하는 오래된 기술을 사용했다(위키피디아:선택적 삭제) Richard Ramirez/삭제된 수정본의 경우. (revb 삭제로 인해 여러 번 이 문제가 발생할 가능성이 낮기 때문에 삭제된 수정본의 날짜는 사용하지 않았다.)콘텐츠를 이동할 제목을 표준화하는 것은 나중에 쉽게 찾을 수 있도록 하기 때문에 좋은 생각이다.

그러나, 다시 한 번 수정기호 삭제가 선호되고 플랫스캔의 말대로 이것을 요청하는 방법이 {{copyvio-revdel}}이다.:) --Moonedgirl^(talk) 13:17, 2011년 7월 4일 (UTC)

고마워나는 내 접근 방식이 그리 좋은 생각이 아니었다는 것을 깨달았다. 왜냐하면 이것은 내용을 삭제하는 것뿐만 아니라 요약 편집과 사용자 이름도 삭제하기 때문이다.나는 전에 copyvio-revdel 템플릿을 사용해 본 적이 있지만, 나는 단지 그 copyvio를 제거하기 위해 다른 방법을 시도했을 뿐이다.다음에 카피비오를 제거할 때, 내가 여기서 설명한 방법보다 그것이 더 쉽기 때문에 나는 예전 방법을 고수할 것이다.Minima© (대화) 17:38, 2011년 7월 4일 (UTC)

사용자에 대한 커뮤니티 금지 제안:찰리JS13

Requesting deletion of article on my user page

The article User:RoslynSKP/Battle of Jaffa (1917) should be deleted as the information in it has been incorporated into the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article. Can you please tell me how to do this or arrange for it to be done? Thanking you :) --Rskp (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Done — Ched : ? 09:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In the future you can add {{db-userreq}} to the top of any page in your usespace (except talk page) and an admin will stop by and delete it. GB fan (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yisroel Friedlander creator not informed of deletion by nominator

The creator of Yisroel Friedlander has not been informed of its pending deletion?! Someone isn't following the guidelines. Chesdovi (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, a nominator is not required to inform creators that an article is up for deletion if they don't want to, and besides, the creator, User:Srulyf has not edited since Nov 2008. See this: Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#All authors must be notified of deletion--Jac16888^Talk 17:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I see, so it was just discourteous. Well what can we expect these days!? Chesdovi (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it seems likely to be an informed decision based upon a review of the creators edit history - an example of due diligence; however, your response is discourteous and perhaps you should attempt to practice at which you preach. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, how about you stay away from User:Debresser for a while, OK? (given the tumultuous history between you two) –MuZemike 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic banned editor using WP's email system to discuss topic

LevenBoy(talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
LevenBoy was topic banned in May 2011 from all discussion and editting about naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, and the British Isles naming topics, widely construed[23] (see WP:GS/BI). Since I implemented that ban LevenBoy has made 1 edit not relating to the topic[24] and 1 seemingly joking coment (on the topic) to another sysop's page[25].
About a week ago I recieved an email through wikipedia's email system from User:LevenBoy raising the topic (in partiuclar his view that another editor is in systematically removing the term British Isles from articles), I did not reply. Today I recieved a second.
It is clear that although LevenBoy is not editting wikipedia he is following edits in the area from which he is topic-banned. And I am concerned that this user is attempting to game the system with their use wikipedia's email system. I realize that emails themselves are beyond the scope of the our control but it is becoming clear that LevenBoy is not getting the message vis-a-vis being a single-purpose account or about pointy behaviour relating to wikipedia. I'm not sure how to proceed, input on the matter would be helpful--Cailil^talk 17:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Alas - since you were the one implementing the ban, contact with you is fairly proper as long as you assume good faith. Were you not the one implementing the ban, you might have a point, but I suggest you simply allow that contacting the person who made the ban is about as proper as one can get (as it appears he is trying to draw your attention to a user who is making, in his opinion, improper edits). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from Collect, but up to a point. The reason that LevenBoy was topic banned (& placed under civility parole) is his repeated unsourced reversions and incivility towards users who in his opinion are editing improperly, in short violating WP:BATTLE. Hence my problem, as the emails (through the WP system) are displaying the same mentality from LevenBoy towards other users--Cailil ^talk 17:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Collect on this matter. Definitely worth keeping an eye out for breaches of the topic ban though. The comment at my talk was silly but it was a while ago and not blockworthy, in my opinion. --John (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No the comment (or joke) on your page John was silly and definitely not blockable, however I'm worried LevenBoy hasn't got the message. Anyway, fair enough - I'll respond to his email with a comment on his talk page--Cailil ^talk 19:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Table is getting out of hand, they won't let me delete anything unrelated

The "Smartphone OS Comparison" table on Mobile operating system (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) is getting out hand filled with doubtfully relevant topics such as "Keeps browser state on shutdown or crash" or "Videoconference front video camera". I've tried to delete them with an in-depth explanation but numerous non-member IP-addresses keep reverting my edits(see discussion page and cleaning the table) . My two prime reasons for removing these categories are: 1. They are not that relevant to the actual OS and 2. it is impossible to keep up with that many feature since people tend to find a difference between Android and iOS and add a category for it leaving the rest of the OSs empty; thus lowering the over all quality of the article. What are the administrators opinions of this query?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your last edit to that page was back on February 19th, so your posting here seems to be a bit moot. But I don't believe this is the correct noticeboard for this type of deal as it does not involve an admin. WP:ANI is better suited for this kind of issue, or the content noticeboard perhaps. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct about the huge time leap but the situation hasn't become any better since I left it. I posted on content noticeboard but I don't know what other users can do here.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:3O, WP:RFC. I see there was a spat of edit warring a mere three months back (not involving you) which might have warranted administrative action at the time, but even that's long stale. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked from blocking

I'm trying to block 74.88.5.96 for 31 hours for vandalism, but keep getting a database error:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "Block::purgeExpired". Database returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.46)".

Embarrassingly, the block notice went through without a hitch. Anybody know what's going on? I'm trying it again but I have to run in a minute--maybe the notice alone will scare them straight, haha. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what the problem for you was caused by, but my block of the IP was successful. —DoRD (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The database errors happens all the time. I've been noticing more of them in the past couple of months. It usually takes a couple of minutes, then everything's fine after. Elockid^(Talk) 20:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. I wish editors at the Content noticeboard were as eager as you lot! (us lot?) Drmies (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop offensive bot

Fixed

Can somebody tell this moronic bot to stop tagging my article and my talk page with deletion/bot warnings? I've created over a 1000 notable articles, and the bot annoyance is preventing me from working on my latest one. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not your article; it is the community's article, and once you hit the "Save page" button, it can be edited by others within our policies and guidelines and common sense. Having created "over 1000 notable articles", you should be well aware of that. –MuZemike 20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess he realises that it is not his article. It's just a turn of phrase - you know, like you say our policies and guidelines; which could be taken as not yours. LevenBoy (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter how many articles you have created. There is a community consensus that users cannot remove CSD tags from articles they created. Period. This has been discussed multiple times, and the consensus remains unchanged. This bot was merely carrying out the community consensus. If you thought the tag was placed incorrectly, you could follow up with the editor who placed it, or ask another experienced editor to remove it. Singularity42 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a wider issue with the article in question, related to WP:NOENG for the sources. What route should be taken to resolve this? I am hitting similar problems with several India-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using non-English sources, it's just that English sources are preferred. Google translation is quickly and easily available to all, so really, NOENG should probably be remaindered or revised to reflect this. Night Ranger (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for drifting OT here but, for example, GTrans does not handle Malayalam and this is a frequently used language in cited sources for India articles. I have not checked but would be surprised if it does not handle Polish. I am not an admin, btw, but rather a watcher here. My suspicion is that this is the wrong venue but if someone could point me to the correct one then I would be grateful. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think a part of the problem with India-related articles is that NPPers like myself get tired of seeing page after page of unsourced puffery written in horrendously mangled English, which is frankly what a lot of new India-related articles look like (not yours, Sitush, I've seen your work before and it's quite exemplary); I've actually seen the local taxi driver being glorified at least twice in articles about Tamil villages. There was a thread about this on Jimbo's talkpage in February. That being said, I also have seen the problem you've run across, and I think other NPPers would do well to run a Google translate; it's not particularly good, but in my experience it's enough to at least get an idea of whether it matches up with the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Praise at AN ? Glad I am sitting down. <g> GTrans barfs at Malayalam entirely - it is not yet a recognised language. Doubtless it will get there, eventually, and then I will be able to decipher the (apparently) numerous insults/threats of violence etc that are aimed in my direction. Then again, I may not bother ... - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the same issue with Burmese and Karen, I know the feeling. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just a thought here, but why don't people regularly write articles in their userspace and move them to main space only when they're ready to "hatch"? That would minimize conflicts of the CSD-tagging nature like in this situation. --87.78.22.233 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Especially in this case, where Piotrus took it from 300 bytes to 6k within 2 hours. Had he simply waited two hours to click 'save' there would have been no problem. --Golbez (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I tend to use {{inuse}} when I am actively creating a new article. {{Under construction}} works, too, but {{inuse}} suggests more immediate efforts. I've only had one article tagged for issues with the {{inuse}} tag, that I recall. (Wasn't tagged for speedy deletion.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Underconstruction isn't ideal for new articles. As the template doc states, "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content. Instead, the sandbox should be used to develop the article so that it has reasonable content when it is copied into namespace."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Imho, it should be policy for editors to start articles in a sandbox (WP:SB, or one in their userspace) and move them to main space only when they meet the bare minimum standards. That would also solve the problem of "placeholder" articles which is rampant in some areas. --84.44.230.33 (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
          • IMO it should be—and actually is—our editing policy that we don't put up pointless or bureaucratic barriers to article creation, like "you can only create new articles if the page name begins with 'User:Example/...'". The problem here is that NPPers (a group that includes a few wonderful people, and unfortunately a bunch of newbies and admin wannabes that make so many mistakes the whole group gets a bad reputation) shouldn't be tagging such articles within minutes of their creation, as we have said in multiple places and on multiple occasions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• The one thing that no one on this thread has mentioned is that this "offensive bot" was only doing what it was programmed to do. It was warning the original author of an article that they were not supposed to remove a speedy deletion tag from an article they created along with readding the tag per policy. All Piotrus had to do is click on the contest button or even just edit the article with the speedy delete tag in place. The offensive part here is that the article was tagged for speedy deletion 2 minutes after creation. The tagger is who Piotrus should have been upset at, not the bot doing its job. GB fan (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Singularity did sort of mention that. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your right, I missed that comment. GB fan (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe he preferred venting his anger by ranting about the bot rather than a fellow fallible human editor? Maybe he's even a bit angry at himself for not doing what Mdennis' suggested above: Piotrus could at least have tagged the article as being under construction. (However, you're still right that the tagger was overeager and Piotrus is also right in that the tagger could have checked Piotrus' record and made an educated guess about the development of the article.) --87.79.225.139 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Kalarimaster

This might get interesting. Anyone who might have been involved in the past might want to chip in a bit. I'm not sure if we don't want to get into some kind of community unban discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked quite a few socks in the past (including three today in addition to one that Tnxman blocked). His modus operandi is to remove a lot of sourced content and add his own and cry foul if anyone reverts. Every sock of his has indulged in disruptive behavior, the three most recent (excluding few edit socks) are Wangond (talk·contribs), David Fraudly (talk·contribs) and Malaikaran (talk·contribs). He's had a longer socking career on wiki than I've been around. As David Fraudly (talk·contribs) he was given an NLT block and subsequently upgraded to a block evasion block and he immediately created the next one. —SpacemanSpiff 09:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This serial socker has now lost talk page access. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse

good job folks — Ched : ? 00:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

More community input is needed with regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse, as the debate is currently getting out of hand very quickly. From what I gather, some community consensus is needed to determine whether or not sockpuppetry has occurred, absent positive technical evidence saying so. I currently have no opinion on the matter, as I have not looked into the case much at all, aside from two suspect IP edits today, which look fairly unrelated. –MuZemike 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure, I have reverted the last few blatantly disruptive attempts to re-open this closed case and protected the page. I have directed editors to open a user RFC on BarkingMoon if they feel that his status as a returning vanished user making a clean start in accordance with policy is inappropriate. SPI is no longer the proper forum for this case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To add to what Hersfold has said, if the community wants a block, then we need to reach a consensus for a block. In my opinion, anything less than that would be considered "unilateral" and hence "admin abuse", not to mention a failure of WP:AGF. –MuZemike 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a violation of "Right to Vanish" by a former Arb (if i'm reading it right)? Not sure if a sockpuppet investigation is either here nor there (it seems pretty clear who it is). The former arb in question left under a bit of a cloud (major concerns about plagiarism, particularly over at DYK, that were never addressed at the time out of respect to the "vanishing" editor}. Isn't a "vanished" user who returns simply linked to their old account with a redirect or something, and the history moved to the new account? That seems the best course, particularly as there's a chance similar problems will arise.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever comes of this, it would appear that WP:VANISH may need some review, as it states that (bolding included) "The Right to vanish (RtV) means the right of any user, upon leaving Wikipedia finally and forever, to request renaming of their account and deletion or blanking of pages in their userspace....The right to vanish is not a temporary leave or a method to avoid scrutiny or sanction, is not a "fresh start...". This may not be reflective in policy and may need to be tightened to avoid future confusion if necessary. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment I just left Off2riorob on my talk page has some relevance here; I'll copy it below:

If you ask me, I'm fairly certain BarkingMoon is the user everyone thinks they are. However, if they are, they seem to be making a perfectly valid WP:CLEANSTART. In the absence of evidence that they are being disruptive, which presumably is what the AN discussion is for, they can neither be blocked for sockpuppetry nor any other reason, as their actions are in accordance with policy. From what I've heard from the Arbitration Committee, there is some evidence that my convictions may be wrong, in which case we have no idea who BarkingMoon is. Either way, in the absence of any normal reason to block, [...] BarkingMoon is not obligated to reveal their original identity and any effort to force them to do so is a violation of their privacy, as per policy. Hersfold^(t/a/c) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, now that I read WP:VANISH, it does include that little nuance. In which case I'm not sure what to do here; from the SPI it's quite clear that Rlevse's "vanishing" didn't go terribly well, since everyone knows what the account was renamed to, so does it still count as a vanishing or not? And if so, what is the "penalty" for trying to return? The policy doesn't make that clear. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are overlooking why his latest manifestation was spotted in the first place[26][27]. Attacking me on a page on which I was (at the time) completely uninvolved is a gross violation of "right to vanish." While I am grateful to "BarkingMoon" for attracting my attention to the arbcom leaks, I don't think a former Arb can be excuse behaviour which would not be overlooked in others. The checkusers and the Arbitration committee all know this - so what it the problem? I have no wish to see him blocked, I just like to know thine enemy as he has clearly shown himself to be in order to know who is who GiacomoReturned 22:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : Since it's about avoiding scrutiny, treat the BarkingMoon account as if it were renamed (merge the histories there) and put a redirect at the rlevse userpage with some boilerplate that "this count was renamed to BarkingMoon." If people want to bring up the earlier problems at an RFC/U or something. That's up to them. At the time, there was some sentiment that he needed editing restrictions/or mentorship. That sentiment may or may not remain (and it may not be sufficient to see it carried out if so) but that would simply be up to an editor that wanted to get the ball rolling.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's essentially the recommended protocol at WP:VANISH; restore the old account's history and link it to the new account. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's a no-brainer. I have the feeling that it might not be treated that way though.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Treat it as "Oh. You meant 'Clean start' nor 'WP:VANISH'." and go from there?

Somehow I think that is an end run around purpose of "Vanish" and the situation that precipitated the editor to chose that option.

"Vanish" seems pretty clear that by choosing that option the editor intends to never return as an editor. Now while situations change and a vanished editor may have a reason to come back, I would think that would require contacting a bureaucrat or similar, asking to "unvanish" and outlining why it should be allowed. Then I can see treating it as a clean start or wikibreak. If that contact and approval is missing here though...

- J Greb (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is (and I don't know if all the CUs share my view) at I know that I don't have any information at all that links BarkingMoon to the former arbitrator, and hence I do not have anything to check against (not to mention I had no stake in the original incident, and I'm not an ArbCom member). I suppose what is being asked here is that all CheckUsers are obligated to make a cursory check on a vanished user to be used for future purposes, but then we risk violating one's privacy in doing so (though I'm sure others are going to say it's nothing compared to the massive ArbCom leak going on), assuming that is not a very good reason in doing so. It feels like there are people on one side screaming "AGF! AGF! Don't BITE!" while the other side is screaming "DUCK! DUCK! QUACK!". I get the feeling of being caught between a rock and a hard place, especially in situations like this.

My concern right now is how are we, the community, going to rectify this? Should someone draft some "findings of fact" and "proposals" and vote on them community-style? Failing that, what else? –MuZemike 22:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

When a returning user takes verbal shots at someone he's had a history with, that is NOT a so-called "clean start". The admins had their chance with the SPI, and they royally F'd it up. They are unwilling to do their jobs, and should resign their adminships immediately. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :: I guess there's some wiggle room that it isn't Rlevse. But it's clearly a returned user who's carrying old conflicts about with them (who's refused to name the former account on his talk page and said that's "his final word). If they won't come clean on who they are, then just block as a sock. If they do come clean, reconsider. They could clear this all up by addressing the past accounts identity in a straightforward manner.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Who gives a flying freak who they were? They violated "clean start", and should be sent packing immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

So, let's see...

• It's not a comeback from "right to vanish", nor is it a "rename", because in those cases the history has to come along.
• It's not a valid "clean start", because an editor is not allowed to go back to previous disputes, and BarkingMoon did just that.
• Admins know what happened, they know what to do, and they refuse to take action. (Other than locking the SPI page because they didn't want to hear about it; and passing the buck to this page where they're hoping it will fizzle.)
• I'm sure the folks at Wide Receiver are getting a lot of yucks out of the gross incompetence displayed by some members of the admin corps in this case.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Admins know what to do" – they do? I don't think we enforce vanishing. Possibly undo the vanishing. Which can't be completed by crats (let alone admins) since the account has too many edits. Amalthea 23:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not RTV at all, it's a bogus "clean start", and the "privacy" issue is totally bogus. The editor has been deceptive from day one (May 1, specifically). Sockpuppet-like behavior. What do admins do with socks? Hang them out to dry, is what. Or at least they used to. Now it looks like they palm the cases off to someplace where they hope they'll just "go away". ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 23:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You guys who think I'm Rlevse are wrong, and I've told you that, but you won't let it go. Nor am I a sock. You keep looking for things that aren't there, just like at the Salem witch trials. I try to edit peacefully, but you keep at and don't even have the common decency to tell me about this thread, which I found by viewing a user talk page. Then you wonder why users, especially new ones, leave in droves. Well, count another new one gone. You condone far more disruptive users than for years because they're in one of your cliques, but me, you abuse and hang out to dry before getting all the info. This place is so full of meanness, prima donnas, and the powerhungry. You guyes deserve each other, good riddance and goodbye. BarkingMoon (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Just to add that two people who knew him did ask the vanished arb if BarkingMoon was him, and he is apparently insistent that it is not. Your view on this will obviously vary depending on your view of the individual concerned, but it does explain why there was no immediate move to take any action against BarkingMoon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly the IP address was related or we wouldn't be here - the push back and blame directed at contributors that see violations of guidelines is the problem. After being called out on it the user rather get blocked quietly than fess up. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone now needs to go mark that wonderful "AGF" guideline as "historical and obsolete". And just for your information. NO, BarkingMoon was NOT Rlevse. But this case is now closed .. time to go search for your next victim to hang. Absolutely wonderful times we've evolved into when we can just go "get community consensus" to block a user that hasn't violated a single solitary policy that we have here. Gee .. I am just SOOOO damned proud to be a member of this community at one of our finest hours here. /sarcasm. — Ched : ? 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I was only told that twice the past week on two previous SPI cases in which I apparently didn't – that was why none of the admins involved here, including myself, decided to take no action. But I supposed you're "damned if you do, damned if you don't". –MuZemike 00:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ched appears to support any policy violating previous user that has abused RTV returning and we all kiss his feet because they make some beneficial contributions - even if they return to attack users they were in dispute with previously. Whoever he was he brought it on himself. Perhaps the user learnt something and they will move froward from a different perspective - if not then the wikipedia will get written fast enough without them, whoever they were. Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Really Rob? .. you wanna come after me now? .. I'm one of the few that actually DOES know what's going on here. If I for a second thought there was a policy violation, then yea .. I'd stand up for our project. But the fact of the matter is there was absolutely NO policy violation .. not even close. So stick it in your .... (deep breath) ... ear. — Ched : ? 01:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• And by the way ... the next time someone starts complaining about "transparency" vs. "Privacy" ... please do point them to this thread .. k? — Ched : ? 01:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is Ched, so many admins have lied so many times to protect their friends that some of us have a very hard time indeed believing any admin when he says "trust me, it's OK but I can't tell you why". DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ched, I am not coming after you at all. The best result for the project has occurred and lets all move on - we have not banished the user to oblivion - I imagine if they were to go down their local library or web-cafe and create an account and make a few contributions without going back to the noticeboard attacks they would easily slip under the radar without issue at all. The user attracted attention to themselves with their actions - there was some clear issue with the account from previous historic, the account said so themselves , please don't take it personally as a reflection on you, its not at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The best result? It looks from over here like it was a disaster in terms of procedure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original SPI should have been closed down once it was clear that it wasn't Matisse. A separate case then filed to see if Barking was a returned RTV. If so, the RTV account should be identified and the history transferred. If its not an RTV, then everybody is happy. --HighKing (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of a deleted article

Ellen Kennedy has been recreated. Obviously I can't see deleted revs; could some admin compare the re-creation to the previously-deleted version, and act if necessary? Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 21:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's about the same person as the first creation of the article, but this one is much longer. The second creation was about a writer of the same name. The current instance doesn't look like A7 material. Favonian (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for admin intervention to allow an RfC to run its course

I just undid Jechochman's premature closure of a user conduct RfC and warned him on his talk page. RfC's normally run for 30 days. He openly stated in his closure that he was closing the RfC because he disagreed with it, and used a pending RfAR request as further justification. Because he is openly biased about the RfC, I placed his comments in the RfC itself as a "view". I ask for admin help protect the RfC and allow it to run for its full time period and block any editors who try to close it before it runs its alloted time period. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a bad thing to do, because an uninvolved admin had already endorsed the closure. And you are very clearly not involved; you are very clearly deeply partisan and should neither be closing nor unclosing such things. Fortunately your meddling has already been reverted [28]. Back off; if you feel action is needed, get someone uninvolved to do it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[29]? --JN466 23:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See-also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FCirtWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The proper thing to do would have been for Jechochman to announce on the RfC talk page that because of the RfAR, they were considering closing the RfC before the standard 30 days. Then, they should have allowed comment for a day or so. Then, if there was consensus, they could have closed it early. We're supposed to do things in an orderly way for a reason, one being so that the dispute resolution process will have credibility and rule of order. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The proper thing to do would have been for a partisan like you to have stayed well clear of the closure. Anyway, RA is now bouncing back and forth like a yo-yo [30] so who knows what state it will be in by the time you read this William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember, there is currently no ArbCom case, so the RfC needs to at least remain open until a case formally opens, if one opens. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest (personally, with my editor hat on, and not my Arb hat on), that I think everyone would best be served with commenting on the Arb request (if you have something to say that will be useful), especially with the questions that are being answered there. That is my suggestion, not an order, not what have you, but it would be best in my eyes to move this through DR. THanks. SirFozzie (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, you're using the wrong set of rules. Content RFCs have a 30-day default timer (solely because the bot can't figure out when a dispute is resolved). User RFCs have no timer at all: "All requests for comment on a user need to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) when the dispute has been resolved, moved to any other forum, or seems unlikely to be resolved."

I have updated the docs to be even clearer about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your change was reverted (not by me). If content RfCs are 30-days, then it implies that user conduct RfCs are the same, since the page doesn't say differently. I'll start a discussion on the talk page. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Creation of Húsareyn article

I'm unable to create this article as permission has been denied for some reason. I assume it may have been vandalised in the past?

I'm requesting permission for an administrator to allow me to create this article on the Húsareyn mountain in the Faoreo Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 000peter (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it was vandalised. The problem seems to be that the article title contains the string "sarey", which is filtered because of Sarey Savy.—S MarshallT/C 23:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess there's no way of bypassing the filter?000peter (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Done I have created the article for you. If you need any more help, let me know. --Jayron32 00:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Request re temporary page

Following a content dispute at 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision, some drama at ANI, and discussion at talk:2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision, I've created a new version of the article at 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision/temp, which now needs to be commented upon by those involved in the discussion. I hope that there will be consensus for the /temp article to replace the current mainspace article.

So far, I'm the only editor to the /temp page. I attributed it on creation to the version of the article it was taken from. For reasons of copyright, I'd like to remain the only editor of the /temp page. Therefore, I would ask that the page be fully protected, and that an edit notice is created requesting that nobody else apart from myself edits the article. If the article can remain with myself as the only editor, it can be copy-pasted to replace the current mainspace article without any attribution needed. Should another editor edit the /temp article, then we get into merge problems, and the necessity to retain the /temp article as a permanent redirect, rather than being able to delete it.

This is the situation as I understand it, but if I'm wrong on this, please say why this is so. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the temp article for 1 week on the basis of Mjroots' analysis above. If I'm misunderstanding licensing/attribution requirements here, feel free to unprotect without consulting me first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek. I've added a prominent {{Pp-protected}} template to the article, and placed the request that no other editors edit the article there, rather than creating an edit notice which will need to be deleted once the /temp page is deleted. I envisage that consensus will be reached soon and that the content dispute will then be resolved. Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, subpages are not allowed in the mainspace, please move it to the talk namespace instead (without a redirect). Fram (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fram, the subpage was created to avoid accusations of edit warring and to allow the article to be rewritten taking into account issues raised and the fact that certain sources had changed what they stated over the course of time. As we've now reached broad agreement on the article and what it should say, the text from the temp page has been c&p'd into the original article, thus maintaining history. As I was the only person to edit the /temp page, I was at liberty to do this without any attribution problems. As you will see, the /temp page has been deleted as it had served its purpose. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good WP:IAR solution to the conflict, even though it's a bit unorthodox, I think it worked out just fine. I agree that a copy and paste isn't a problem since attribution is still accurate. I don't think I'd ever think to do anything like this. -- Atama頭 18:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal, but subpaging is turned off in the mainspace. So for about a day and a half, we had an article titled "2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision/temp". Working draft articles should ideally be in userspace or subpage of talk namespace. –xeno^talk 18:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically what I meant. Nothing against the solution for this article, but the temp page could just as easily have been created in e.g. article talk space, where it was allowed, instead of violating the "no subpages" rule. There was no need to IAR in this case. Fram (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Request exemption of restrictions

Ongoing conversation at subpage

• To contribute to this conversation, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011 --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for exemption

Given the amount of drama that has risen over my NFCC 10c removals I have come up with two solutions that should assist in reducing the amount of drama.

1. A bot that fixes non-free rationales where the file is only used once and the existing rationale points to a Disambig.
2. A talk page notification bot that will leave a message on article talk pages where files are being used that do not meet WP:NFCC#10c requirements, which will be coupled with a dated tagging system to monitor and keep track of the articles that fix the issue.

However due to current editing restrictions I cannot do anything about either issue. My proposal is to get both of these systems in place, and to start to notify and educate users about these issues. If this is implemented I will stop my mass removals for six months to let this program work and hopefully let us get a handle on the issue. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support both of these, absolutely. 28bytes (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Two tasks that should be low-controversy, as the proposed bot would not be editing articles themselves, and should help article editors fix NFCC problems themselves. Courcelles 02:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Delta templating users with bots has never been low controversy.--Crossmr (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  'templating users'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Both of these tasks seem to clearly be aimed at reducing (rather than contributing to) the drama that surrounds Delta. These are sensible solutions to the very problems that creep up all the time, and seems like a wonderful idea to me. --Jayron32 03:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support but also would suggest if the second action could drop a templated message on the image page to put it into a category so that we can a central cleanup category people can work from? --MASEM (t) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• The plan is to leave that information in the talk page message (affected files/categorization) since this a per use, not a per file issue most of the time. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• As long as we are filling a category with affected pages, that's important to getting the community to help clean up. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was planning on a system of dated categories and paced system of tagging to get things under control and not overwhelm it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as a category and notification system for these problems would allow for people to find and fix them. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose primarily due to the implied threat that the mass removals won't stop unless this gets agreed to. Perhaps more sensibly, I oppose as there is no reason that Betacommand's restrictions need to be lifted for these tasks: Make the source available, and let someone else run it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If I haven't read too quickly, it seems there is nothing in the proposal that will not let another user run such a bot/process. In fact, that's what I thought he was implying when he said "due to current editing restrictions I cannot do anything about either issue" and that he wanted to get the processes in place. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Fetchcomms, my proposal is for me to write and run the bots that do this, it is just too much headache to have someone else run the code, because I do not have control of it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Would it be safe to assume that the code would be available to review by selected editors and/or open for this? (just thinking 2 steps ahead here ...) --MASEM (t) 03:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I have always had a simi open policy with my code, If a trusted (who I define as trusted) requests to review the code I am always willing to do so under specific conditions. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hm, OK, then I'd like to see a trial procedure (like during the BRFA) before definitely supporting this, but the idea seems good in principle right now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Ive already done some manual edits using the information from the Disambig code see [31] for a bunch. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support (with comment / procedure clarification). Good idea! #1 should also fix cases where the rationale points to a redirect. #2 should leave a record of all images removed (by adding a category to the article / article talk page or updating a log), so that concerned editors can inspect each removal and decide whether to add an appropriate rationale and re-add the image, or else conclude that the use cannot be justified so the image should not be re-added. When finished inspecting an instance of image removal users would mark that instance as resolved by changing the category / log. The image would not be deletable as an orphan pending inspection. While you're making bots, how about one that detects non-free use rationales that point to articles that don't actually contain the image, or does that exist already? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC) but... I don't intend my support in principle for this as a stand-alone idea to be read as supporting overturning editing restrictions, approving the ongoing actions that began the administrative complaints, or this thread as a possible process fork in conflict with consensus elsewhere (see comments below). -- Wikidemon (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  If you can get a working bot that does image removal without fucking up more than 1% my hat goes off to you. Right now Ive got my removal rate down to between 5-10% way way too high for a bot, and that has take a good part of three years to get it that low. This proposal is just for talk page notification NOT removals. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  • For clarity, I don't think that Delta was saying that #2 would remove images, only tag pages. I would expect that we could come up with a community process to remove images after a period of time (2-3 months to start, 1-2 weeks afterwards). Delta could clarify this though...--MASEM (t) 04:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Got it, thanks for the clarification. Frankly, I don't think it's all that important to have a community process before the images are removed so long as there's a good central record of them and people can come back and review them in an orderly way. It only becomes a mess when the only way to figure out which articles had images removed is to look through contribution records of people known to be removing images. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Anything to make sure that the community knows what is going on and can lend a hand to clear the backlog as fast as possible (as it's not an admin task), the better off we all are. That's why if we don't remove images until after a certain period of being tagged, emptying out the category as we go, there's a lot less mess at the end of the day that no one gets upset when removal actually occurs. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support both proposals. Good ideas! JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Views such as this ("I have always had a simi open policy with my code, If a trusted (who I define as trusted) requests to review the code I am always willing to do so under specific conditions.") are bad practice for any programmer, and totally unacceptable for an editor working on Wikipedia articles, especially when they're already subject to strict restrictions concerning their (mis)use of bots and making rude comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Sharing of code is not a requirement for a bot operator on WP; that said, Delta has been asked to open his code before to trusted editors for review as part of Arbcom (IIRC), and thus why I believe making sure this is a requirement here for these bots is a necessary and logical extension to that. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • In all my time operating bots I think I have had two cases where someone asked to review my code, I gave it to one person, and the other I knew was unable to review it due to their lack of technical ability, and thus I denied their request. The reason I keep my code under wraps is Ive see what good code in the wrong hands can do, just ask those who remember the squidward vandal or willy (WoW). Both of those used code to a very effective manner to disrupt the encyclopedia. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
      • So, almost no-one is qualified to understand what it is that you're doing? Sounds like a good reason for you not to use any bots. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good solution to the ongoing issue. Monty₈₄₅ 04:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Past experience demonstrates clearly that Betacommand is not qualified to write a reliable 'bot. --John Nagle (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Past experience also has shown that Delta is very capable of writing bots that are reliable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, behaviour should improve before any restrictions are lifted. —Kusma (t·c) 05:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  This is not about lifting restrictions, this is a temporary exemption from it for 2 specific tasks. --Dirk Beetstra^{T C} 08:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Okay, then I oppose the temporary relaxing of restrictions before I see an improvement in communication with people who use non-free media. While the suggested task may be a good idea, there was considerable support to have Delta stop any non-free content work (in a different forum). —Kusma (t·c) 09:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It sounds like this might be useful to at least trial, to see how it would work in practice. I'm curious, though: how many files are believed to have 10c problems in practice? Masem talks about a "backlog", though the list Delta previously seemed to be working through seemed to be quite short. Is there in fact a huge backlog? (In which case the bot might have to be throttled, to work through at a managed rate the community can keep up with). Or are we primarily talking about new files uploaded each month, plus a few that have their rationale links accidentally broken by page moves?

Finally, given Delta's chequered history and current restrictions, if this does go forward, we should perhaps insist on it only doing so under close probation -- i.e. under the supervision of an experienced and trusted mentor, who if necessary could stop the bot at will; or require any aspect of the bot's running to be changed, messages to be made friendlier, Delta to be more responsive, or anything else that might lead to a generally happier environment. Jheald (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• • One other suggestion. When files are identified as having a 10c problem, it may be of value to add a category corresponding to their copyright tag, so eg a category "logos with a 10c problem" or "album covers with a 10c problem". This would make it easier for editors to work through and review particular types of file using eg FurMe. Jheald (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - May I suggest that we have a bot-readable tag in the talkpage notices, or maybe even a template which has the 'violating' images as a parameter (image1=, image2=, image3= ..) so that it can be bot-updated when the 'violations' are cleared. Then also the categories can be easily emptied when violations are sorted out and chances of multiple editors going to pages where the first editor arriving already solved the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, with caveats.
  1. The bot must have a working stop button. (Not necessarily specifically a problem with Δ, but I've seen bots with a nice, big, red, stop button which didn't work.)
  2. As noted by Jheald, this should be under close supervision and on probation.

     What Jheald called "probation", I call "supervision". By "probation", I mean that it should be easy for a few Admins (not necessarily one, but not only the supervisor) to shut down the bot until problems can be resolved; if Δ doesn't make it possible to do without shutting down his other bots, those might need to be shut down, as well. On the other hand, Δ should be able to appeal "supervision" change demands. (In other words, Δ need not be a slave of his supervisor.)

  3. If the bot makes one serious mistake, it must be shut down until someone vets the code. (See, I don't demand, this time, that the code be approved before running, only after a mistake.)

  — Arthur Rubin(talk) 08:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  I would like to add that, if there is a clear consensus is established that Δ should not be doing mass removals (and I believe such a consensus has been established), then he will "stop my mass removals", regardless of the results of this request. It might be considered to override, in this instance, his running mass operations, as long as they are not "removals". I'm also concerned by his File: space edits around 00:00, July 3, 2011, in which he removed something which claimed to be a rationale, and then tagged the file as having no rationale. Someone without Δ's baggage could justify doing that, but Δ should not. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Oppose for now (in light of 3RR violations.[32][33][34][35][36] I just don't think we can count on Delta right now avoid flaunting whatever rules and constraints we may insist on to avoid errors and disruption. Whether we ever can remains to be seen, but I'm not prepared to make a leap of faith that this won't be disruptive when the current reality is disruption. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as I do not feel Delta is, alone, capable of operating a bot dealing with images without causing mass disruption. I think we should first advertise to see if any other user would be willing and able to create and operate such a bot. I may lean towards support if Delta were to operate it under the conditions suggested by Arthur Rubin, however. Strict supervision, easy shut-off and zero tolerance for serious errors are all a must. Delta should not be free to pick and choose (if you will) how the community deals with him. --DorsalAxe 08:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  note: see [here for a slow test run of this]. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• oppose and Delta should be blocked for forum shopping. There is a current active proposal where the majority of participants support his being topic banned from NFCC work. This is nothing more than an attempt to do an end run around that.--Crossmr (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How is this forum shopping? There is exactly one place where this request is posted, and exactly the one place where this request should be posted. --Dirk Beetstra^{T C} 08:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How is it not forum shopping? All of Delta's topics were moved to the subpage. Rather than continue there he brought it to another noticeboard so that it was separate from existing proposals to try and get a different result than what is currently there.--Crossmr (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That was an ANI discussion, this is something that belongs on AN. --Dirk Beetstra^{T C} 08:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is something that belongs with all current Delta discussions, and it's an irrelevant proposal in the face of an existing supported proposal which would preclude him from doing this work. it's disruptive to post a completely contrary proposal in an entirely different venue.--Crossmr (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - But implement a throttle so that the number of file-prods are manageable. Agathoclea (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with caveat: in addition to the usual WP:BRFA, Delta should develop and test the bot (including code sharing) under the supervision of a user who is sufficiently technically competent to be able to give effective support and supervision. (I think DirkBeetstra might be suitable.) Testing should involve appropriate caution about throttling and error-checking (which is to say, given past controversies, very great caution). I'd also have concerns about throttling beyond the testing stage (i.e. not to overwhelm the community's ability to keep up), but that's a matter for the BRFA, not here. Rd232 public^talk 10:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Though I am certainly willing to have a look as well, I would suggest that also another editor looks into it. Note, many 'mistakes' that a bot makes are not visible in the code, but show up during a run, and I find it unlikely that things are really going to break due to these edits (there may be some mis-tagging or wrong disambig repairs, but not on a massive scale). Response to real mistakes is important, if disambigs are wrongly repaired but it could be caught, then that should also be important, but otherwise - better having a talkpage tag for an article with a minor 'problem' in the rationale then the other way around (and I have seen that Delta's checks are pretty forgiving, more than mine). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support but suggest some consultation on the wording of the message left on talk pages. Thparkth (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with particularly strong support for both a trial phase and a commitment to a working stop button.--SPhilbrickT 11:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• support— Ched : ? 11:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This sounds like a reasonable exemption to perform an uncontroversial (and very beneficial) task that is well within the skills Delta has evinced in the past. WP:BRFA should be able to handle this through their normal processes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I have serious reservations, because of Delta's history, but if these bots are successful, and Delta can keep cool and minimize his personal interactions with endusers, they should take some of the strain off the philosophical conflicts that underly the fair-use divide. The proposal is in the spirit of fixing as preferable to deleting, which I believe is a good thing. My concern is that Delta needs to approach this task with a much less confrontational attitude, and I would urge that if and when ArbCom approves an exemption for these projects, that it is linked to a very strict civility parole, so that Delta understands that if he goes off the rails, the projects will be shut down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support ... —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. Delta currently runs a bot (User:Δbot) at WP:SPI to update case summary and I have yet to hear a single complaint about the bot went amok or ticked off any editors. It is evident to me that if a clear goal with clear instructions are listed, his bots are good at handling repetitive tasks which are too tedious and unappreciated to be handled by humans. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, SPIbot is not a good exemplar, since its "customers" are clerks, admins and checkusers, not rank-and-file editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose even though they seem like reasonable tasks, for three reasons: first, the implication of some sort of deal that Beta will stop making mass removals if he gets to have a bot, especially when there is an active proposal to topic ban, which would stop the problem of Beta making mass removals anyway; second, refusal to release source code or let anyone other than Beta run the bot. As I recall, the problem is not that it's a pain to givr someone else code, it's that Beta has built his software on top of a proprietary framework he's not allowed to release anyway. History shows that Beta ties his bots together so that individual tasks cannot be stopped, it's all or nothing, and I see no different proposal here, and no provision for oversight that I can trust, just whatever Beta thinks is right; third, I see no great need for a bot here, at least right at the moment. Beta is already allowed and capable to run whatever software they want and put the results onto a single page for others to view. Why not do that first? That would be a lot better way to verify the error rate, and other people are free to pick up the list in AWB and do the templating work if they wish to. If this software will be so good, why not write it and work from a log page to prove it, instead of insisting on the price being lifting of the bot restriction? More broadly too, it seems a little worrying that when many reasonable people are saying that Beta needs to slow down and develop his communication skills, Beta's counter-proposal is to instead be allowed to make edits more quickly and in a way where they will need to communicate with others even less. Both the tasks look pretty reasonable on the surface, especially if the second one used project categorization - but we should be able to see what will happen before getting back into the Beta-bots issue. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And BTW, if a bot can fix FURs as described in task 1, then those FURs are by definition "machine-readable" and thus already fully compliant with the WMF resolution. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fran I dont think you are following my post. I never stated that I would stop mass removing at all. Rather I stated I would stop for 6 months, to give a good window for things to be identified and fixed. If things are not fixed (or there is no real progress being made) after a given time mass removal will be the only option left. Hopefully the tagging and notification will negate the need for that, but I really dont have my hopes that high. But I can at least have a pipe dream even if I dont think the success rate will be that high. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So can you implement your bot idea as I've outlined, where you deposit your results onto a (AWB-compatible) page so the results can be examined and acted on? You cvan do that today, there's no need to let this discussion reach a conclusion. Write your bot without the editing bits, let's get it running and start fixing the wiki-problems. Franamax (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

AWB is useless for the most part and would be ineffective for this task. Ive had a list up at tools:~betacommand/nfcc/rationale_missing.log.old for quite a while. (that list is a little stale and needs updating) to do the notification and cleanups AWB just really isnt suited for that kind of ask. As for the disambig repair its not really machine readable, its using several guess algorithms to check and try to repair rationales. Thus it still fails 10c. If we are going to get a system of tagging that actually works and is maintainable AWB is not the software to start the process with. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

AWB is useful for things that people other than yourself might find it useful for. My mention was soely that the text in the page be plain, so that it could be copied as a list of AWB targets for other people. I'm sure you have other means of producing such lists, and I'm equally sure that many other people are competent to use that output. Can you produce the page of "task 1" targets, where there is one unlinked FUR on the image page and one article-image which doesn't have a matching FUR? Yuo could have that done before dawn, right? It seems a fairly simple task, given the framework you've developed over the years. Then we could get on with fixing stuff, using humans. Franamax (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I havent run task 1 logging let, Ive still got a few kinks to work out and I really dont have time to do any real coding for probably the next six days (I may get some time Friday but Im unsure about that). Once I get some time to really review and get the code out of the alpha stage I can start to post the results of that. But again AWB is not the right tool, we do not want to see someone using AWB to add mass generic templates to files. AWB has several good qualities but Ive looked into using it for similar tasks and Ive come up far short of what is needed. If you want just save the log file and open it in a spread sheet application, its a tab delimited file with ARTICLE\tFILENAME\tCHECKSUM ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can pump out that task-1 list to a log page, alpha-guesses or not, I think we are a huge way to ironing out these problems. Let's knock down the easy shit first. Yes, there will be human interpretation required on a lot of these one-versus-one FUR mismatches, and that's where you can really help by spewing out a list for others to look at. Don't put too much credence on my mentions of AWB, I'm only vaguely familiar with it and my impression is that it is good for doing things with lists of article targets. Each editor is still responsible for their own use of same, so as long as that editor is not yourself and is willing to answer for it, I don't see a huge problem. What interests me more is that you may be able to do up some software that lets us address the (relatively) simple problems with NFC compliance without all the buraucracy of a BRFA. It would be nice to get the trivial(er) stuff out of the way so we could see where the actual problems are. Franamax (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support -N^oformation ^Talk 08:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support for #1, no opinion for #2 - this task is clearly well defined; I can't see any mistakes likely to be made. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• oppose exemption from restrictions --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Subpaging

I attempted to subpage this to the existing central discussion area, as per the heading currently at the top of ANI. Please note that when I objected to that subpaging (given the ongoing debate on the topic band and the trend towards accepting it) I was told "everything should stay in one place." I'm curious then why Beta chose to revert this subpaging? It appears on the face of it that proposals to strengthen sanctions must be hidden away, but those to ease restrictions must stay here. Beta says on my talk that he'll continue to revert "because it shouldnt be moved." Can we either have the topic ban discussion back, or put this discussion there, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My vote is to leave the AN/I threads at their subpage, and leave this thread where it is. As long as this thread continues to proceed in an orderly fashion, there's no reason to move it. 28bytes (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please provide a brief explanation of how this proposal relates the the huge quantity of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011 which it is claimed by Beta/Delta to be the solution to? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Because there is the common element of Beta. Note that not only does this proposal lift restriction without any good reason to do so, he's explicitly said he'll edit war to keep it here and won't do the simple steps (open code) to get the job done without lifting the restriction. It's ludicrous. And the proposal to keep him away totally from all things NFC was trending towards a topic ban before it was subpaged. How is not obvious that there is "vote supression" in these actions? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaron please stop you mis reporting of facts, it was 60/40 which is a no consensus finding. As for releasing the code, its my work so I can do whatever I want with it, I choose to respect WP:BEANS. Ive seen my code reach 5,000 edits an hour before, I would really rather not see that type of code in the hands of vandals. and writing debugging code that one cannot run makes the process about a 100 times more difficult. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It was more than 60.40, and getting more so over time. But we digress: It's a totally transparent excuse that you need to run the code here in "production" rather than in "development." Build a local wikimedia copy on your machine. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's misrepresenting the discussion. While there was a small edge in people seeking a ban on Delta, it was clearly a no consensus result. The resulting discussion pointed out that people just didn't like Delta removing images with edit summaries and not helping to fix the easily-repaired ones. Delta's solution here addresses the machine-identifyable cases of disamb pages (and presumable redirect pages too), and also removes the act of "removing", and instead tagging so they can be fixed. Get the bots in place, and this is no longer a function Delta has to perform, and thus the concerns of that discussion are 75% quelched. There's other issues in the longer run, but this solves the bulk of the problem. --MASEM (t) 04:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, this is simply another example of two-edged justice: When images are non-compliant on a "technicality" the NFC zealots get out the banhammer, but when Beta "technicaly" exceeds his restrictions multiple times it's all love and kittens. When a discussion is trending towards supporting a topic ban (which it was, it's pretty clear) it's off to the sub-page with you, but when yet-another-distraction appears we'll edit war to keep it there.

Five days ago I was only mildy interested in seeing some clarity on this issue. The closer I look at this the more I see thuggish and unrepentant behaviour. Congrats on converting another person from "reasonable" to probably percieved as "frothing-anti-Beta." At some stage I'd hope that you enablers would notice that this change is not restricted to me, and begin to think about what the common denominator is.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, and that's a misrepresentation of the discussion. There is a clear majority in favor his topic ban, and if you want to talk about the quality of arguments the vast majority of people opposing it are making irrelevant arguments and in any normal debate would have their opinion discarded for doing so. Bots are not the solution, the solution is to remove the source of disruption from the area it's disrupting--Crossmr (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny because when someone wanted to make a new complaint about Delta above it was forced off to a subpage, now that delta wants to make a proposal we suddenly allow it on the main page? No double standard at all.--Crossmr (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically I was mass removing files that did not meet our non-free content policy specifically WP:NFCC#10c. Some of these where caused by rationales pointing to the wrong pages, and there where complaints about people not being notified (which is not required). I developed both of these approaches to assist in reducing the drama levels. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• This thread should be subpaged so it gets put into its proper context. —Kusma (t·c) 09:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This should be here, and I believe that also the sub-paged topic-ban discussions should be on the noticeboard, clearly where everyone can see it, not not hidden away where only a few will find it. These are things that the whole community has to decide about.

Aaron, "When images are non-compliant on a "technicality" the NFC zealots get out the banhammer, but when Beta "technicaly" exceeds his restrictions multiple times it's all love and kittens." - or in other words - "When Beta does something like "technically" exceeding his restrictions while actually doing nothing wrong, the selected lot do take out the banhammer, but when images are "technically" non-compliant (or even, simply non-compliant) with NFC all is love and kittens.". Yes, Aaron, I agree that there are double standards here, that is what I have been saying all along, and maybe they are there on both sides. Nonetheless, many of the images that are non-compliant with NFC are not just 'technically' non-compliant - a lot of them do not have a rationale for the use written down at all (though some could be created but that is what many editors ignore), a lot of them will never be compliant (but they are there anyway, and editors knowingly and willingly ignore it), there are simply plain violations out there which are there for years without anyone trying to repair them, despite all the requests to do so. And similarly, when there are open discussions which are nice and friendly, no-one is talking about Delta, but as soon as Delta gives one unsatisfactory answer, it is all fire and hell, and all good remarks and discussions get ignored. And when Delta does bring things in line with the policy (following one of the ways to Rome), it is all fire and hell, while all editors should be doing just that: editing in line with policy, bringing pages in line with policy, and keeping pages in line with policy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and if you haven't realized it yet, it's because of the WAY that Delta tries to bring them into compliance that we have this discussion. It is not about the fact that he's bringing them into compliance that is the problem, it is how he does it. That is what the currently supported ban is based on. I noticed in your list of "non-compliance" you conveniently left out the kind where rationales are broken by page moves or typos. These are "technicalities". Images that are otherwise fine, or even had been fine, but currently have a small error. From my random sampling of images I've been working on, this seems to be a great majority of them, and frankly I'm beginning to wonder how things really break down, because it seems that the often used argument to defend him just doesn't really ring true on any level. There is a double standard and it's mostly perpetrated by those supporting Delta. People are right to hold him to account for his actions. He is under sanctions. It means his actions are going to be scrutinized and reacted to more than a normal editor. That is the point of a sanction. He was supposed to show an improved behaviour and then at some point the sanctions could have been lifted and things would have gone back to normal. An editor on a 1RR sanction isn't allowed to go to 3RR because everyone else is. An editor under civility, rate limits, and editing care restrictions is held to higher standards of good editing in regards to those things because of past issues. He's repeatedly failed to meet those sanctions. Yet, people will trip all over themselves to claim it's not really a big deal and we should just let him be. They'll try and defend him to "the letter of the law" as an excuse for his behaviour, but the moment it's applied in the context of his sanctions..well. you know...he's Delta..he's very valuable...he's right! if he doesn't do it one of us will step in and start acting like that so you might as well let him continue, you people just don't like NFCC, etc.etc.etc. No Aaron is dead on. And the foundations directive is being used as a club to try and silence anyone who disagrees with Delta, but no where in the foundation's directive nor the policy is there any direct support for what Delta is doing, nor is there community support. You simply cannot deny that we have a majority supporting his ban from NFCC and until that proposal is closed this proposal is nothing more than an attempt to get around it. The community was actually on the cusp of finally having this problem dealt with once again, but we've had someone come in and improperly close the discussion, then had it tucked away on a subpage, and while it's hidden out of site we have Delta himself coming onto a main noticeboard to make a completely contrary proposal.--Crossmr (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not ignore typo's and page-moves. By far most of the page-moves get detected, and hence you do not see them in the list, typo's are another point, easy to repair, indeed - the page-moves that subsequently result in a disambig are there (and if I look through your repairs, I don't think there are many where you repaired move-broken rationales other than disambig ones). And if I go through your last edits in File-space, I do see quite a lot of 'add fur' (though not the majority - but I am not counting the ones where you did not add a fur because you could not (but notified an editor or a talkpage about it, and not the ones that you removed). All in all, difficult to count (I am at the moment working on writing a script to honestly count this).

All in all, Crossmr, there is a lot of clubbing either way. And either way there are arguments being sifted, selected, either read to the law, or things ignored. And as maybe I am selecting that NFC should be enforced, and that I have the opinion that everything has been tried and nothing worked, a lot of others select that Delta is a rude and uncivil person - while for both stances there are a lot of counter examples available as well. I don't think that anything is getting anywhere, we are not getting anywhere with having Delta removing all images, we are not getting anywhere with banning Delta, we are not getting anywhere if Delta does not get banned but does not remove images, we are not getting anywhere. The only place we are getting is to a lot of bashing back and forth, people yelling at each other (or at Delta) .. People are so preoccupied with shooting Delta, that all positive is ignored, and others are so preoccupied to finally do something about enforcing NFC that maybe all is ignored as well.

Regarding this: yes, people are moaning that Delta is not trying to work with the community to solve a problem, and when he is then suggesting yet another approach you say "we have Delta himself coming onto a main noticeboard to make a completely contrary proposal" ... what do we want here, do we want Delta banned, or do we want to fix NFC? (let me guess, 'we want to fix NFC, but without Delta' ..). --Dirk Beetstra^{T C} 11:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are two separate things. We can fix NFCC without Delta and delta has had years to fix his approach. Again: The ban proposal is about his behaviour, not about NFCC. NFCC will continue to be enforced by editors who are capable of working with the community. In fact both of those things should go forward, Delta should be banned from NFCC as having exhausted the community's patience over the years over his method of dealing with it, and NFCC should be given a better image by users actually contributing in a community positive manner. Delta has shown repeatedly that he doesn't want to do that. If he did, then 3 or 4 years ago would have been a great time to do it. But it's just continued relentlessly. By banning Delta from NFCC we are removing his ability to cause repeated disruption by his minimum effort (per image) approach. What NFCC needs is not what Delta is selling. NFCC needs is users to go out and hit the streets and interact with users on a personal level to repair the damage that has been done it to it by this kind of editing. You simply cannot deny that NFCC has a very poor image on wikipedia. Many people are not fond of it and that's a direct result of these kinds of problems for which Delta is chiefly responsible. So once again, two issues: 1 - Delta's chosen behaviour for enforcing NFCC 2 - NFCC needs a better image and handling to improve the project, articles, and image compliance. Both completely separate and not reliant on each other. While Delta is not technically violating the NFCC or 3RR policy with his behaviour, his chosen actions, which are NOT mandated by NFCC policy are the issue with number 1 and why it's proposed he's banned from it. I can't really say that any other way.--Crossmr (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think this conversation is inappropriate, as it should have been begun at the point of the ongoing topic from WP:ANI. Just because a page has been subpaged does not mean it is no longer an active incident; that's why we put "unresolved" at the top and eliminate the timestamp. Opening multiple conversations at different boards on the same subject is frowned upon. Since efforts to join this conversation with the rest have evidently already been undone, I am instead transcluding linking ETA: As with ANI, the conversation overwhelms loadtimes. I received an e-mail request about this. the ongoing conversation above. That said, Crossmr, if you are implying a "double standard" here (as you seem to be doing above), you are assuming bad faith of me, as I'm the one who "forced it off to a subpage." If you believe I am exhibiting a double standard, please provide evidence; otherwise, please remember that WP:AGF is required. --Moonriddengirl^(talk) 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't read that as pointing to you at all, the double standard bit? You've been consistent, and I can totally respect that. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe you're right, I owe Crossmr an apology, if when he wrote "Funny because when someone wanted to make a new complaint about Delta above it was forced off to a subpage", he literally meant "above" on this page and not my subpaging. There's been a lot of activity on this in the last day, and it's hard to trace. Unless it was the same person who subpaged, though, and resisted subpaging, I don't know that the "double standard" bit is fair.
      
      Given that Xeno notes below that this conversation should not be here to begin with (but at VPR), I think subpaging this as well would be appropriate. What is not appropriate is divorcing the conversation from context. I am uneasy at not having them together. :/ --Moonriddengirl^(talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The original subpaging was fine and appropriate - it was descending into the same arguments over and over with no clear resolution. And while I appreciate the need to keep everything in context, I think Delta's proposal here is sufficiently important (not only because of his restrictions but also to put a major resolve to the entire matter) that it needs more eyes, which subpaging simply would not allow for; even pointers can get lost in the noise of multitopic talk pages. Yes, it needs to be prefaced with the pointer to the subpage to understand where that was heading, but even then, Delta's proposals can be understood without that. Everything could have been better handled, yes, but we're here now, there's a solution on the table, we should focus if that is the right one. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
        • This proposal is nothing shot of disruptive in the face of the other current supported proposal. Putting it here adds to that disruption. I can't see how that is "important". We've got a discussion that has been open for 5 days where over 60% of editors support Delta being banned from doing this work. Having this competing proposal here on a main page is only going to create further disruption when they both have to be closed. As soon as we actually get an admin on the subpage who is uninvolved who can close it, it immediately makes this one moot.--Crossmr (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Regarding this, I am totally uncomfortable with having banning discussions subpaged. I believe that these should be fully in the open, on a page which many editors have watchlisted, to encourage especially those who are previously uninvolved with Delta to participate and give their view - except for editors with an interest in Delta few will find out that there is an active banning discussion going on there. I do agree that the two c/should be in the same place, though (although, this request technically belongs on the Village Pump (proposals) page, and not on AN, AN/I or a subpage of them, which would preclude that). --Dirk Beetstra^{T C} 14:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thats the biggest problem I have with subpaging too. The only editors that will see it are those that are inimately involved in teh ongoing discussions so subpageing the discussion almost assures that no new editors (or at least very few)will get involved and it heavily stacks the deck in favor of one side of the argument. At this point I feel we have invested too many hours in the discussions anyway and someone needs to jsut make a command decision and we can all move on. Either way, no matter what happens, someone is going to get their feelings hurt but these discussions have gone on long enough IMO. --Kumioko (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Interestingly we've still had a fair number (8 or 9 I think) of people come by the subpage and give their opinion on the ban since it's been subpaged, and it would appear the majority is even clearer now that that has happened.--Crossmr (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Two comments

First, this really belongs at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I understand the desire to have it here, or combined with the ongoing subpage, but it needs to be at VPR per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Community-imposed restrictions #1. Second, as a reminder, if consensus is developed for these two proposed tasks, another amendment will need to be made to the Arbitration Committee's provisional suspension of the community ban placed on Betacommand (now Δ), similar to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Arbitration motion regarding User:Δ. And successful BRFA(s), of course. –xeno^talk 13:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ive posted a note on VPP, and an arbcom request is not needed, just community support. (take a look at their last exemption, gave approval for all BAG approved tasks.) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate; I've now linked it. –xeno^talk 13:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Xeno is correct, a single bot project - the SPI bot - was permitted by ArbCom. Other automated editing projects will need additional ArbCom exemptions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, should have double checked it, vs going from memory. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have ArbCom to settle disputes that can't be solved by the community? And if so, can't the community decide to grant exceptions from ArbCom? Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom is the "court of last resort" for those who have been sanctioned by the community, but the community cannot override ArbCom sanctions, or else arbitration would not provide the finality it's supposed to provide to disputes that the community hasn't been able to resolve. However, historically, when the community displays clear consensus to lift sanctions, ArbCom does not stand in the way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Cross posting from Edit warring noticeboard

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#WP3RRN_Delta7July2011 Sorry for the crossposting, but this discussion is everywhere... I've placed a notice at the edit warring noticeboard concerning Delta. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Invisible deletion template

Hello, I have an issue that's been bugging me all day. I've been keeping the speedy deletion queues clear and there is one page that persists in showing as a user-requested deletion that doesn't have a tag on it. The page in question is at User:Go for it!/Teleportation chamber.

Just a bit of background, from what I have gathered, this is a user sub-page that was deleted 5 years ago by the request of the page creator. It was deleted on April 2, 2006. Yesterday it was restored per user request (even though the editor has been inactive for 5 years, maybe they now edit under another account, beats me, but that's not really important). Of course, when it was restored it still had the deletion template request, but that was removed shortly after restoration. Yet, I can see that it still belongs to the CSD and DB-User categories, and it keeps showing up on the admin dashboard as a deletion request. I've dissected that complicated page numerous times and can't find anything in it that would still put it in those categories. The deletion template was removed almost 24 hours ago so it shouldn't be a database lag issue or anything.

Can anyone with better wikininja skills figure out what's up? It's really vexing to me, and I'd like to know what I'm missing here. Thanks! -- Atama頭 00:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that the CSD request appears on some transcluded template or other sort of transclusion; the CSD request can be categorized "downstream" if the deletion request appears on a page which is later transcluded onto other pages. I have occasionally run into this myself. --Jayron32 00:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, somebody fixed it shortly after I posted this because it no longer belongs to those categories. I thought it might be a transclusion issue but I wasn't sure how to figure out where. Either way, it's fixed now, thanks for the reply. -- Atama頭 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. The whole thing was a mess of transclusions and also somehow it didn't occur to me that after restoration the speedy templates would still be there. I'll stand still for the trout. --Danger (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, this is a technical question of why a page is in a category and/or how to remove it, which requires technical knowledge in the software - and not a question for administrators. It should have been posted in the technical section of Wikipedia:Village pump. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed this was one of those numerous things that most admins know about that I'm ignorant of. I'll consider asking in a more specific place next time. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot-like addition of WikiProject United States tags

Does Kumioko (talk · contribs) have (or need) approval to add WikiProject United States tags to hundreds of articles at a time? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd also add the related question "Is it really conducive to a project's value to the encyclopedia to cast such a wide net?" It looks as if Kumioko is marking each and every article that's in any way related to the United States as being under the project's purview, which would result in a huge number of articles being the responsibility of the project, many, many more than could reasonably be dealt with by a WikiProject. I would think it would be better for WikiProject United States to deal only with those articles which are specificly important to the entire country, and leave other articles to be dealt with by more tightly focused WikiProjects. The model here would be the relationship between WikiProject New York City and WikiProject New York (state). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Kumioko is an active member of the WPUS project. In the end, it should be up to the project what criteria they want to use for tagging their articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not questioning the right of the members of the project to decide what the project's scope is, I was questioning the wisdom of their decision (or their apparent decision, as indicated by Kumioko's actions). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there have been internal(?) disagreements about the project's scope in the past; see especially, most of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States/Archive_6. As an FYI, Kumioko's AWB access was recently restored after being removed for cause; partially related to WikiProject tagging without adequate consensus. I have not reviewed this situation in detail so cannot comment on whether this is a regression to past problematic tagging. However, as the administrator who both removed and then restored his access, I will say in advance (as I will probably not have an opportunity to review this thread again) that I do not object if an administrator feels his AWB access should be removed again following this discussion. –xeno^talk 22:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to comment here at another ANI. Was busy in real life. To answer the first question I have no bot approval and IMO I do not need it either but if its required for me to do this then let me know and I can support that but I would have done this long ago if it didn't take months for bot tasks to be reviewed. I would request that I not need to do it for every task though if possible. I could create a list of the articles I plan to tag currently for review.

To answer the next question/comment I have not tagged all articles relating to the US but I have tagged content relating to the projects being supported by WPUS, I have also been tagging content that contains United States, US, U.S. or in some cases American in the title (there are still more to b tagged that fit this criteria). I have no intention to tag all the articles in all the states or most articles relating to US Roads, NRHP, and a number of others. There has been some overlap of tagging as I add projects to the supported projects list though.

I understand that some people have a problem with the scope of the project and that's ok but part of the reason I restarted the project was to help to cover some of the inactive and defunct United States related projects. Also speaking of scope for a moment, WPUS has just over 100, 000 pieces of content, of that about 41000 are actual articles. For from the massive project that its being made out to be. Especially not when we compare it to the mammoth WikiProject Biography with 930, 000 pieces of content, most of which are articles. Yet no one is screaming that project is too massive and unwieldy nor are they complaining about WikiProject Military history and its 114, 000 articles. The large scope is contentious I grant you but not unmanageable and not the scourge of the pedia.

The last issues mentioned by Xeno relates to the projects debates about scope. That was not an internal debate, That debate was mostly by people outside the project, specifically one user, having a problem with our projects scope. The other issue mentioned relates to my access of AWB. My access was briefly revoked true but that issue was resolved and was also due in part to hurt feelings about the scope of the project, the rate of my tagging and the types of edits. All have been resolved.

The end goal of this project is to improve articles relating to the United States. If you are not interested or you have a problem with the scope thats ok. There is no requirement for you to join the project nor help with it if you are not interested. We are all volunteers and we all choose the topics that interest us. I would submit to you however that with over 130 current members, not counting the members of the additional projects that WPUS supports, that the scope has consensus with the project members. So you will excuse me if it does not bother me as much if editors outside the project don't like the scope.

With that said, there are currently 8 more projects on my list that could be added to WPUS in the next few months including a couple states. I am only adding them to the supported projects list after I contact each member of that project, start a discussion on the projects page and if the project members want it. Some projects are very active (like California and Oregon), some are not and need help (like South Carolina and West Virginia).

Now aside from arguments of scope and mass tagging, we are doing a lot of good work in the project and more editors are always encouraged to join and help out if you are interested.

I am also growing a bit tired of this project bashing, constant complaints about scope and bickering, etc. we should be here to improve the articles not argue about this foolishness. I would also encourage you to not revoke my AWB access unless you are willing to take on the burden of the tasks I perform using it including but not limited too: Sending out the newsletter (which I need to automate via a bot I agree), tagging articles for WPUS, performing maintenance on articles in the scope of the project (AWB general tasks, cleanup citations, add infoboxes and portals, add persondata and categories, reorder sections to meet WP:MOS such as See also before references and External links after references. revoking my access would effectively kill WikiProject United States if that is your goal all it will take is one stroke of your admin powers and the project will be effectively dead andn all the article improvements, newsletter, collaboration, portal, noticeboard, etc. right along with it. I would suggest that you make your decision carefully and wisely.--Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this conversation bears directly on the scope of the project I included a discussion string there for the members of the project to comment. This will hopefully clarify to all, including me, what the other members of the project wish the scope to be and avoid others outside dictating what they feel our scope should be. --Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as there is consensus within the WikiProject itself that your tagging is appropriate, I agree and support the ability of WikiProjects to set their scope or narrow or wide as they wish. Though, having it done from a bot account would be ideal - to reduce impact on watchlists and recent changes. –xeno^talk 02:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to tag any articles until this AN is completed! This includes the 2 projects that were just added to the support list of projects supported by WPUS in the last couple days nor the 2 more that I have pending. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO (and speaking as a listed member of this WikiProject), I think this WikiProject (or at least Kumioko) has cast much too wide of a net, and I don't agree with a lot of the tagging. Automated tagging also is problematic. Back in January I started a conversation about the related topic of bot-like article assessment for this WikiProject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Assessment#Importance ratings are out of whack after I discovered that many of the bot-like importance ratings were obviously nonsense. --Orlady (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for what the scope should be? --Kumioko (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Internal project discussions about scope should be held at WT:WPUSA, with a view to achieving an active consensus. –xeno^talk 03:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That was one of the things I commented on back in January. Racepacket added extensive additional comments. IMO, the project would do well to focus on topics of U.S. national scope or that span state borders (such as Midwestern United States) and that are intrinsically related to the United States. There's an enormous potential scope there for a single WikiProject to address without distractions from articles about TV shows, popular songs, archaeological sites, neighborhoods, individual Medal of Honor winners, sports, and other topics that may be related to the United States but can be more effectively addressed by existing "supported" WikiProjects that have narrower scope. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Folks, seriously step back and try to take in the lameness of this issue. This is exactly a WP:BIKESHED issue; there's absolutely no need at all to raise an objection to somebody adding a tag to a talk page which identifies the article as dealing with topics related to the United States if, in fact, the article does deal with topics related to the United States. It has absolutely, and unequivocally, and with no inkling of a doubt, absolutely no bearing on the quality of article text whether the tag exists on the talk pages or not. None whatsoever. So, at worst Kumioko is silly for adding it, which makes people who object to his adding it an additional layer of silly (raising objections over an inconsequential action is at least doubly as inconsequential as the first action) and if Kumioko finds the template to be useful, why do we wish to stop him? Seriously, this is the biggest non-issue I have seen here in a long time. --Jayron32 03:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a proud tradition on Wikipedia of objecting to mass actions done via AWB. Why stop now! :)

Anyway, I didn't think that United States Academic Decathlon had to be tagged. Why was it? NW (Talk) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because maybe Kumioko found it useful to tag it. Let me flip the question back to you: Why is it so important that it NOT be tagged that you would find it necessary to remove the tag from the article? --Jayron32 04:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If K's actions are silly, and my inquiry about them is sillier, then perhaps silliest is a meta-discussion such as yours, Jayron. Issues were raised, questions were asked, answers were received ... all well and good. There's really no need to denegrate such good faith discussion by belittling the participants and unnecessarily extending the discussion in a totally different direction. Better, I think, just to chill a bit and allow the conversation to die down naturally, or get redirected to another venue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you say about the inherent silliness of my level of contributions to this issue is in any way inaccurate. --Jayron32 06:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nuke, because it has the term "United States" in its title. Ergo, it should be tagged! ;) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Most (all?) American states have their own WPs. IMHO, like categorisation, articles tagged for WPs should go as far down the root system as they can. Articles under WP:US should therefore be those which are about the country as a whole, whereas those specific to one or a few states should be tagged with the relevant state WPs. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We should all be dropping barnstars on Kumioko's talkpage instead of starting an AN thread. He has resurrected an important project, updated the portal, and fought off a nasty troll at the project. With his inter-coordination of the US child projects IMO he epitomizes esprit de corps. This "issue" is really an internal US-thing. And believe it or not, I have a bone to pick with with K: he keeps breaking the wikiprojectbannershell. Anyway this guy is making a difference: let's try stay out of his way, ok? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen Kumioko erroneously tag articles that shouldn't be tagged under WPUS on quite a few occasions. I wouldn't attribute this to using AWB necessarily, but pausing to think of whether an article should actually be tagged before hitting "Save" would be quite beneficial. --Rschen7754 06:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Mjroots - The problem is that there is no problem with multiple projects tagging the same article. For example, Take the Barrack Obama article. Which of the 20 or so banners do we tell they don't rate to be on the article because another project tagged it. WP Hawaii maybe, or WP United States? There is more benefit to multiple projects tagging an article than having 1 or none. Also in regards to the state projects, some are active, some are not, some city projects are more active than they state project they fall under. So should we really be adding a banner to an article of a project that is inactive or should we be adding the banner of a project that is active and has intent on working on the article?

Reply to Rschen - The statement of erroneous tagging is again an issue of Symantics. Is the Declaration of Independance out of the projects scope because it predates the 1783 creation of the United States? Should it only be in the United States History WikiProject?

Reply to Multiple - The larger issue here aside from my mass tagging iis should WikiProject United States act as an overarching project to help support the other US related projects that are Defunct, inactive or struggling? Should we simply let dormant projects die rather than pull them into a larger project like WPUS and give them support to keep them going? Why are we even making such an issue out of projects? Whats the purpose of them? Is it to generate discussions about scope, on how one project is stepping out of bounds and how this article shouldn't fall into that projects scope because this other project already has it? I would argue the answer is no and the important thing is the articles! The articles are what we are working ot build, not the projects, the projects, portals, newsletters, collaborations, noticeboards, etc. are all just tools to help us manage, maintain and construct articles! Not to burden our users with unnecessary and meaningless aggrivation. We should be encouraging people to participate not discouraging them. Regardless of the intent of this discussion it is a huge waste of time because it has been said time and time again in multiple discussions by multiple people that projects are free to set thier own scope, they are free to tag the articles they feel are in that scope and contribute how they wish too within the bounds of the guidelines of WP. If a user feels I am wasting my time then thats fine they are free to think so and its my time to waste. --Kumioko (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me like this discussion is pretty much over and all interested parties have had a chance to speak their piece. Can someone close this out so I can finish tagging the articles in the two projects that were recently added to the supported projects list for WPUS. I also may be adding 2 more small projects based on some discussions in MFD for WP:Franco-Americans and WP:Asian-Americans. I will be out of town a lot of over the next month with limited or no internet so if I don't get them tagged in the next few days they will have to wait till august when I return and have internet again. --Kumioko (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with multiple parties: it seems to me that Kumioko is casting too wide of a net, but it's not really something I'm interested in, and I see no good reason to object to someone biting off more than he may be able to chew. However, Lionelt's comment is perhaps that with which I agree the most: it seems like we're always castigating Kumioko for allegedly problematic things and never praising him for what is undisputedly a lot of great work. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The why of tagging

It seems to me that the issue boils down to 'why' articles need to be tagged, and that there are two competing, and unfortunately contrary, influences at work.

1. If the purpose is to direct editors to a place where they can ask questions before they make a change, then it is better to have as few tags as possible and make them as specific as possible so that the editor can easily select the right venue.
2. If the purpose is to attract the attention of editors to the page and help improve articles, then, perhaps, more tags are better than less tags because they broaden the population of editors being made aware of the article.

So, which is it? If it is both, then we'll just have to leave it to individual article talk pages and projects to pull and tug their tags this way or that. --rgpk (comment) 16:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO There is a little more to it as well. The project tags also allow the article to fall into the scope of the project for things like Popular pages, recent changes, recognized content, article alerts and others allowing the project to have visibility of the article. This helps with Maintenance, it helps with identifying what the good content is and what could be improved, and others. By removing the banners, these articles disappear from these various different tasks thereby less maintenance is done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. On the face of it I can see that it is better to publicize something like an AfD to a wider audience, albeit one that has some interest in the subject matter. But, wouldn't a bot that posts a deletion notice on the New York City project automatically also do so on the New York State project. Or, to put it another way, is there an inbuilt notion of sub-projects similar to categories? --rgpk(comment) 16:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, different tags for different projects so if the article has the NYC tag but not the state tag the state wouldn't know about the AFD. --Kumioko (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You can have "sub-projects" (see WP:TASKFORCE), but you can't actually force one group of editors (say, WikiProject Texas) to merge with another group of editors (say, WikiProject United States). A WikiProject is a social group of editors who like working together, not a subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The many reasons to tag articles are summarized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging. Multiple bots depend on these tags for everything from deletion notifications to WP:1.0 statistics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

On a practical note: The importance and quality assements that are part of the banners allow editors to select articles to work on. E.g. an article marked of High or Top importance but only of Stub or Start class will need attention. (The importance rating is relative to the project, an article might be of high importance for one project but on the lower end of the scale for another.) Agathoclea (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting help with a disagreement

I am currently having some trouble with a user reverting my edits when I add teh WikiProject Banner to various articles they feel are out of the proejcts scope. The user in question is User:Markvs88 and he/she insists that articles prior to the 1783 establishement of the United States are not in the scope or interest of WikiProject United States (eventhough he concedes that they might be for WikiProject United States History) because the United States did not exist yet. Therefore, in his opinion, articles like the Mayflower, American Revolutionary War and things that happened prior to 1783 shouldn't be tagged. He is not even a member of the WPUS project (although he does appear to be a member of WikiProject US Government which WPUS supports). He has already tried to gather support for his opinion here but knowone else agrees and he continues to persist in his arguments. He has even pointed to this discussion in his arguments saying that there was consensus and agreements with him there and there clearly wasn't. One user even came back to say that he was misinterpreted and wanted to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried some of the steps noted at WP:DR, such as RFC, request for third opinion, WQA, or any of the other noticeboards or processes designed for this exact thing? There's two issues I see: 1) There are currently at least 3-4 discussions about the scope of WPUS spread out across multiple noticeboards, and/or the behavior of individual people involved in the debate over said scope of said project. Its becoming a bit like WP:FORUMSHOP, and as the discussion bifurcates over and over, it gets harder to follow. 2) Unless an administrator is needed to use an administrator tool right now to fix a problem (i.e. block someone, protect an article, delete something) or act as an impartial judge in closing an existing discussion (i.e. admins usually are needed to close RFC or AFD discussions, though many processes do not explicity require an admin to close them), the admin noticeboards are not normally the correct place to raise issues such as this. If you have a problem with another user, seek outside opinion from other editors using the non-administrator aspects of WP:DR such as mediation, or WQA, or whatever process works. Admins can be used to step in and enforce the conclusions reached through dispute resolution processes, but admins have no special power to act as "judge and jury" when deciding who is right and who is wrong in a dispute. --Jayron32 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I have User talk:Markvs88 on my watchlist, I have been following this disagreement (with dismay over its pettiness). I wish to point out that the focus of your disagreement with Markvs88 is not on Mayflower and American Revolutionary War, but rather on some less iconic topics like King Philip's War and List of Colonial Colleges. I also see that there has been some battling over whether Connecticut-specific articles including Blue Laws (Connecticut), Connecticut General Assembly, and Charter Oak deserve to be tagged as part of the U.S. WikiProject. Honestly, I'd have more respect for the U.S. WikiProject if it focused on improving encyclopedia content regarding the United States, instead of marking territory by adding templates to articles that do not have broad relevance to the topic "United States" and are already included in multiple WikiProjects that are listed as being supported by WPUS. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Jayron - Well yes, Markvs88 submitted an RFC where knowone agreed with him so he just started his little crusade to undo my edits. I agree there are different discussions but they are all different topics because a couple of people, most of which aren't members of the project and some rarely edit articles don't like the scope of WPUS. IMO the AN above started by Sarek about my edits was a direct result of Marks activities as evidenced on his talk page.

Frankly Dispute resolution is a joke and a waste of time and nearly everyone knows it. Arbitration is just the same but takes even more time. So basically what your telling me is I just need to deal with his harrassment, and continue to edit war with him? I'm not sure what else I can do besides that. I have tried to explain things to him but he refuses to listen arguing his fringe theories about project scope and reverting my edits. The policy clearly states that any project can determine its own scope and that project may tag articles they feel are in that scope. It does not say that other editors who disagree should feel free to revert the edits (which are also undoing other improvements to the page BTW). But I guess thats not a policy that is enforceable maybe. Or not enforcable today?

What I am about to say is no reflection on you but I think its kinda funny that when I do something an admin will immediately revoke my AWB rights, submit me to an ANI or block me out right. But if I come with a problem with another user I am told to deal with it and suck it up (this is not the first time I have been told this). All I am trying to do is grow the project and improve the pedia and the articles in it and I have to deal with time wasting discussions and clowns who want to revoke my access, revert my edits and bicker about project scope. Its really a shame and makes me wonder why we act so surprised when we see that our editors are walking away at an increasing rate...A couple more years and Jimmy will be the only one left.

Reply to Orlady - Your right in one respect and that is that knowone seems to care much for WPUS. Maybe its me, maybe its the discussions, maybe its the scope. I don't know. What I do know is that knowone helps with the Newsletter, only a couple help on the portal, only a couple help with the collaboration and only a couple help with various other daily tasks. So if I am doing such a poor job then I recommend some other editors (such as yourself perhaps) step up and help out so I don't feel like I am making all the decisions. When I leave comments on the talk page of the project they go unanswered, so I assume that I am doing ok and knowone has a problem. If they have a problem, speak up, thats why the discussion is there, not to hold it over my head in discussions like this. On the points that you bring up about articles, if you give a mouse a cookie hell ask for a glass of milk. Either these articles are in scope or they are not, if they are not, thats fine, but the arguments given for the reasons they are not would exclude a vaste number of extremely important articles like the American Revolution and Declaration of Independance. So if I agree to Marks that yes the WPUS project should not go beyond 1783 then all these get thrown out because regardless of importance they are out of scope. Also, what happens if WikiProject US History gets added to the supprted projects list in the future. Sorry WPUSHistory but we can't support you because the articles in your project are out of our scope. Many of the connecticut articles Marks had a problem with were added because they were in the US Government or US Governors when we added them tot he supported projects list. The same will happen when we add a couple of the states. Do we then tell these projects that in order to support them they have to agree to drop any articles in their scope prior to 1783 when the US was formed. Of course not, who would agree to that. --Kumioko (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't a joke and a waste of time to go through the proper escalation process. If all you have is "I say so-and-so is wrong" and so-and-so only says "I say you are wrong", what do we have? What you need is a collection of otherwise uninvolved people, that is people who don't have a stake in one side of the arguement or the other, and those people need to give an impartial opinion over who is right and who is wrong. That is called dispute resolution. There are literally half a dozen possible outlets where that exact process can go on, and this noticeboard isn't necessarily one of them. There's nothing in any of that which requires an administrator, it just requires you caring enough about being correct in your opinions to gather support for your opinions from otherwise impartial editors. All you are saying here is "I can't be bothered to prove that my opponent needs a block by getting some impartial judgement on the matter. I still want admins to take action." Quite simply: No. Admins are not going to take action simply because you were the first of the two parties to complain to the admins. If you had, prior to coming here, gone through the trouble to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that everyone thinks you opponent is behaving badly, and then your opponent continues the same behavior, we'd be able to act. Right now, however, all we have is your singular opinion that he is behaving badly. Seriously: What action do you want admins to do to help relieve your situation? None of the three admin tools I have availible to use (blocking, protection, deletion) seem to be justified in this case, so I seriously have no idea why this discussion is at this noticeboard rather than at a more appropriate one... --Jayron32 18:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough but let me counter that with how do those tools apply to the "Bot-like addition of WikiProject United States tags" discussion above? Would the argument you present also be valid for that discussion as well since those tools would also seem innappropriate for that topic as well? Perhaps my lack of administrative tools is the reason theh discussion is not warranted. Perhaps simply warning the editor that edit warring is not ok. Perhaps telling them that WikiProjects are free to set their own scope and tag the articles in that scope as policy doctates? Or perhaps asking the editor to open a discussion at the appropriate forum and discussing the matter (as I have done, although granted perhaps in the wrong place) rather than simply continuing to revert a good faith edit? I believe those are the things I would do if I were an admin. But since I am not I will leave it up to those that are to decide on the best course of action they feel is appropriate, which may in fact be, to close this AN as unwarranted, uninterested or undesired. I apologize for my tone but as I mentioned before, I have been vlocked and had rights stripped away on the sheer whim of an admin but when I take the time to lodge a complaint its dismissed so its got me in a fairly foul opinion of the process. --Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I once offer the opinion that you were doing anything worthy of sanction in the above thread you cite? I think if you read closely, I clearly said that there was nothing for us to do regarding your actions, and that you shouldn't be bothered. I don't see how my position there is inconsistent with my position here in any way... --Jayron32 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies my rant wasn't directed at you at all but the situation. You have been very consistent and fair I would say. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies back atcha as well, I was ranting a bit too, though at a different situation. Wikipedia's admin boards (this one and ANI) have become the place where other editors "run to get mommy" when things don't go their way. If the dispute resolution process doesn't work, its only because people refuse to use it, and instead jump straight to "tattling" on people at the admin boards, expecting summary punishment to rain down from the admins. Admins don't hand down punishment, and, I don't know how often I can say this, the role of an administrator is not to be a "supereditor" whose opinions matter more than non-administrators. Let me bold that. The opinions of administrators do not carry any more weight than the opinions of any other editor at Wikipedia. If all you want is confirmation that you are correct, and the person who is opposing you is wrong, administrators don't carry any special powers which can do that for you. For that reason, the admin boards are not the place to take a dispute like this. Admins can only do 3 things: We can block, we can protect, and we can delete, and unless one of those three things needs to happen now, there's not really a need to have a discussion on the admin notice boards about a dispute. Sorry, I guess I ranted a bit more there, but this is an all-too-common misconception about what it means to be an administrator around here. We aren't your parents, we're just your colleagues. --Jayron32 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a WP:Guideline that directly addresses this issue. You can read it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging. It says that if a WikiProject chooses to support an article (e.g., by wishing the bot to notify them if it's put up for deletion), then someone outside it may not remove their banner. You may not remove the WikiProject LGBT banner from Eleanor Roosevelt, you may not declare that Alternative cancer treatment is outside of WPMED's scope, you may not declare that folks at MILHIST are not welcome to take an interest in the biography of Archduke Ferdinand. The basic rule is very simple: You don't get to decide what they are interested in.

The only question that needs to be answered here is "Is Markvs88 actually a member of this particular social group?" If the answer is "no", then Markvs88 is being disruptive, violating the guidelines, and needs to stop. If the answer is "yes", then the group needs to continue its conversation about what is within the scope—and if they decide that these articles are within its scope, then Markvs88 either needs to go along with the consensus, or to leave the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it says "Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." This is not equivalent to "you may not remove their banner".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It wouldn't make much sense for a rule to disallow "outsiders" from removing a tag, since anyone can join any WikiProject at any time, and, as far as I know, there's no way the Project can force them to leave. Since that is the case, it's trivially easy for any "outsider" to become a Project member and therefore be authorized to remove a Project tag. If there's a dispute about a Project tag on a specific article, the question should be settled by an open consensus discussion, just as every other conflict is supposed to be settled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the objecting editor could join the group, although that effort at gaming the system basically never happens. Even if s/he declared himself a member, the one editor is still only one editor, not the WP:OWNer of the group (or the article). If the other members say that Example is an article they want to support, then they are allowed to tag it—even over the objections of a newly joined "member", or the objections of the regular editors at the article. Nobody except ArbCom or the community as a whole has the right to tell a group of editors that they may not take an interest in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is Markvs88's view of the situation

• A wikiproject is a group focused on improving the articles of a *particular* subject. The Wikiproject: United States History is a seperate project that works in the area of history. I have no problem with it tagging articles on United States history, nor do I mind WPUS overlapping on any articles AFTER the US existed. Note, that the WPUSH's mission is to "To serve as the central point of discussion for issues related to the history of the United States in Wikipedia." as opposed to The "mission statement" of (see Wikiproject United States) they describe themselves as: "We are a project dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the United States, with an emphasis on subjects with regional and national significance". Which means something must be "United Statesian" to be considered a part of the project.
• The United States did not exist before 1783, (or, as I've said many times: I'll grant 1776 as valid date too). Either way, the United States has a START DATE as a nation, and therefore the WPUS cannot go around tagging articles from before 1776, nor tag articles that don't have a regional/national significance.
• For months, Kumioko has been tagging articles that do not relate to the United States. I reverted them, such as Talk:George Wyllys (CT colonial governor, died in 1645, was never an American) and the 14 others from Talk:List of colonial governors of Connecticut. Note that I taken pains to ONLY revert tags of articles that are definitively NOT within the scope of the WPUS -- that is, stuff before 1776.
• Now, why are they not relevant to WPUS? You can see my debate points at these locations: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States governors, User talk:Markvs88 and a few others, but to sum up: Governors of Florida that were installed by various Kings of Spain for 250 years and were not citizens of the United States, much less US Governors. The United States did NOT fight in King Phillip's War, and at that time Connecticut, Rhode Island & Mass WERE all colonies loyal to the King of England. Christopher Columbus discovered Hispanola, Ch uba et al for Spain, and never set foot on what would become United States soil, and even if he'd had... he would have been dead for 270 years. May as well tag Clovis Culture for WPUS at that point, as far as I'm concerned. And hey, if Columbus is, then I guess Juan Ponce de León was an US explorer too? Needless to say, none of these topics are the least bit "American" in nature.
• In the regional/national significance mileu: I'm sorry, but the Connecticut Senate and its elections are NOT a national issue -- you must be a CT resident to vote in them or be a candidate!
• Please note that I have no problem with WPUS per se, and that I routinely remove other inappropriate project tags on articles when I see them. As a member of the WikiProject Connecticut, I had a stake in every article I reverted.
• In my view, Kumioko is blindly tagging anything that ever was, occurred, or is on US soil as a WPUS article, and sometimes other articles such as Talk:U.S.S.R. national rugby union team as well. He does not seem to stop and consider (given he tags hundreds of articles at a time) IF an article should really be included, he just assumes everything is inherently "United Statesian". I wonder how many other Soviet articles got tagged?

I am happy to discuss this with anyone, either here on informally on my talk. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes, well and good. Could you address one more point: How does Kumioko's tagging of the article talk pages in question have a negative effect on the quality of the article text the reader sees when they come to read the article? --Jayron32 01:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to Jayron - Thank you. Quite simply: the wide majority of readers on Wikipedia are novices. Some of these become editors. If an editor goes to a project and asks for help on an article, will the get it? In the case of articles that are in scope, sure. I doubt many WPUS editors are going to jump at the chance to do research on Connecticut Senatorial Elections or obscure Governors of Florida. I'll ask you a similar question: how does it benefit? The tagging of articles not within scope of a project also runs afowl of Wikipedia:No original research as well: there aren't any possible citations that can be made in ANY of the articles I un-tagged WPUS from that the Unites States was ever remotely invovled in them. It's a total lack of WP:Verifiability.

If Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico started tagging every article invovling the areas of California, Nevada, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas & Colorado, would there be no complaints? How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia for every article in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California? Is there an end? Can Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovakia & Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic tag every article on the Moon because Eugene Cernan was of Czechoslovak parentage? I'm sure you see what I'm getting at here: that a project must have some reasonable association with a topic to tag an article. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but all of the stuff you mention is still just a behind-the-scense political pissing contest with no bearing on article content. I never said that I found there personally myself to be a benefit to the tag. However, if Kumioko finds for himself personally there to be a benefit to the tag, why do I have the right to tell him he doesn't find the benefit in the tag. That makes no sense. If it doesn't harm the article text (and you, so far, have still not stated how it harms the article text) and if Kumioko himself finds it helpful for him to help in maintaining the article, where is the harm? How is the article text itself worse because the tag exists? And if someone from Wikiproject Mexico was going to start maintaining articles about California, why would it matter if they tagged the article's talk page or not? If they are taking responsibility for the article, how does that make the text at the California article worse? --Jayron32 17:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron: You've made this point a number of times, and, of course, you are correct: tagging does not have any immediate appreciable effect on article content, it is indeed a "behind the scenes" kind of thing. But, of course, what happens behind the scenes can have an significant impact on the quality of the Wikipedia experience for the editors. In that respect every argument between editors, every incivility, every snipe and snap and arcastic remark doesn't directly effect article content, but is still (possibly) appropriate subject matter for AN or AN/I when things reach a certain point. For that reason, I would say that it's not particularly helpful to continue making that point repeatedly, since the noticeboards deal with many things which don't have anything to do with article content -- in fact, content disputes, per se, are routinely deflected.

But in any case, I should explain that, yes, the question is silly, but no, it matters. Kumioko is given credit for revitalizing a moribund project, and that's great, but it seems to me that his unbridled tagging is probably not the best way to go about it, as it is as likely to bog down the project as it is to get it going again. Military History can handle their very large number of articles because they've got a very large number of editors, which is not the case with WPUS. Better, I think, to be a little more controlled in throwing the net, and getting better quality in a smaller number of articles, that mediocre quality in a much larger number.

That's my opinion -- as I said above, I wasn't questioning the project's ability to decide how broad their mandate was, just questioning the wisdom of the choice made. After seeing on my watchlist any number of quite silly tags placed by Kumioko, and laughing it off, I simply took the opportunity of SOV's "bot" comment to broach a comment of my own. I wouldn't have opened an AN thread on it, but I took advantage of an opportunity. I trout myself for opening a can of worms, but it also seems to have uncovered a possible dispute/behavioral problem, so there you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • @Markvs88: The argument that events before 1783 which were seminal in the formation of the United States are not part of "United States history" is a remarkably silly one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply to Beyond My Ken - Thanks for such an erudite opinion! So... do you care to share WHY you think so? However, if you wish to discuss individual examples, I'm all for it. What I'm against is a blanket "everything that has ever happened is American". Again, is Clovis Culture WPUS? If yes, then I may as well start tagging everything Wikiproject Milky Way Galaxy. If not, thanks for seeing a bit of rationality, now how about we come up with a workable solution? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Since Clovis Culture wouldn't qualify as being "seminal in the formation of the United States", I would agree that it is not appropriate to tag it for the Project. However, all of Colonial history, the French and Indian War, the voyage of the Mayflower, etc., all of which occured before 1783, are very pertinent to American history and are appropriate to be tagged for the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • @Markvs88. I think you need to reread the projects mission statment. It says "topics related to...and with an emphasis on. I don't believe that means articles prior to 1776 can't be tagged nor does it mean that articles with regional/national significance can't be tagged either. Some articles prior to the formation of the US would certainly have relevance to the US. The tagging of Juan Ponce de León or Clovis Culture would have some relationship to the US, as would Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess Cornwallis, Mayflower Steps and Runnymede. The tagging of Juan Ponce de León or Charles Cornwallis by the US Project would in no way indicate that either of the two were citizens of the US. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Reply to CambridgeBayWeather - And I think that "related to" means "RELATED TO". Why do you think that? Of what possible relation is Talk:George Wyllys, a colonial Governor whom was dead 130 years before the Declaration of Independence to the US? How can you possible defend tagging Clovis Culture? If you're willing to do that, what isn't WPUS? Magna Carta and thousands of other (unrelated) articles are all closer to WPUS than that. On the flip side, you're saying that you're for tagging United States for WP:WikiProject Greece because the founders took their ideals of Democracy from ancient Athens. Where does it all end? I think some sense of scale is necessary here... how thin a relationship is enough? Because for these articles, the relationships are non-existant. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • On the specific points of the articles mentioned before by Markvs88 I would like to say that the specific reason I tagged Talk:George Wyllys and Talk:List of colonial governors of Connecticut are because they fall under WikiProject United States Governors which is now directly supported by WikiProject United States. This is true of a number of others as well when projects such as United States Government was added and will be true if others are added. On the specific issue of the Talk:U.S.S.R. national rugby union team articles. This was an error due to tagging articles that contained US and U.S. (I remove the roads related ones and have spoken with them about tagging the roads related articles and redirects as their project), United States or in some cases American (but I scrub a lot out of this list as not related). Its true I have tagged a few like this and normally I return and fix those. I run through every piece of content associated to WikiProject United States every single month so if I don't catch them on the initial tagging I will almost always catch them when I do the updates. They should be rare but there are a couple I am sure. I have also tagged a number of articles as relating to various states and to Milhist. --Kumioko (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply to Kumioko - And they're still not US Governors... they didn't send taxes to the US government as there was no federal structure at all. And that's what I keep getting at. I'm not against inclusion of *some* events before 1776 if they are of direct relation to the project (ie: Boston Tea Party or Intolerable Acts. But there is obviously a limit. Not everything that ever happened on what is now United States soil is of a national, US interest. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • They were colonial governors in territories that would become the original states of the United States. I think the association to the scope of the project is pretty obvious and warranted. Were not tagging the King of England during the Colonial era, were not tagging the British people or ships that participated in the American Revolutionary War (although a couple of the people and ships might be warranted due to their role in certain key battles but they would be by exception and not rule). I still think your making this into too much of a black and white situation when its more gray. --Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"A wikiproject is a group focused on improving the articles of a *particular* subject. "

No, that's actually wrong. A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. They do not have to focus on "a particular subject". Most of them do, but "WikiProject Our favorite articles" or "WikiProject Articles we found through Special:Random" is perfectly fine. The scope doesn't have to make sense to anyone else. We encourage logical scopes, but it's simply not required. (Additionally, many WikiProjects focus on particular kinds of editing, regardless of the subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Er... What about Wikipedia:WikiProject: "A WikiProject is a project to manage a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia." ? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

With all of the work that needs to be done on this wiki it boggles the imagination that Markvs88 is expending so much effort over such a trivial issue as project tagging. So the justification for engaging in what appears to be a slow edit war over numerous articles is that an editor may ask for assistance at the project talk page and that query could go unanswered? Don't you have anything better to do? – Lionel^(talk) 03:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you're weighing in, you obviously don't either. It boggles the mind that someone would take the time to ask such as silly question if they actually READ everything the poster (me) has written about this. (So: Just because you think it's trivial, it doesn't mean everyone else does.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, except that pretty much everyone does think its stilly as can bee seen by the responses above! --Kumioko (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be going beyond the scope of AN, and focusing on minutiae. From what has already been discussed, this dispute probably needs to go through WP:DR, but I don't see anything that really needs admin tools to fix. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's because there were three distinctly different discussions that were all merged into one because they all pertained to WikiProject United States. I don't have the time nor desire to move this huge discussion to another venue nor do I desire to restart it from scratch.

Since the discussion has verified the questions submitted I am going to go ahead and continue to tag the articles and if someone feels that I am moving too quickly or whatever then just let me know. As I mentioned above though I will be gone for the large part of the next month so I don't have the time or desire to discuss again the symantics of whether a project does or does not have the right to tag an article. Especially since that has been repeatedly verified in multiple venues by multiple different editors.

As for bot like edits. I use AWB to do a lot of tedious tasks faster rather than relying on manual edits so if there is a solid number of articles that should not be exceeded by an AWB user per day (100 is ridiculous, I would suggest something like 1000 as long as they are meaningful and meet the other criteria) then let me know and enforce that across the board for all users, not just when the mood strikes. This is especially true if you want to slow the growth and development of articles in WP so it takes longer to build them up! (Sorry for the slightly sarcastic tone there). --Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And I will continue reverting those tags on articles clearly out of the national scope that you so tag. That you came into this with no desire to even contemplate a compromise shows bad faith. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing for RfC

Moved to WP:ANI#User:Marine 69-71 since this is an incident and discussion is spread over several fora. Not notifying individual users under the assumption that whoever watches AN also watches ANI. Hans Adler 19:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Two RfCs for allowing bureaucrats to remove the admin bit

Two related Requests for Comment are now open to discuss giving bureaucrats the ability to remove administrator user permissions under specific circumstances. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag proposes enabling the technical ability for bureaucrats to do this. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy proposes the specific policy conditions under which they would be allowed to use that ability. Please visit both RfCs to give your input. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User: Rage against News Corp

In my opinion this account has been set up to vandalize. User has only had a few edits but clue bot has identified at least one as vandalism. This user has targeted the main News Corp page. Can I suggest an admin looks into this account and ban this user if they reach the same conclusion as myself. I would also recommend a semi protection on the news corporation indefinitely because we don't know how long the fallout will last on the news of the world closure and the events that led upto it. That way only auto confirmed users can edit the article. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC))

Blocked indef. --Golbez (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Insults made by user Zeddi30

I would like to report insults by user Zeddi30 which he made against another user on Bernard Tomic talk page at the 07:50, on 7 July 2011 (UTC).--Bbrezic (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've issued a formal warning. -- Atama頭 04:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Audit subcommittee summary report, October 2010- June 2011

Cross posted and expanded from the Audit subcommittee report.

From late October, 2010, through June, 2011, the Audit Subcommittee on the use of suppression and CheckUser reviewed a total of eleven cases.

• Three cases were not within the scope of the AUSC.
• Two cases did not involve the use of CheckUser or suppression by a user with advanced permissions.
• Two requests were denied.
• Two requests alleging abuse resulted in endorsement of CheckUser and/or Oversight.
• One case was overturned, and a best practices notice sent to the oversight mailing list and to the oversighter in question.
• One case was closed and sent with a recommendation to the Arbitration Committee.

For the AUSC, Keegan (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Pic for ITV night time thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Network

I have to highlight this, the page does not some pic, there provided and enhance the article. Simple: picture can tell a thousand words. I have notice the user that started this own mess off has been highlighted by someone above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%CE%94#User:.CE.94_and_unnecessarily_impolite_measures_to_make_a_point

I expect it may have went a bit over broad, but it did fully highlight and also made it alot clearer, to readers. But to get rid of the whole lot is well going over broad, I would like to ask that a bit of middle ground can be made?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs)

There is a discussion on the way on the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

News of the World discontinued

Just a heads up, it looks like News of the World will be discontinued after the next issue, and it's likely that the website will be taken down, too. As we have quite a few links to the site, some cleanup will be needed. I'm kinda surprised we ever used that site as a source in the first place, actually. It's not exactly BLP source-material. Oh, well, we gotta get rid of those links either way now. --Conti ✉ 17:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yea, its a low quality source and should never have been used for any content support here and goodbye to it. Can we get a bot to go remove it and replace it with a citation required template? Perhaps a list of BLP articles it is used in can be created for editors to go and assess the supporting content.Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely tabloid newspapers are BLP sources, precisely because of their focus? Count Iblis (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This tabloid newspaper has a reputation of printing things that are not entirely true... There might be a few sensible uses of it as a source, but a fair amount will be poor sourcing. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Screw NPOV, I'm glad to see the back of it... Frankly, anything sourced from the NoW is likely to either be trivia that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, or in need of better sourcing anyway, so we might even see an improvement when we lose the sources. No doubt it will be possible to find the website archived somewhere, for those that are desperate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh great, now how am I supposed to source my BLP article about Bat Boy and the other one about the Loch Ness Monster marrying Bigfoot? - Burpelson AFB✈ 18:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Weekly World News still has a web site, take heart! -- Atama頭 19:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because its clearly not a reliable source may not necessary mean that the use of it as a reference is wrong - particularly if it is a story published by a tabloid that is covered (that is, the coverage of the story by the tabloid, not the story itself) by reliable sources. Eg: "In 2005, NotW published an article that said comedian John Smith had married an alien.(ref to NotW article here) Though false, Smith latter incorporate the legend of this story into his comedy routine.(ref to an RS that discusses this facet)". That said, I would not be surprised if 90% or more of tabloid sources are lurking as facts in BLPs...--MASEM (t) 19:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of our non-UK readers: the problem with the NotW is not accuracy (it isn't a WWN-style peddler of abject nonsense), but rather that it sells exclusively on "scandals" which may or may not have any actual impact on the world (mostly celebrities sleeping with other peoples' wives), occasionally resorting to entrapment, bribes or various other outright illegal activities to get its scoops. In general the NotW is a reliable source and prided itself on the quality of its investigative work, discounting its general moral and ethical bankruptcy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I will note in passing that the mere fact that a particular periodical is no longer in print does not automatically render it invalid as a reference for a Wikipedia article. (As a general rule, we need to be very cautious of that sort of creeping recentism and if-it's-not-free-and-online-it-never-happened revisionism.) Conti's original post to this thread is quite correct that we should be aware that News of the World is shutting its doors and that this may effect the URLs we use (or not) in our references—but this does not mean that we must strip all references to NotW from our articles. If a NotW citation was being used as a genuinely valid article reference before the paper shut down, in principle it almost certainly remains a valid reference (even without a convenience URL) afterward.

That said, I have a strong suspicion that the vast bulk of references to NotW in our articles are inappropriate—at best, they tend to be far from the most suitable references for the statements they support, at worst, they are used to bring in material that has no place in Wikipedia. A thorough and dispassionate review of all tabloid sources in our articles would probably be a very good idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades. The website and the paper disappearing has no impact on the usefulness (or lack thereof) of the references as such, although a bot run might be needed to remove the hyperlinks or change them to point at an archive should the site go down. Independently of this I agree that a periodic review of tabloid sources is a good idea; they should essentially only be used as primary sources (i.e., to verify that a certain tabloid did print a certain story). Sandstein 15:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comment by TenOfAllTrades that cessation of operations is not a reason to remove any references. I accept that many here posting are not making that point, the announcement is merely triggering the notion that some of the references might not be good. I agree it would make sense to review the reference—it is not implausible that they may disappear, so any viewed as valid should be fodder for WebCite, and those that are not, should be removed and/or replaced with better refs.--SPhilbrickT 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth I just fired an email off to the website asking what what will become of it after this weekend. If I get a response back I'll let folks know what it is... Tabercil (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Front page

Not sure exactly where to make such comments (the WP bureaucracy seems so labyrinthine these days), but the front page "In the news" regarding the phone hacking scandal fails to mention News International are also alleged to have bribed police officers to the tune of some £100,000, which, by most estimations, is equally as shocking as the hacking claims as it embroils yet another tranche of the establishment in the scandal (press, politicians, police). Perhaps someone might choose to edit accordingly? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

for instance, perhaps:

"The closure of News of the World is announced amid allegations that the British newspaper engaged in phone hacking."

might be amended to:

"The closure of News of the World is announced amid allegations that the British newspaper engaged in phone hacking, police bribery and a cover up".

--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You want WP:ERRORS. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What? there's no WP:OMISSIONS? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, on the basis that too much WP:OMISSIONS will adversely effect Climate change... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL! (/useful comment) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Images lacking permissions

I rarely work with images, so I'm hoping a more knowledgeable admin could review Noormohammed satya's whack of recent images uploads. All of them appear to be non-free screen caps and are all lacking permissions. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

All tagged with CSD F11. — Edokter (talk) — 14:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving Circuit de la Sarthe to Circuit des 24 Heures

Not an administrator noticeboard issue. Obtain consensus on the talk page and request a move in the usual way.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The promotor, the french department of sports and the ASN use the name Circuit des 24 Heures, more Wikipedia:Verifiability is not possible. As discussed at Talk:Circuit_de_la_Sarthe#Name_of_the_track, please move Circuit de la Sarthe to Circuit des 24 Heures. Thanks and Regards, --Pitlane02 talk 15:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I was considering this, but apparently, "Circuit des 24 Heures" has never been the title of the circuit, instead being the name for the entire facility. Circuit de la Sarthe is the long circuit, Bugatti Circuit is the short circuit. Are you sure you want it moved? The Cavalry (Message me) 11:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Some people repeat this argument every time, but until now there is NO official or serious sources for this view. And when the "Circuit des 24 Heures" is the entire facility, the lemma is also wrong (IMHO), because the article describes the long AND the short distance. BTW: The french article presents the same position, and nobody gainsays that the track was named "Circuit de la Sarthe" in the history. Thanks and regards --Pitlane02 talk 12:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps, I've forgot the magic four words: Yes, I'm sure! Because at moment we've only facts for the renaming! Thanks and Regards --Pitlane02 talk 07:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Revdel link

MER-C (talk·contribs) posted a link this morning to an edit page on strategywiki, inviting people to... misbehave. It'd be great if someone could revdel that edit. Thanks.
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 12:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing how that falls under the revdelete policy. Brandon (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction #3 Purely disruptive material.
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? In what way was that "inviting people to misbehave"? I cannot even find anything relevant on that other page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the link is to demonstrate that editing of others' comments is possible. The link is not substantially different than, say, the edit links on this page. That said, I understand Ohm's law's point and have revised my comment. MER-C 14:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So, Ohms law, do you still think it needs deleting? Because I certainly don't, and also don't see why it would have needed deleting in the first place. WP:AGF anyone? Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Spectator, Nick Cohen & Wikipedia

[37] - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a thread about this at the COI noticeboard, seen here. -- Atama頭 23:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• A topic ban of David r from meth productions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unquestionably in order; this is not the first journalist biography where his POV editing has led to issues, see Richard Littlejohn (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Guy (Help!) 18:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, Hari is overused as a source on Wikipedia... Sceptre^(talk) 18:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably, yes. I like his writing but there is usually a strong feel of opinion about it. I suspect that being gay, Jewish and subject to attack from militant Zionists for daring to criticise Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories has contributed to a lack of critical appraisal form people who would normally be more circumspect. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Physics Nobel Prize templates

Move request

Requested move

Please assist Template:Editnotices/Page/List of people affected by bipolar disorder needs to be moved to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of people with bipolar disorder per a page move. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

DoneHJ MitchellPenny for your thoughts? 23:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should have an adminbot to do such moves automaticly - any time a page with an edit notice is moved, move the edit notice along with it. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki should be smart enough to do that automatically. There should probably be a bug filed for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me like a major complication - this would mean that users who aren't permitted to move it would do so in some situations. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. The editnotices implementation is already a bit of a hack. Can't really hurt to ask for one more hack to be layered on top of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Please cancel my erroneous page move to Raknno. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have moved Raknno back to Raknno, per naming conventions. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge account

Hello, I try to merge my account with other wiki but my pseudo is already used on en wiki. Who can help me? --82.234.134.207 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you start with Wikipedia:Changing_username/Guidelines#Handling_SUL_conflicts --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Harry Potter

There is some problem with Template:Harry Potter. The template has 7 groups/lists, but only 6 of them are displayed. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter requiring administrative attention. However, the problem is that {{Navbox with columns}} only supports a maximum of 6 groups. Bencherlite^Talk 06:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue at Template talk:Navbox with columns, and (if applicable) consider making an {{editprotected}} request there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahmad Wali Karzai

Ahmad Wali Karzai the half-brother of Afghan president Hamid Karzai has just been assassinated. Therefore please remove the semi-protection of the article as there will be a large onslaught of editing in the coming hours on this article. thanks, noclador (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can make suggestions for edits at the article talkpage, providing citations, this is somewhat standard practice for events like this. It stops the flood of edits with little or no verification from swamping the article. Also, we are WP:NOTNEWS, so it is not vital that we update this the second infomations comes to light. Heiro 07:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

ah, ok - I thought we should remove the semi-pro as it was already put in place on June 28th and it seemed to me inappropriate now as things have changed so dramatically. noclador (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont know why it was semi'ed then, but I have seen plenty of other articles with recently deceased subjects get locked down to stem the tide of specualtive edits. When there is a firm story, info c an be added. I'm not an admin, so I cant do anything anyway, just letting you know what I've seen happen before in similar circumstances. Heiro 08:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should leave the semi protection because there is this one individual who decides to use anon IP and constantly vandalizes the page. [38] He/she appears to have a personal vendetta against the Karzais so instead of constantly patrolling the pages we just leave the semi protection and I was the one who requested the protection. Thanks.--AlimNaz (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Incoming links to deleted articles

I have been trying to remove the incoming links to two deleted articles: African Swim (edit talk history links watch logs) and Quilombo (album) (edit talk history links watch logs). While the corresponding incoming link pages suggest that there are several articles that still link to these deleted articles, I cannot find where those incoming links are coming from. Any help in clearing up this issue would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it may be a caching issue: the "what links here" hasn't caught up to the fact that African Swim was removed from Template:Williams Street. 28bytes (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 30#User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1#Gargoyle Router Firmware

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 30#User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1#Gargoyle Router Firmware? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I closed Gargoyle Router Firmware, but I decided to !vote on the other one, after looking at the situation and seeing another way we can handle this. –MuZemike 18:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the second one. Cunard (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Protonk, for closing the first DRV. Cunard (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for bringing up the backlog here. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Help request: Billings Montana Wikipedia Facebook page

Every time I try to go to the Billings Montana Wikipedia Facebook page it is redirected to the Missoula Montana Wikipedia Facebook page. When I try to go to The Billings Wikipedia page from Facebook I am again redirected to the Missoula Wikipedia page. I do not know what to do. Thank you Linda Rider (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Facebook community pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia—such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. We at Wikipedia have no control over how the content is included nor can we help to remove it. Facebook once had a topic on Community pages and profile connections (2011 archive) on their Help Center. The information may be obsolete. Here at Wikipedia itself, we do have separate Billings, Montana and Missoula, Montana pages. DMacks (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why http://www.facebook.com/pages/Billings-Montana/112454482100538?sk=wiki redirects to a page about Missoula but http://www.facebook.com/pages/Billings-MT/114672308545089?sk=wiki works for me. As the above reply says, Wikipedia has no control over this. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Help request: Diacritics in surnames

Hi. I've noted that an user has moved some titles of sportsmen to a version without diacritics per WP:AT. Due to the fact that the old titles have not only one edit i've started a requested move on 3 pages (1st, 2nd, 3rd), but they are more than 3. So i request, if possible, the move of this titles to their original name (with diacritics): Eero Vare to Eero Väre; Toni Kiren to Toni Kirén; Stepan Kores to Štěpán Koreš; Juha-Pekka Pietila to Juha-Pekka Pietilä; Timo Lindstrom to Timo Lindström; Jiri Hunkes to Jiří Hunkes; Rastislav Spirko to Rastislav Špirko and lots more... The reason of this reguest is that the usage of usage of diacritics, in names (and not only), seems to be the standard adopted on enwiki (see for example: Category:Finnish ice hockey players, Category:Czech footballers, Category:Polish footballers, Category:Spanish footballers etc...). Also in the name of famous people as Lech Wałęsa or Alexander Dubček. Thanks a lot. Sorry if it's not the right page to add this request. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, DerBorg. The place where you can separate and post these requests is at requested moves. The page provides simple instructions on how to request a move discussion on the article page and on the RM page. Hope this helps! Keegan (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I noted in the last AN/I thread on Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that the user games the system by intentionally creating page histories for his redirects to block non-admins from moving the target articles. Another user noted inappropriate speedy tagging that was also related to the user's crusade regarding diacritical marks. He ignored the complaints but did stop while the discussion was ongoing. Now he is back to his old tricks, and has even started making contentious moves and blocking the reversion of his moves as well. It's quite obvious by now that Dolovis simply will not conform to community norms and practice, so a ban from any kind of gaming of the system (through page moves, redirects or speedy tags) is necessary, with escalating blocks. Prolog (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had enough of this disruption, lvl4 warning issued. Will ask for a ban on Dolovis moving articles at WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Now raised at WP:ANI#Page move ban for Dolovis. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Per consensus of the community, Dolovis is now banned from moving any pages. This has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Brandoncrabtree

See their talk page. Either some personal problems or a prank. NVO (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that the individual may be a US veteran who has a cochlear implant and a mental health problem (which would be a sad eventuality), based on the fact that the name he uses (Brandon Miles Crabtree) is a conflation of two of the advisors to the Veterans program - Brandon Miles Tourtilot and Mike Crabtree (see [39]). Commons are going to delete the images as the uploader does not have copyright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This sort of thing happens every few months. Unfortunately I can't explain what is going on without violating policies. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Email me privately if it would help. In the meantime, I will delete the page/block the user if this is a recurring problem and you think it would help. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you send the userpage to WP:MFD. Hut 8.5 12:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Category:Australian football (soccer) players and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 2#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Category:Australian football (soccer) players and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 2#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, as well as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 1#Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 14th century? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that it may be best not to close the Australian football (soccer) player CfD until the requested move at Talk:Association football in Australia is closed. Jenks24 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please created protected talk page

Talk:Januar Add {{album}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please create a redirect

Done
From ᴀ (IPA) to Open central unrounded vowel. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi)✍ 10:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As it is written, so shall it be done. TNXMan 13:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw delete request

I started a delete request:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stars_in_astrology

From the responses it is clear that the issues that initially concerned me are being addressed and the page has already been developed past the point where deletion can legitimately occur, so I was advised to come here to ask an admin to close it. Thanks and sorry for putting folks to any trouble. Zac Δ talk 12:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Jayron32 12:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Aron

Would an admin review my redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Aron and close the discussion? Cunard (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Good call --Errant^(chat!) 18:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Cunard (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Δ

Resolved by motion:
Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, RfAr/Betacommand 2, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Admin to close a few discussions please

It has been requested at WP:AE that an admin "close" a few discussions, to help determine what the consensus is. The relevant discussions are:

• Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#The_conclusion_of_the_Ernst_2007_review_is_not_being_represented
• Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#QG.27s_proposal_to_change_the_article
• Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_33#Changes_needed_in_the_LEAD
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Pseudoscience
• Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive_14#RfC_-_problematic_paragraph
• Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive_14#Poll_for_consensus_on_use_of_Matute_et_al._source
• Talk:Chiropractic#Are_we_dropping_the_Ernst_review_too_soon.3F

I hope this noticeboard is an appropriate place to request this, and that if it is not, that someone will notify me on my talk page. If the request is completed, I would also appreciate being notified. Thanks, DigitalC (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You have a history of deleting sourced text against policy. You replaced sourced text with OR. I suggest you can use the talk page to resolve disputes more peacefully next time.

There a more relevant discussions. See Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#Mass_original_research. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#MEDRS_complaint_source.

pseudoscience: I am offering a cmt by DreamGuy which is still relevant to the current personal disgreement with reliable sources. Do you accept the text is sourced from a reliable peer-reviewed source. See this diff. See diff. See diff. See diff. These diffs show I did explain the text is relevant to other editors. Do you accept that with certain articles editors are unable to justify their edit. For example, an editor wrote The source does not support the claim(s).. But I did provide V on the talk page. Does anyone agree the edit did not match the edit summary. I think this is a serious matter of WP:WEIGHT and I propose the dispute be taken the the NPOV noticeboard where uninvolved editors could participate and determine the WP:CON based on Wikipedia policy and not a disagreement with mainstream research.

If you take a look at the article history there are other editors that do support the inclusion of the public health matters. There were comments in favor of using the source too.

chiropractic: I did not delete the report from chiropractic article and the source is still in the body. I removed the text that failed verification, however.

vertebral artery dissection: Ernst E (July 2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755. This source is not relevant to VAD (WP:COATRACK) while editors are unable to provide V for the text that is OR.

I might have convinced editors that the text is closer to NPOV version and possibly better.

Ernst E (2010). "Vascular accidents after neck manipulation: cause or coincidence?". Int J Clin Pract. 64 (6): 673–7. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02237.x. PMID 20518945. I propose to replace the coatrack source with the relevant source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose a possible compromise that might resolve the dispute over the public healh issues at pseudoscience.

This part of the proposal is for the WP:LEAD to summarise the body: The British journal of psychology stated "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."

This part of the proposal is for the Pseudoscience#Health and education implications. The British journal of psychology stated "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."

No editor can claim anymore that the text is unsourced when we quote the source. The quote was streamlined and rewritten but the text was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil and borderline wikistalking admin

Second opinion for a RM closure

I closed the move discussion at Talk:Andrej Tavzelj#Requested move, where it was proposed to move six Slovenian ice hockey player articles from diacriticless names to ones with diacritics. My evaluation was that there was no consensus in the discussion for the proposed names, but since two people have questioned the closure on my talk page I'd appreciate it if someone uninvolved could take a look at the discussion and provide a second opinion. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable close to me. 28bytes (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But doesn't WP:HOCKEY want articles at titles with diacritics when they occur in the persons name? Mjroots (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed they do, and I think they have a pretty good argument, actually. In fact, I might have closed it differently myself. But I can't bring myself to say that Jafeluv's close was unreasonable or improper; his weighing of both sides' arguments looks fair, even if I might have weighed them differently. 28bytes (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The RFC regarding diacritics likely will be closed as "no consensus". If and when it closes as "no consensus", should we be following the WP:Hockey#Wikiproject notice compromise? HeyMid (contribs) 08:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus that already exists in the Hockey project in many ways already trumps other RM's ... unless one changes the consensus in the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS seems to disagree with that premise... Jenks24 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It only disagrees when there is a wider community consensus (in otherwords a local consensus can not override an overall consensus), but as the current discussion goes to show there is almost an exact 50/50 split on the issue which shows there is no global consensus which was why that compromise was created in the first place, to stop the back and forth edit wars and move wars that were happening. If the wiki ever truly comes to a global consensus on the issue then certainly the project would change to reflect that I am sure. -DJSasso (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium talk page being used to advocate positions not accepted for the article.

Could an admin please look at the Depleted Uranium talk page. This looks like an effort to place information that has been found to be inappropriate for the article, by consensus, into the talk page instead. There really isn't any suggestion to edit the article as there is a bulk placement of fringe links and information. PRONIZ (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRONIZ (talk • contribs)

Why did the bot think this was unsigned? Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Because PRONIZ's signature doesn't have a required link to their user page, user talk page, or contributions. I'll be dropping them a note about it shortly. —DoRD (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Are we still supposed to locally upload and protect pictures that appear on the Main Page? --Jayron32 02:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends if they get protected on commons first. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not appear that that has been done. See [40]. Someone should probably get on that. For the record, I know I am an admin, and could feasibly do it, at least locally, but I have almost no experience in this task, so someone with a bit more experience should prolly get on it. --Jayron32 02:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Its cascade protected via commons:User:Krinkle/enwiki mainpage otherwise there would be a trout being handed out. (I wrote and gave Krinkle that bot because I got tired of handing trouts out) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is? Because it isn't listed on that page... --Jayron32 03:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Try editing the file discription page, you will get a notice about it being protected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Shonuff. --Jayron32 03:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Move request

The move request at Talk:Goody's_Family_Clothing has been open for 8 days with one support. I doubt anyone's going to oppose it at this point, so should it be carried out? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hello? Anyone here? All I hear is crickets... crickets... crickets... (listens to own voice echo). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • WHERE IS EVERYONE?!?!?!?!!Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Busy waiting to see how long it would take before you lose your mind and throw a coniption. --Jayron32 03:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • It's seemingly the only thing that successfully stirs admins from their slumber. I've seen sloths move faster. After drinking a gallon of freaking NYQUIL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude, really? Can you get more uncivil? Wikipedia has no time limit, and calling admins a bunch of meth-affected sloths pretty much undoes so much of the good work you actually do. Seriously. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Point of order. meth is a stimulant (aka "speed") and tends to make people work faster (albeit with horrific side effects). NyQuil is a depressant and tends to make people sleepy and lethargic. Know your drugs! --Jayron32 12:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• If I'm reading things right, this was just relisted on the 12th, and there was one oppose that was made after your request, but before your "crickets" comment. So I don't think it's a slam dunk anymore, and discussion should continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it didn't continue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Interesting close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd non-article in article space

I came across Resources for WEP Region 9 faculty & students a short while ago. It clearly doesn't belong in article space, but the author has removed a proposed deletion and I'm unable to move it into his user space where I think it belongs. I don't think it's caught by the criteria for speedy deletion either. Any suggestions? Prioryman (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? Jafeluv (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess so, but it's an awfully bureaucratic way of dealing with the problem. Could some admin just move this thing into the author's user space? Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Userfication was probably the best thing here, but it looked like an attempt to correspond with a group of people, which would be covered under A3. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title"? I wasn't aware of that criterion. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll bear that in mind in future. Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Bambifan101 new ip

Hi, i am an admin in Tamil wikipedia. I just blocked 74.230.35.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a bambifan101 sock there. I see this is a new ip address that doesnt have any edits outside ta wiki. This ip geolocates to Mobile, Alabama and tried to recreate the same article another known bambifan ip 69.254.169.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thought i would let admins know here as this ip is new.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You could try adding the info to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101 if you think it represents a new development. --Jayron32 21:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The first ip address has no contribs to the English language Wikipedia, and the other one is already CheckUser blocked after a couple of typical Bambifan101 edits a couple of months back. Thanks, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins

Would an admin (or admins) close:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement
2. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Must images of historical importance be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use?
3. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins

For the second RfC, the creator wrote:

I want to add here that I'd like the RfC to remain open for 30 days and be closed by an uninvolved admin, not one involved in previous discussions about fair-use images please. I'm requesting this because this issue is affecting several content contributors, and it's likely to continue being contentious unless it's sorted out by clear consensus. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Number 3 on that list closed. NW(Talk) 03:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, NuclearWarfare, for closing that RfC. Cunard (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No point to attempting to close #1 on that list. A brief review of that RfC shows that it is nothing more than a collection of ideas & thoughts on the matter. In other words, any conclusion a closing Admin would make must be no consensus, even though I feel it has reached the point of trench warfare, with furious sallies that gain a meager few yards at best. (Anyone else reminded of Passchendaele?) Better to allow the RfC to continue, if only to allow the various parties to vent away from the usual places. -- llywrch (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have stricken the RfC from the list. Thank you for taking a look at it. Cunard (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, The ed17 (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Must images of historical importance be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use?. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:KnowIG

Post archiving comment

I looked quickly at the sockpuppet investigations regarding the above, and wonder if anyone has checked the findings against Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert/Archive - another tennis SPA who resorted to socking to enable their subject ownership ambitions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

From my initial check, there doesn't look like a relation, at least they're from separate continents. It is possible that Tennis expert could have moved to the UK, but I would still doubt that. –MuZemike 04:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If somebody wants to start a SPI

It seems to me like a noobie in need of help and explaining that two accounts are a no-no, but I don't have time or will to go through the full bureaucracy. Check Jan.steinbach (talk · contribs) and And.jacki (talk · contribs): same date of account creation, nearly the same (tiny) pattern of (non-disruptive) edits. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 01:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like students given an assignment at the same time, and properly using independent accounts to edit. One of them edited Wikipedia:School and university projects/University of Applied Sciences, Mainz, Germany - LLM English Project which is why I think they are students. The timing pattern of the edits does not make the accounts look like they are socks. Monty₈₄₅ 02:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And.jaki states as much on his/her user page. As there's no disruption, there's no need to do anything here. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion

I've been slowly going through the RfD backlog for a while now, and have two days I would appreciate some help on as I have commented in discussions and thus cannot close.

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 28 All done, thanks to Ruslik0 and DeltaQuad
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 24 All closed now, thanks to DeltaQuad

Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Two closed, one left that I don't know how to deal with, so if one more admin could step in that would be great. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, just the one to go. --Taelus (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Attribution

If an editor copy and pastes another editor's User page to their own, should it be deleted as a copyvio? The history is not intact and there is no attribution made. There is also the additional issue that none of the information on the page actually pertains to the editor in question (GAs, article creations, image uploads, barnstars...). Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Attribution can be made after-the-fact; see WP:CWW(without comment on the additional issue). –xeno^talk 15:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So, policy-wise, they can add attribution after the fact. Now how to address the additional problems (claiming another individual's articles, GAs and barnstars as their own)? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's easy, just delete the patently false claims, and counsel the editor as to acceptable userpage content per WP:UP. I presume it's a new(ish) editor we are discussing here? Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

They have 8 edits under this particular account, one of which was redacted as a BLP violation from a talk page. The cut and pasted user page belongs to CutOffTies, so the amount of misinformation is...vast.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Update: The userpage has since been blanked and a note has been left explaining why. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/Duck-family tree and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/The Comic Books

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/Duck-family tree and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/The Comic Books? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, RL0919, for closing the discussions. Cunard (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Selena

I need an admin to merge Todos Mis Exitos (to All My Hits Vol.1) and Todos Mis Exitos, Volume 2 (to All My Hits Vol. 2) as they are relevant of each other. And these too?

• No me queda más to No Me Queda Más
• Donde quiera que estés to Donde Quiera Que Estés
• Tú sólo tú to Tú Sólo Tú
• Enamorada de Tí to Enamorada de Ti (song) (as it isn't spelled like that on the album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJona1992 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless these are controversial merges (and I see no evidence of this) you can do it yourself and there's no need for an administrator to be involved. Please see WP:MERGE for instructions. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I can do the first two, however, the others (except Enamorada de Ti) cannot be moved for some reason. That's why I was sent here to ask help.AJona1992 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I was able to move Enamorada De Ti. All the others I am having difficulties moving them. AJona1992 (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD backlog

Since some of the main TFD closers are on vacation, there appears to be a backlog at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Not only are 12 July discussions not closed, but nor are 11 July, 10 July and some even earlier Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Quick! Now's your chance to delete a bunch of crap while "the cat's away"!
  — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Request review of my actions

I closed a move request at Talk:Jakub Petružálek a few weeks ago. Today User:Pmanderson posted to my talk page[41], saying that it was inappropriate. Therefore, I'm posting here to request review of my actions.

Pmanderson says that I'm involved in the issue, and I'm not sure what he means exactly. For the record, I've closed very, very many move requests, and I've sometimes added diacritics and sometimes removed them, as I've gauged the consensus will of the community. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see Pmanderson's point re the "wave of the future" comment, although I have no doubt that you intended it as more of an observation about a trend you noticed than an endorsement of it. That said, I don't see any reason presented by Pmanderson that you shouldn't have closed it, and a "no consensus" close was certainly appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Partly my fault. Sorry.

I wasn't expecting GTBacchus to take this here; as we both know, he has been to some extent involved with the current discussion whether to use diacritics. On reviewing the discussions, he has been more invoked than directly involved, so I would be satisfied if he agreed to tone down the rhetoric, and to take care not to close an undue proportion of the diacritic requests. (It looked like he was doing so; the same close has been discussed several times, without connection, and so I thought there were more than there have been.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Every time someone questions a close of mine, I bring it here. I don't know what you're talking about when you say I've been involved (or invoked) in the current discussion over whether to use diacritics. If you think I'm involved, tell me which side you imagine I'm on, and I'll provide 20 diffs to prove the opposite. Do you think I'm pro-diacritic, or anti-diacritic? Either way, you're wrong.

I close as many moves as I do, and no more. If I have a stance in the diacritic debate, I'd like to know what it is before I recuse myself from closing requests in that area. Am I for them, or against them? As far as I know, there is no rhetoric to tone down. I have no opinion on diacritics, full stop. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the close nor with continued closing. I think PMA means by you being "invoked" that your closes are being referenced, in particular in support of keeping diacritics, though I don't know exactly where this has occurred. I suspect PMA is concerned that the comments on changes to the broader community consensus and the words "this has been a long time coming" suggest that you are 1) ruling on the broader community consensus having actually changed and 2) possibly relieved we've "finally gotten there". I don't see this myself and I may be completely off on what PMA means; hopefully clarification will be forthcoming.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

By invocation, I mean the reliance on Bacchus' authority as an admin evidenced, for example, in this section of a current RfC. An opinion is clearly being read into his words, which is why I think them unfortunate. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with this. Thank you, Pmanderson. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to join in here in insisting that something be changed. "No consensus" is acceptable, but the rational given in the closure is clearly inappropriate. For example, "the practice of removing diacritics does not seem to enjoy the consensus support that it once did" is a controversial, and basically incorrect, statement, on multiple levels. Additionally, "support for diacritics has grown steadily" clearly demonstrates "involvement" here, as this is the central question of the debate.
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, people are "insisting." That usually doesn't work, at least in my experience. GTBacchus' close seems fairly no-nonsense to me. Don't go changin'... to try and please me... - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, he's the one asking for opinions. My only point is that his closure rational in this particular case stakes out a position on the issue at hand rather than detailing a neutral interpretation of the issues. For "no consensus" closures, saying nothing is often better than trying to push editor opinions in one direction or another. I've seen this sort of supposedly neutral "no consensus" closure tactic used before, and it's kind of an asshole move to make.
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 17:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't mean to push anyone in any direction. Saying that support has been steadily growing is an observation, not involvement. I didn't say I'm happy about it, or sad about it. I just noticed that it's grown. When I close move requests, I see more support for diacritics than I used to. How does that make me "involved"? I truly don't get it. Do you have any idea how many moves I've carried out removing diacritics? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, I remember ya! I know how many of these things you've closed. My only point is that the rational, as stated, leaves you open to this criticism. The statement "use of diacritics is more acceptable now" (to paraphrase slightly) is the dispute. I don't blame you, since you're main involvement with all of this has been somewhat limited to closing the RM's, but there's a political process occurring here which you've (apparently inadvertently) inserted yourself into the middle of. Increased awareness of the issue is what's really going on, and several parties are digging their heels in and polarizing the (so to speak) "electorate". Your closure here is being used as justification, in and of itself, for a proposed change in policy to make using diacritics wherever possible mandatory. Is that what you intended?
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I never intend to feed the superstition around here that what's written on policy pages somehow determines rules for our behavior. Wikipedia is bottom-up, not top-down, our policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and the lawyers are wrong. Policy is determined in the field, and not on pages in the "Talk:Wikipedia:" namespace.

I'm glad someone pointed me to that discussion you mention, and I'll be contributing there. I would have preferred being told about it in some words other than "you're wrong, and I disagree with the barnstar someone just gave you", but whatever. You can't please 'em all.

Just for the record, I don't give half a drop of stale bugshit whether we use diacritics or not. I simply don't care. I do care about accurately reading and following consensus determinations on Wikipedia. Anyone who thinks I've got a personal agenda in this, or in any issue that I touch on Wikipedia, they're sorely mistaken. Things that I care about on a personal level, I stay away from here, because my neutrality would be compromised. I wish everyone would do the same. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no issues with the close result itself (and I think Pmanderson intended for his concern to be as general feedback for proceeding in the future rather than as pursuing this further). I think the moral of the story here is to take care when making observations in such closures, as they can sometimes be unnecessary, and can sometimes carry unintended (counterproductive) implications. In this case, I think the prediction in the second sentence of the close isn't quite right because the close result itself was not the controversial or disputed part; rather, it was the way in which was done. This was just a simple case where there was room for improvement in how it was closed (be it as a one-off, or generally). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I actually thought the "This has been a long time coming" was probably the part that would cause more concern than the other parts. 18:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Apparently that phrase makes it sound like I've been eagerly awaiting its arrival, and that I'm all happy to see it or something. I just meant I've been watching the wind gradually change direction, and it seems to be blowing from the diacritic side now. That was simply intended as an observation, but I can see how and why it appears inappropriate. I agree that it is better to avoid such language when closing discussions.

All of that said, I'm glad the issue is coming to a head now in a central location, and I hope to see you all there. There's nothing more to talk about here on AN, I think. Thanks all for weighing in. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 19:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging "New Super Mario Bros. Mii"

New Super Mario Bros. Mii has passed a unanimous merging discussion. Can an admin go ahead and merge it with New Super Mario Bros. Wii? --Nathan2055^talk 23:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Admins don't merge pages. Editors do because it requires absolutely no administrative tools.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've merged it, noting {{copied}} etc. on talks of both. Marking 'resolved'. Chzz ► 02:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know editors can do it, but I actually don't know how. --Nathan2055^talk 16:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You move the content off of one page and put it on another.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Merging. You can ask me directly if you have any questions. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

By motion of the Arbitration Committee voted on at requests for amendment,

The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Need check on file moved to Commons

File:Erie County, NY Map.png was moved to Commons some time ago, but it started out here. Could I trouble an admin to check the deleted version of that file from here and see what the original source was? Was it Own Work, or did it come from some other source? Powers ^T 00:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no explicit source. The description page said. == Licensing == {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}. --Courcelles 01:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Impending deployment of MoodBar extension

The Foundation plans to deploy the "MoodBar" extension to the English Wikipedia some time in the near future. For more information, see WP:VPT#Quick Feedback on Editing Experience: New Editors, the extension and discussion pages on MediaWiki and the test deployment on the prototype wiki. MER-C 03:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Chaosname

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names

Could an uninvolved administrator please close the two open RFC's? They have been open for almost a month each and have both had plenty of discussion.--v/r - TP 16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I closed the easy one. That's the closest I recall ever having gotten to actually citing IAR! I tried really hard to close the second one Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Cranialsodomy but the comments of 22 experienced editors were of no help and they were evenly split. The closest any got to referencing policy was to say that it was or was not obscene. I was going to be left with my own interpretation of policy, so I ended up commenting. I highly encourage others to comment to; hopefully with what you think the actual language in the policy means and why the username should or should not be allowed rather than the "I don't like it" and "It doesn't bother me" comments that I found.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• And actually, this one has been open for 34 days now.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"CranialSodomy" is editing an encyclopedia of knowledge; his mother must be proud. And, we've now thrown -bot ending usernames to the wind. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Asher Heimermann

Asher Heimermann, a user blocked since 2007, has asked to be unblocked. As far as I can tell, there are no issues of sockpuppetry since August 2008 (nearly 3 years ago - the latest I found is SheboyganTeen). I'm inclined to grant him an unblock. Any one else have any opinions? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

An unblock seems reasonable. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

After nearly four and a half years a second chance seems reasonable. I will unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I highly suggest if they are unblocked that they have a mentor. This user has not had apparent sockpuppet activity which is visible on the account, but has added links to their promotional website for Sheboygan on and off the last couple years through IP's and cleverly named socks which have been maintained and pulled by editors like me based in eastern Wisconsin, and submitted this vanity article for creation under the account Asherheimermannissogreat (talk · contribs), which was rightfully turned down in February. There was also this IP claim that their LLC bought a school district radio station for a low price that I had to revert a couple months back. I can't even see the need for their newest article, George D. Warriner High School for Personalized Learning, which is a small charter school that currently has no need for an article. I am willing to give them one last chance, but with the caveat that if they pull this stuff again, they need to be gone. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with a mentor. However, that user ({{user Asherheimermannissogreat}) was not me. It was a person named Nick on Facebook who was harassing me and asking me repeatedly to accept his friend request, which I did not. As far as the Warriner High School article, there are other charter schools who have an article about the size of Warriner. I am open to ideas. I'm not here to play around anymore, I just want to be a meaningful community member. Any thoughts? Asher Heimermann (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked this account, as I indicated above. When I did so, I fully intended to check back from time to time to see what edits were being made, and was ready to block again if I saw anything unacceptable. This is what I always do when I unblock a user with past problems of this kind. I had warned Asher in my unblock notice "If you edit disruptively you may expect to be reblocked immediately", and I subsequently posted a message to his talk page telling him that I had been checking his edits, so that he was aware of the fact. When I looked at Asher's editing I did not see any problems.

The concerns raised by Mrschimpf (who signs as "Nate") are worth consideration.

The article for creation produced by Asherheimermannissogreat is strange. It looks like a ridiculous vanity article until the last paragraph, when it suddenly turns into a criticism of Asher for refusing to accept someone as a FaceBook friend. If it was by Asher then that last paragraph was very odd. If it was not by him then it was by someone who seemed to have a strange degree of fascination for him, possibly to the extent of an obsession. However, that last paragraph certainly does fit in with Asher's explanation given above, and there are people who develop just such obsessions.

I am not at all sure what the significance of the IP edit about the school district radio station is. The same IP address has been used by someone with a dislike of Asher, who has tried to keep a perfectly legitimate link to a web site off Wikipedia purely on the grounds that the web site was designed by Asher. (See the removal of the link and the user's comment on it. Is there any evidence that the edit referred to above from the same IP case was made by Asher? If so, what evidence? If not, is it relevant?

As for George D. Warriner High School for Personalized Learning, my personal view is that very few high schools are notable enough to justify having articles, but there is a very long-established consensus on English Wikipedia that all high schools are notable. There is no basis for criticising Asher for creating an article which is fully compliant with accepted standards, whatever I or Mrschimpf or anyone else may personally think about the school.

Finally we have "has added links to their promotional website for Sheboygan on and off the last couple years through IP's and cleverly named socks". Unfortunately no specific examples are given, so it is impossible to assess that claim at all. The only thing I have seen which could remotely be considered relevant to this is the case I mentioned above of removal of a link to a website purely because Asher was the designer. I hope this is not the sort of thing which was being referred to, as who designed a web site has no bearing whatever to its relevance or appropriateness to the article from which it was linked. Trying to remove it simply on those grounds is unacceptable. What is more, the link was placed in the article by Asher Heimermann on 21 January 2007, just over a month before he was blocked, and so it is not relevant to suggestions of sockpuppetry or other unacceptable editing during the block. The editor who tried to have the link removed used the section heading "Asher's at it again". However, the link in question had been placed nearly four and a half years before, suggesting that the anonymous editor was accusing Asher without taking much care to check their facts. Also "at it again" suggests that the same anonymous editor may have taken similar steps before.

The conclusion I draw from all this is that no evidence of the supposed sockpuppetry has been presented, nor has any been found by my searches. There is, however, evidence of an unreasonable campaign by at least one editor to suppress content related however indirectly to Asher. (In the case of the removed link I have referred to, the web page linked does not mention Asher. The only indication of a connection is a small note at the bottom of the page saying "Website Designed by Sheboygan Communications", and to make the connection one has to (a) know enough about Asher to know that that is his company, and (b) be searching for such connections, or for some other reason be looking at the small print at the bottoms of web pages.)

There may be evidence that Asher has been evading his block. However unless and until such evidence is presented we have to assume good faith. I shall keep up my periodic checks on his editing, as I always intended to do. If I find no problems with his editing then that will be fine. If I do find problems I will take whatever action seems necessary, anything from a friendly warning to an immediate indefinite block, as seems appropriate. Anyone else is, of course, free to keep an eye on his editing too. Unless and until problems arise I see no need for any other steps. Asher has said that he would be willing to accept a mentor, but the word "mentor" is very broad in scope, and can mean anything from someone who will generally keep an eye on his editing and give him advice and guidance as and when necessary, to someone who will conduct an organised course of lessons in how to edit. I really do not think that Asher needs the latter: he clearly already knows a good deal about how to edit Wikipedia, but if anyone else who disagrees wishes to volunteer to do it and Asher wants to accept then they are of course free to do so. However, as far as the more low-key kind of mentoring is concerned, I have undertaken that role before for an unblocked editor with a controversial history, and I am willing to do it again if Asher wants me to. In that case I would change my informal intention of keeping an eye on his editing for a little while into a commitment to doing so for a specified period (three months is the period I have specified in the past), with feedback, advice, and warnings if and when I think fit, and an offer to be available for Asher to approach for help if and when he wants it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock. Asher conduct back 4.5 years ago wasn't heinous, it was irritating to a bunch of editors with his youthful exuberance. He was young and it showed. I didn't have a big problem with him back then and I think it's worth our time to give him another chance because I'm optimistic that we have come across a good editor. He just asked me for help with an article so that's an improvement already. I'm too busy in real life to be a "mentor" but he can ask me questions like he did.

I would be more comfortable with his agreement to be a better editor if his userpage didn't have links to his websites and social media pages. I don't think they're forbidden but since this was the problem before I think removing them would show good faith to the community. Royalbroil 12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

'retired' admin userbox?

In light of the recent mass retirement of admins, is there a 'retired admin' userbox anywhere? I dug around but couldn't find one. Manning (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm often last last to know things, but: mass retirement? o_O? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure someone can find the link. There was a recent RFC which 'Voluntarily retired' any admin who had not edited for some time (12 months I believe). As it is 'voluntary', these admins can reapply for their bit without going through RFA. I am actually asking because I also recently surrendered my admin bit - I'd taken a year long break and since returning I was getting a lot of "You screwed this up" and "you have violated policy" messages, hence I thought taking some time to get thoroughly reacquainted was in order. Manning (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks, I was looking for something more like an arbitration outcome, your pointer was enough for me to find it: Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins. With respect to getting flack upon re-appearance, and without looking at you actions yet, my $0.002 is that "you need a refresher" an easy stick with which to whack someone with whom you disagree. Are you intending to ask for it back in a suitable period? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No immediate intention of asking for it back, but having been an admin for nearly ten years I'd like something as a badge of my period of service. Manning (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

<-- Would that work for you? Jafeluv (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks very much :) Manning (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably should have a userbox for this, so {{User wikipedia/Former administrator}} (includes Verify link). Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Very nice, but, if the editor (now former admin) is no longer active, when are they going to put the nice little userbox on their page? Nobody else can do it for them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to say "former", since "retired" suggests total inactivity. :) --Moonriddengirl^(talk) 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--SPhilbrickT 14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "retired" because former might be more shocking to them when they return and it doesn't say they have retired from the project, only from being an admin. But that's just me.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The userbox {{User wikipedia/Former administrator}} does say "former". I've added an inactive parameter, which produces "whose administrator rights were suspended due to inactivity" Rd232^talk 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

More or less shocking than seeing they've been forced into retirement? =) I think Rd232's inactive=yes parameter works. –xeno^talk 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Former' doesn't really suit my situation, as many might interpret it as "involuntary'. I retired in good standing and of my own choice (I wanted to take some time to get back up to speed on everything after a long wikibreak). As MRG comments, 'Retired' could get interpreted as 'complete editing inactivity', but a check of my contrib log would demonstrate otherwise (assuming anyone actually cared that much). Manning (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a adjective parameter in the userbox so you can customise the description. Rd232 ^talk 23:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why nobody else can do it for them. If they have retired, they shouldn't have an admin userbox, but if the retirement was involuntarily implemented via the referenced 1 year inactivity period and they aren't around, then obviously they aren't going to remove their own, now inappropriate, userbox. In such a case, there is no reason that someone can't replace their current userbox with this one. There is not an absolute prohibition on editing someone's userpage and a good faith edit to replace their userbox to reflect their current status would be no more problematic than simply removing the old one.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Particularly if there's any now-incorrect categorisation, but even if there's merely text or userbox on the userpage which could be misleading, this should be fixed. I've added a note to WP:INACTIVITY. Rd232^talk 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not long ago I was inactive for a long time (6 months in my case). If I had returned to find my bit removed, and saw the proposed userbox (the one with the "inactive" parameter and additional language included) I would not mind at all, and would have even appreciated it. I wholly support the suggestions in this thread. -- Atama頭 18:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Doug. has it absolutely right. It is incorrect for the "Admin" userbox to remain on display, and if the editor *does* return, then a new userbox which conveniently links them to pages which explain the situation is an easy and painless way for them to find out what happened. Manning (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"...for them to find out what happened." - well hopefully they would receive {{Inactive admin}} or something similar on their talk page at the time the bit is removed. But the WP:INACTIVITY link/explanation is useful for editors who might visit a userpage but not read through past user talk discussions. Rd232 ^talk 23:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for copy of deleted page

Please could an admin send me the contents of this deleted page for some research I'm doing? Thanks :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 16:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Emailed you the content. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How does emailing effect attribution of the re-write if the article is restored? Or do we typically restore the history when a the re-written article passes deletion review and just make the re-write the most recent edit? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the history is restored (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material) and history merged with the new draft. This is sometimes done even when the drafts are written independently, with no attribution dependency. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted in 2007; my assumption (based on the phrasing of the request) was that this request was not a pre-cursor to getting it undeleted :) otherwise I would have restored it to userspace. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Patient closer wanted

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 2#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis. This has been through an epic RFC, a DRV, and now an epic CFD that's been open more than two weeks. Someone needs to decide on a winner. I'm offering one barnstar to whoever has the patience to read it all and close it properly, barnstar payable irrespective of the way it goes.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting closure of merging request

Talk:HC Litvínov#Player Mergers has been opened for more than a month. Since the merging request has been inactive for a couple of weeks, could an uninvolved admin close the discussion and remove the relevant merge request template from the article? Thanks, HeyMid (contribs) 09:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored from archive. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011

Discussion closed by Heymid. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

Taking into account Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers#Proposed solution, would an admin close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers? The RfC has been open since 9 June 2011. Cunard (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Closed due to inactivity. It's fairly clear that the subject has considered all of the allegations and proposals and has no further endorsements to add. RfC/Us by their nature are not binding, so if (1) problems persist and (2) users want a binding remedy, they need to either request the Community to impose something, or go to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that a summation by someone neutral will be helpful feedback for the participants in the RfC. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin Dashboard

Any one notice it just died for a few minutes - the content is getting too big for a template. It suddenly ended up being in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded - a quick look at a failed page showed...

<!--  NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 25296/1000000 Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 116476/2048000 bytes Expensive parser function count: 115/500 --> 

It's quite hard to fix these Post-expand include size problems. The main drain is usually the large use of {{•w}} in Navboxes - ideally take them all out and replace with a fixed dot. I would look at it, but it's time I retired for the night. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a super-expert on how that template works, but couldn't we replace all instances of that with a non-breaking space   before each bullet? –MuZemike 01:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've done it before when some of the Chemistry Navboxes got out of hand. I'll have a look. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Done the three boxes, that has released 10864 bytes. I suspect the problem occurred as there were a lot of pages listed that day, hopefully the extra 10K will prevent any more problems. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Do those templates have to use "no wrap". It's rather awkward to have them spilling off the page. DrKiernan (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone point me to this "Dashboard" so I can investigate. I doubt using {{•w}} is the source of the problem. — Edokter (talk) — 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

{{Admin dashboard}} - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 22:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

{{•w}} and {{·w}} are not the cause; they increase Post-expand include size by only 20k. Some other template/page must have triggered it. — Edokter (talk) — 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@Edokter - This is only peripherally related, in looking at the templates I was wondering, is there a performance issue with nested transclusions? If a template had transclusions 20 layers deep (template transcluded → another template transcluded → another...), would it create a performance issue? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was told or read somewhere that templates within templates are counted twice (I think it might have been Gimmetoo who said this). So, if there are more layers, then I guess it quadruples, etc. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion depth does indeed come with a penalty, but translclusion count far less so. Transclusion depth is cumulative, not exponential, meaning added levels do not double level-count. — Edokter (talk) — 11:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

#Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka

Would an admin close #Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka and log the editing restriction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal: Vote (X) for Change

Review of leaked emails

I happened to have seen the now redacted username in this posting. So, I suggest that the Admins who are involved on WR to review the leaked emails before they are posted by MaliceAforethought. Count Iblis (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No WP admins are WR moderators as far as I know. Nor do moderators on WR pre-approve postings before their publication. If I were you, I'd ignore the leakings. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BAG candidacy

Since it looks like we need more active BAG members, I volunteered to help out; feel free to leave comments. On a related note, if any of you are experienced editors with good tech skills when it comes to bots + would like to make it a haunt, please feel free to open one up as well. --slakr^{\ talk /} 10:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring, original research etc.

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{resolved}} Removed resolved template due to discussion of TreasuryTag Egg Centric 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Can someone please caution Skylark2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – and revert their edits to International relations since I'm at 3RR – for edit-warring and persistent original research across multiple articles and multiple months? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 09:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Can someone please inform Treasury Tag that his tone is unduly rude and he is adopting particularly personal position and blocking constructive editing by vandalizing a given edit? Also,he is slandering a given editor on the basis of earlier edit-controversies.Given Wikipedia welcomes the establishment of a position through healthy conflict,any such name calling makes it a potentially hostile place for any editor not empowered like an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Absolute nonsense. ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 09:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC) TT has eight reversions to this article within a single day. Now that's edit-warring. Skylark's addition might be right or it might be wrong, but it's still within the remit of GF(elastically) editing and content issues, not the outright vandalism that might excuse a pass of 3RR. So why a 3RR block for Skylark (thoroughly deserved), but nothing for TT - not even a warning? TT's actions here should not have been to continue to edit war with one editor. 3RR is very clear on this. If the addition was so bad, other editors could have reverted it (I note that one did). If Skylark's additions were so inappropriate or tendentious, they would be (and indeed were) blocked for them. Nor is this a BLP with some terrible libel that we have to remove at all costs. TT was edit warring here, plain and bright-line simple. So why no block for it? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I'm also puzzled by TT's edit summary here: Rvt vandalism – removal of valid information about the history of IR. In the Twinkle of an eye. This is the removal of Skylark's addition, not any reversion of another removal. There are three deletions like this, all labelled as the reversion of another's vandalism by deletion. Nor are these Twinkle messages, they're messages that TT must have entered manually. They seem most misleading, when they're removing another's addition during an edit war, but labelling it as reverting both a deletion (which editors often don't like) and vandalism (which editors really don't like). If that's not a misleading edit summary, what is. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Because 8RR is definitely edit warring, I've blocked TT for 24 hours; he's quite sufficiently experienced to know that Skylark could have been reported to WP:AN3 instead of continuously reverting. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) One of you who really cares about this sort of thing ought to think about getting his Twinkle access revoked as well. If y'all look though his edit history you'll see that he abuses it fairly regularly. I'd say something myself, but... Skylark2008 is correct about TT's personality, and I've metaphorically gotten "in his face" about it in the past, so I'm concerned that me bringing this up in the appropriate place (somewhere on Wikipedia:Twinkle) will be seen in the wrong light. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 15:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC) TreasuryTag has driven off countless editors from this project through extreme incivility, biting, etc. Not just new users but experienced editors as well. He makes Wikipedia a less pleasant place and is a nasty little bully. He's also extremely difficult to deal with as he is a wiki lawyer par excellence and is a genius at sticking to the letter of rules while blatantly breaking the spirit of them. A typical victim's choices seem like engaging him on his terms - virtually impossible without the mindset of a lawyer and an encyclopaedic knowledge of policy - or telling him where to go - and then they get blocked for NPA. The only thing that will sort him out is if he pisses off the wrong person (unlikely: he prefers to pick on less competent targets) who can lawyer like him and get him community banned; alternatively I am convinced that a look through his history can provide enough material to the sufficiently motivated user who really understands how to present a case Egg Centric 15:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. Did anyone notice his re-adding the block notice to Skylark's talk page [45]AND THEN IN HIS VERY NEXT EDIT ALTERING POLICY TO JUSTIFY HIS ACTION: [46]??? Egg Centric 16:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) In all fairness, that's longstanding policy; if a discussion took place to support Camelbinky's preferred version, I've never seen it. I don't understand why you request removal of Twinkle, as it seems that everything going on here was done manually. Or are you talking about Twinkle usage at the userpage policy page? Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) How do you figure that everything was done manually? All of the edits in question here say "in the Twinkle of an eye.", and just glancing at his contribs I see a good dozen other Twinkle uses yesterday and earlier today, and I'm not even trying to search for them... — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Surely Twinkle isn't set up to create edit summaries such as "Rvt vandalism – removal of valid information about the history of IR"? Most of the edits in the recent history of International relations (e.g. 09:12 today) don't even mention Twinkle. Or are you talking about some other edits and I'm simply misunderstanding you? If so, my apologies for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I was speaking generally, not limited to the event/incident in question. but... <shrug> my level of caring about this is really minimal. I just thought it was worth mentioning, because I have seen TT really abuse Twinkle in the past. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Ah, okay. I've not really paid attention to TT, so I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with his use of the tool in other situations. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Twinkle asks for an edit summary when reverting as simple "rollback": Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Revert_and_rollback. Can't comment at this point on whether there are issues of Twinkle abuse, but I've declined TT's unblock request. Rd232talk 09:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I just visited TT's talk page for this first time since this started (in response to your [rd232's] note above), and it appears as though he's "retired". I can't pretend to actually be upset, but... I think we should back off, so I'm going to archive this discussion. No need to rub it in the guy's nose. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 16:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

eHarmony Video Bio

This page would be a redirect to Cara Hartmann, but it does not seem to be editable by the general public. If an admin could please redirect the eHarmony Video Bio page to Cara_Hartmann#eHarmony_Video_Bio that would be great.

Thanks for your time. --Drdak (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. What type of message did you get when you tried to create it? Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a second. How in the world does this one person meet the expectations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "eHarmony Video Bio"? You mean to tell me that, out of all possible people and uses, this one person is so famous for having a video bio that she(?) uses for eHarmony that the title should redirect to her page? (Not that the eHarmony Video Bio page should be protected, but still... that's sort of a different topic).
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 21:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted the article's text as an indication that the title of the video was "eHarmony Video Bio". If that's correct, such a popular video title really should be redirected to the article about its creator, as long as that article is in existence. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading the section of the Cara Hartmann article... I don't see that. She's one person who's turned herself into a minor celebrity by self publishing to YouTube, and has happened to create a video (for, or about? That doesn't seem real clear, to me) eHarmony. Anyway, Looking at the eHarmony Video Bio page history and logs... it wasn't protected, or what? It's certainly not protected now, so it doesn't seem that this is an appropriate place to discuss this any longer. I'll just go and change the redirect to point to eHarmony. It'll probably get changed again, but... <shrug>
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a problem with the title blacklist. Graham87 05:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh... that makes sense. Thanks for the heads up, Graham.
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the topic, she made a video proporting to be an eHarmony bio. In the video, she pretends to be an obsessively crazy cat person. It's good for a few laughs. Anyway, the video went viral a few weeks ago. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka

User:Rohith goura and Twinkle

I have concerns about Rohith goura (talk · contribs) using Twinkle properly. The matter came to my attention when the above user warned me for not using edit summaries. Despite proof to the contrary that I used edit summaries, not reply was forthcoming on the issue. It was not a one-off incident, and MikeWazowski (talk · contribs) was incorrectly warned for vandalism for this edit. Rohith goura failed to engage with editors over either issue and simply archived the notices. Today it seems Rohith warned Dayewalker (talk · contribs) about marking edits as minor. All these notices were handed out using Twinkle. If Rohith can't use the tool properly, and doesn't seem inclined to discuss the issue, I don' think the user should have access to it. Nev1 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I had just finished leaving a message on his talk page when I saw this thread. My edit was [47] actually with Rollback, as it was vandalism to a BLP. I left a polite message so as not to bite the newbs, but if he's not going to respond, something should probably be done to get his attention to prevent disruption. Dayewalker (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe those old warning were archived, they were simply deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted (or archived) warnings mean that they have been noted. If they continue, issue a final warning and then report to ANI if no effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Backlog

If someone's available, WP:RPP hasn't been cleared in seven hours. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:WCGSOldBoy

Closing the merger proposal on Myth of Skanderbeg

There was a merger proposal on the article Myth of Skanderbeg on March 24, 2011. Since after more than four months there was no consensus to support the proposal (on the contrary, majority of the participants in the discussion opposed the merging) and there is no discussion about it for some time (two and a half months), according to the Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger ("If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard") I invite an administrator to close the discussion and to make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need more input on this. Personally, I think there are too few opinions given for me to close it properly. - Penwhale ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I closed it as "No consensus to merge", as the opinions were evenly split.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Some RFCs that could do with closing

• Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Did_recent_currency_image_deletions_go_beyond_the_proper_aims_and_objectives_of_the_NFC_image_policy.3F
  • Launched 10 May 2011
• RfC on whether images of historical importance must themselves be the "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use for them
  • Listed 4 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011
• Poll to gain consensus on use of hyphens and dashes in relation to a request for arbitration
  • Listed 3 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011
• RfC on improving account security
  • Listed 3 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011

Not necessarily an admin job, but this seems the conventional place to ask for closures. Rd232 public ^talk 12:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The account security one has seen a few additional comments today, so perhaps hold off on closing that one for a couple or days more. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The dash drafting poll says it is supposed to remain open until the 16th. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Several more recently archived RfCs:

• RfC on a proposed new exemption from the three-revert rule
  • Listed 8 June 2011, archived 7 July 2011
• Proposal to establish a minimum prep-time for main-page blurbs
  • Listed 22 June 2011, archived 7 July 2011

Cunard (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Timotheus Canens (talk·contribs) for closing Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption

  Thank you, MER-C (talk · contribs) for closing several of the proposals at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security and filing bugzillas for them. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I closed the Main Page one. The one about currency images is archived and didn't reach any consensus. I'm not sure that editing the archive to add a "no consensus" box around it would add any benefit. --RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the Main Page RfC. I am uncertain about whether the currency images should be closed. On the one hand 30 June 2011, Jheald (talk·contribs) restored the RfC from the archives, writing "de-archived unclosed RfC", indicating that participants might want a closure. On the other, there is no consensus for any policy or guideline changes. Cunard (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it was re-archived after Jheald de-archived it. If the RfC had anything approaching a consensus, I'd favor giving it a proper close, but as it is I'm not sure a general "no consensus for any of the stated opinions" close has any more finality to it than plain archiving does. --RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Plain archiving is acceptable, though if Jheald de-archives it a second time it probably should be given a proper close. Thank you for reviewing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting The Deletion Of List of African American women

This indicated that the page was to be turned into category and then deleted. Category:African_American_women was made by a now retired editor who I presume had no knowledge of List of African American women. Because the category has been made and even went thru a discussion, I am now requesting List of African American women to be deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Our policy seems so entirely inconsistent that I think it will be time for a RfC, on a proposal that every category should have a list and v.v. It should eliminate a lot of duplicative discussions. (where we will then hold the XfD is an interesting question, however). DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The AFD mentioned does not itself mention Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (shortcut wp:CLT) which explains clearly the usefulness of having both category and list. Just because inclusion criteria might be hard to define sharply, does not mean an important list should be deleted. This seems like an important list. "List_of_African_American_women" should be read as "List_of_NOTABLE_African_American_women" of course. The inclusion criteria could be something like "persons known for being African American women" as well as being notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. I don't know about where a general RfC should be held, but reviewing the AFD decision on this one list seems like a good idea. --doncram 03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecking about 6 women on the list, I find not a single one included in any category of African-American women. So the list should not be deleted yet, no matter what. Creating the category is not enough, all these women need to be put into it! And, the list should be kept to ensure that the articles could be revisited later, to ensure they're all still in the category. --doncram 04:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What is v.v?Curb Chain (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed all the unsourced entries. Most of the entries on the list are actors. All "african american" women on wikipedia are notable. If we are to maintain such a list, that would be almost impossible and probably VERY very lengthy.Curb Chain (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, v.v. means vice versa. The rest of what Curb Chain says belongs at AfD or, possibly, DRV, rather than here.—S MarshallT/C 11:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The afd for List of African American women indicated that it should be turned into a category then deleted. It was turned into a category. All that is required is for the page to be deleted. Why should it need to go thru another afd when this page was not recreated? I've already asked the closing administrator of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_16#Category:African_American_women to delete List of African American women but he ignored me. Is this not the next step?Curb Chain (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that given what DGG says, the next step might be a deletion review of that AfD, because the outcome wasn't in accordance with WP:CLN, or perhaps an RFC.—S MarshallT/C 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just want to point out that we can deal with even extremely lengthy lists by a variety of techniques, including an alphabetic index, or, if extreme, by dividing into several articles. WP is NOT PAPER.All that is necessary is for someone interested to maintain it.

And, CC, did you check that the items you removed didn't have sources in the articles on the people? DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If we don't use other articles as sources, then are you suggesting that we can in this case or that the source should have been copied over (after checking it of course, you can't just copy sources willy-nilly). Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Majority rule?

Not an issue for administrators. Have this discussion elsewhere.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This post shocks me; Mclay1 (talk · contribs), a would-be admin, has claimed, about a 15-14 !vote about a controversial guideline, that the minority should be ignored. Let me quote in full: If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition. Why should opposition outweigh support? If the majority of users think that the guidelines are fine and think the opposition is wrong, then, sorry, but that's just tough luck. It's impossible to please everybody. You know, I thought we were not a democracy, and operated by consensus, precisely to avoid attitudes like this. Has our policy changed? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Why is this here? T. Canens (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

this is still not an issue for administrators. The OP has been advised of better venues for this discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Then where? If this is not the place to find whether a substantial body of respected editors agree with this novel sentiment, where is? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 20:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The user's talk page, the MoS talk page, and WP:RFA spring immediately to mind. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 20:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Also see and cite the policy at WP:Consensus. Later, one might ask for input at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) or through WP:RFC. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Other places: WP:VPM, WP:RFC, Wikipedia talk:Consensus etc. General discussions about Wikipedia culture and standards are important discussions to have. This venue, however, is not a free-for-all, and there is no conceivable way one could consider this topic to be needing of administrators to commit some administrator action. Again: discussion good, here bad. Have it somewhere else. --Jayron32 20:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I've tried some of those; I will consider RfAr; I thought it might be useful to have a nice drama-free discussion of what policy was (if it isn't what our policy pages say) instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) From your previous comments at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Do_we_run_by_majority_vote.3F, I've assumed that your real question could be phrased, "Can I invoke NOTDEM prevent my losing the MOSDASH debate?" Sometimes we really do have to take a majority decision. We cannot simultaneously do "A" and "not-A", and (as in the MOSDASH debate) it is not always possible to do nothing. Given that nobody has yet showed any sympathy for this interpretation of NOTDEM, I do not think that trying yet another forum will produce the answer you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

An open letter about vandalism

Speaking as a confessed Wikipedia vandal...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Wikipedians, Speaking as a confessed Wikipedia vandal, I would like to clarify my rationale for abusing your website in the hope that it can help you to understand this problem and try to prevent it in the future. I would like to take the opportunity to state that I find your website to be a largely admirable venture, although it is not without problems at the very heart of how it works. As my acts of vandalism have proven, it is extremely easy for internet users to use Wikipedia as a tool for causing trouble either to make a point or for their own amusement. The policy of permitting virtually anyone to edit Wikipedia also has the downside of making it easy to add incorrect information to the website, which has done much to reduce the credibility of your website in the wider world. Of course, many users perform the admirable task of removing vandalism from your website and their actions should be commended, but subtler forms of vandalism have led Wikipedia to become rampant with factual inaccuracies which are much harder for legitimate users to spot and revert. They are also more likely to be believed by unassuming browsers who end up being misinformed by a website which is supposed to be a tool for discovering information. Speaking personally, I can say that, while my obvious acts of vandalism were almost all reverted immediately, some subtler errors which I introduced are still in place a long time after they were added. This highlights the problem of Wikipedia's openness allowing inaccuracies to creep in across the project, especially as it is unrealistic for such a huge website to be entirely 'policed' by users. The wide readership of Wikipedia has led me to decide it is an ideal website to pursue a personal grudge, which I have carried out via numerous accounts. My edits usually do not last long, but I still feel that they give my cause a publicity that would not be viable via other means. This idea has been further engendered by numerous discussions on talk and other pages which have mentioned or been critical of my actions. Aside from giving me great amusement, reading these discussions made me all the more determined to keep vandalising Wikipedia in the hope of gaining even more 'recognition' within the community. Therefore, the discussion of vandalism on your website, while necessary, just gives vandals more of an impetus to keep causing disruption so they can be discussed more and more. When I am 'in the zone' (that is, vandalising Wikipedia and laughing manically) my greatest desire is to have a special page constructed, detailing my vandalism and my numerous accounts. Many such pages do indeed exist, which is highly likely to provoke vandals into causing even more trouble. I believe it is one of your policies to 'deny recognition' to people like me by calmly reverting our edits and blocking us. Unfortunately, some editors appear to engage in too much discourse with and about vandals, contravening this policy and thus encouraging more disruption. When I read editors commenting on my actions, I get a rush that I get from few things other than intercourse. When a sock puppet investigation was opened to investigate my behaviour, I couldn't stop laughing and smiling. It is this rush that ensured I keep returning to Wikipedia to cause trouble. A more low-key (perhaps even private) means of discussing these affairs would prevent users like me from getting the recognition that we patently do not deserve. It is appalling that someone with my history of infantile, spiteful and offensive edits should be allowed to use Wikipedia, yet I have found it extremely easy to keep registering on the website again and again. Wikipedia is a factual website that could be of great value as a rare bastion of intelligent and impartial information on the internet, but your tolerance of anonymous editors and lack of screening of those who join is discrediting this. Allowing everyone to edit Wikipedia is certainly a nice idea but it is simply not a viable means of running an informative website. As an 'online encyclopaedia', the contributors to your website should be required to have some sort of credentials that asserts how they can speak from a position of expertise on certain matters. It is very admirable that you allow anonymous users to edit Wikipedia but sadly, it is hard to trust users who have nothing but an IP address to their name. I would also like to see some means of editing that prevents the possibility of disruptive edits finding it on to the website in the first place. Obviously, these steps would make Wikipedia a drastically different place and they may be difficult to enforce but I would like to see a Wikipedia that can be trusted as a reliable source for valid information and one that will not stand for vandals like me. One of my reasons for disrupting Wikipedia is to demonstrate how easy it is for troublesome users to spoil the hard work of decent, legitimate contributors on your website. Obviously, this is an inappropriate way to make a point but I hope I have proven that your website's openness has gone too far. Finally, I would like to apologise unreservedly for the disruption I have caused on Wikipedia. My actions have been unacceptable. The manner in which I placed my own petty amusements above the regards of your online community was selfish. In writing this letter, I am hoping that I can counteract the damage I caused by giving you some constructive criticism as to how to improve your website. Thank you, RiverSbank (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Only so you know, by far most anonymous IPs and editors with new accounts do not vandalize this website. One of Wikipedia's lasting strengths has been that it allows open editing. Thankfully there are so many volunteers willing to clean up the vandalism that does happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I believe (although it's impossible to be sure) that most of our admins had actually started out as anons, eventually deciding to create an account after several edits (or maybe even several hundred, although not likely that many). עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 19:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My first edits here, more than seven years ago, were as an anon IP. I typed in the name of something I wanted to learn more about, found nothing there at all, clicked on a link and bingo, was writing the article myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated your article for deletion. J/K. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Busted! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

<ahem> Deny recognition, please (good job so far, Gwen. )
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's healthy to think about the open editing/vandalism thing now and then. Guess I was in the mood to WP:DENY the above in this way, today. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

talk:China is looking for an impartial closer for a move request

At Talk:China a move request needs an impartial closer to decide whether or not a consensus has been reached on this proposal. It seems like time to close the discussion but I am a participant in that discussion so I cannot make that decision. any takers? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not checked if the discussion had died down already, but it seems to me it could do with a good number of people commenting who otherwise have no involvement in the China related articles. Agathoclea (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We discussed making a Request for Comment but it was decided that it made more sense to do things one step at a time, with so many having already participated, some felt that a consensus had in fact already been reached. If so there would be no point in requesting extra help. In general though. the issue does need outside help. No matter what the result of the move request is, the question of what should go under the title "china" will not be settled, to do so would require lots of outside help. The debate runs through the entire history of the page, all the way back to 2002. It's an extremely important topic and it needs to be settled, but not in a hasty fashion. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah a close would be definitely welcome :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the discussion dieing down, that is not likely to ever happen, although discussion of this particular proposal has slowed dramatically. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Would be nice to get this closed. I think its really poor if this needs escalating to get a move request closed appropriately. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW If a joint decision involving multiple admins is needed as its moderately controversial I'm perfectly happy with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are any interested Admins around waiting for discussion to die down, I would recommend they also consider Waiting for Godot. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Page move talk page problems

There has been problems getting the right content on the right talk pages at Greg Mathews and Greg Mathews (baseball). I think now the histories are somewhat messed up based on the content on the pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Done--Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of controversial move request?

GTB requested review of his close, it's been reviewed and found to be within policy, everything else is content dispute that requires no admin action; take it to the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I closed the move request(link added by NW (Talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)) at Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi after reading the whole thing and weighing arguments for about 2 days. Quite unsurprisingly, I'm getting complaints about it, so I'm bringing the close here for review by other administrators and other members of the community. Up front: I don't care one way or the other what the article is called. I have no preference of my own, and if I did, I would not have attempted to read a decision out of the discussion. Thanks in advance for any opinions, or other thoughts. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I haven't read the entire debate, but from what I see, it looks like a well-reasoned close. --Orlady (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Regardless of whether I would have closed it the same way as you would have (and I don't know if I would have), I think that your close was a well-reasoned one that clearly showed that you put a great deal of thought into determining which group had the strongest arguments. As someone must make the final call, I see no reason to overturn your closure. NW (Talk) 18:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Looks like you did a good job analyzing the discussion. You didn't just go with "the ayes have it", you listed all the arguments and showed how you were weighting them. You came to the same conclusion I did, though, so take this with a grain of salt. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC) There was no consensus to move, so you didn't move it. That was the correct decision.—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Not seeing any problems here with your decision. MBisanztalk 18:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I !voted for the article to be moved (to Gandhi) and continue to believe that that's the right policy-based decision. However, I think it is important to recognize that an impartial administrator will see things differently from someone (like me!) who already has a strong opinion and that this 'impartial admin deciding consensus' is an important tool that allows most of us who care about the pedia to move on without rancor. Second guessing an impartial opinion is a mug's game that is bad for this encyclopedia in the long run. I suggest that, given this was clearly an uninvolved close, the thread be closed immediately and all participants be asked to move along. In the long run, the title of this article is less important than the process of decision making that we follow here. --rgpk(comment) 19:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC) That wouldn't bother me. I posted here because I always do that when I'm challenged on an RM decision. I'm satisfied by comments here so far — as I hope are my critics — that I haven't done anything grossly out-of-line. Thanks for your comments. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I want to point out here, as I did on the talk page, that I did not challenge you on the decision. I said I was bothered by one comment, no more than that. Scolaire (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I suspect that this sort of thing is going to pop up here more often until those criteria are better-clarified. Some people clearly hold a view that particular criterion (eg; common name) holds more weight than some of the other criteria, while others have a different view (be it that they treat another criterion with greater weight or they think all of the criteria should be given the same level of weight). In specific situations, there will always be two sides to a debate, but it becomes more complicated (and contentious) when people are not even on the same page about how the criteria should be applied in general situations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, this is an issue, and the reality (which may or may not bother any particular editor) is that the relative weights of the criteria vary from situation to situation. In this case, for example, the recognizability criterion was given less weight because the less recognizable option is still pretty darn recognizable. The weight of the recognizability criterion increases with the difference in recognizability between the options under consideration. Each criterion is complicated in this way, and trying to make the article naming process clear and deterministic and algorithmic is simply a bad case of jumping the gun. That's true until we are much, much clearer on just how article titling works. We can't just decide something and start enforcing it, because it has to come from the community, and this type of thing is difficult to read. It's not even clear that the 5 naming criteria we have listed at WP:AT are the only five factors to consider. They're just five things we wrote down one day, and we can't say with any degree of certainty that they present a complete picture, nor that there's a single correct way to apply them. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I think you're talking about different contexts. Ncmvocalist is talking about how criteria is weighed in general, or, if you will, the basis used to decide how much to weigh each criterion relative to the others in specific conditions, and GTB is just noting that in each case we end up weighing the criteria differently. They seem like compatible views to me. I think we can say much more about how they're weighed than we currently do, but that's a discussion for another forum. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC) What does "conciseness" mean? I did not participate in the discussion about this proposal, but I do request specific commentary on the interpretation of WP:CONCISE to mean merely "titles are not to be overly long". By using this interpretation, in the analysis of how the Principal Naming Criteria applied to this situation the closing admin found that the "conciseness" criterion did not prefer the shorter "Gandhi" to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", which is over four times longer. Does anyone else find this rather odd and unconventional (I know of no precedent for this interpretation)? Remember that WP:CRITERIA explicitly clarifies the meaning of "conciseness" in titles to mean, "titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer". I mean, what's the point of clearly specifying what these criterion mean if they are going to be ignored? I think it sets a bad precedent. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) This is what you get for closing difficult moves, see. And people wonder why the backlog at WP:RM gets out of control. I didn't "ignore" the criterion, Born2cycle, but I don't have time to reply to you right now. I'll be back in a few hours, and I'll take more shit for having taken on a decision nobody else was willing to do. Christ. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I basically gave up on the whole RM area a while back, largely due to the frustration that GTBacchus is expressing here. Article titles are tough, I think, because they are a rather "all or nothing" affair. There's a not-insignificant group of people who seem to feel that article titles are fairly insignificant, but the continual interest in them contradicts this view I think (and I think that sort of dismissive attitude creates more of a dispute here than there would otherwise be). Based on my experiences, I think that it's clear that we need better guidance on what we expect from our article titles. There's an ongoing issue with diacritics (although that dispute seems to have died down over the last few days), and there's always arguments about things such as "the person prefers to use <whatever> name" sort of thing, just to mention a couple of common problems that perpetually arise with RM's. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) If you're referring to GTBacchus's comment in his sandbox, the full "interpretation" is: "The single-word name is shortest, and the two-word names are shorter than the two-word-plus-initial or three-word names, but none of the options really falls afoul of this criterion. A person's full name is concise, within any reasonable set of encyclopedia standards." This seems like a perfectly rational comment to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC) To Born2Cycle: If by "conciseness criterion" you understand that "Gandhi" is to be preferred to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi," simply because it has less letters, then the criterion becomes meaningless, for it (trivially) prefers the surname (or one name) on every Wikipedia biography page. However, except for Liberace and Morrisey and a few other stage names, and a few pseudonyms such as Nadar and Colette, there are no Wikpedia page names of people born in the last 150 years that consist only of surnames. What, for example, will be the value of your interpretation of conciseness in the page names of Waldo's friends or Goethe's peers or Gandhi's comrades? I believe GTB has made an eminently reasonable decision. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC) "Gandhi" IS more concise than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", however "Gandhi" alone is not unambiguous and fails on other criteria. I think GTBacchus' analysis of the application of concision as quoted by Floquenbeam above is spot on. older ≠ wiser 12:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Gandhi is unambiguous – look where Ghandi redirects. That said, I agree with the rest of your comments and with the general sentiment here that GTBacchus's closure was reasonable. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC) No, "Gandhi" is ambiguous, but it is considered to have a primary topic that happens to be at a different title. older ≠ wiser 16:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, "Gandhi" is ambiguous, but since this topic is primary for "Gandhi" the fact that it is ambiguous is irrelevant to the title decision for this use of it (the ambiguity is highly relevant to the title decision for all the other uses of "Gandhi", of course). As I explained below, whether it fails on the other criteria is a separate issue from the topic of this subsection, which is exclusively about what is preferred per Concision alone, without regard to the other criteria. And on that point you and I agree (!) with each other, but disagree with GTB. You and I agree that "Gandhi" IS more concise than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". GTB's position is that Concision alone indicates no preference between the two; that "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" meets the Concision criterion just as well as "Gandhi" because "A person's full name is concise". --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I apologize for being unclear. I have no opinion on the overall decision and about whether it was justified. I also don't mean to take GTB to task. In fact, I applaud GTB for using this method of analysis - driven by the criteria - largely because it is so transparent. I must question, however, one particular aspect of the analysis upon which the decision was based, where he finds "No preference" for the Concise criterion because "A person's full name is concise". This is contrary to my understanding, because, as Bkonrad notes, "Gandhi" IS more concise than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". Whether that title "fails under other criteria" is a separate matter (discussed above)... in this part of the analysis we are only asking which, if any, of the two titles is preferred by the Concision criterion alone, without regard to the other criteria. To address Fowler's point, it is not true that interpreting Concision to prefer Gandhi simply because it's shorter makes it meaningless. Concision also prefers Bush to George Bush, and prefers George Bush over George W. Bush but we go with the latter despite Concision (not because Concision has "no preference") because the others fail under Precision. If this president had been the only notable topic in the world referred to as "Bush" in reliable English sources, and was most commonly referred to as only "Bush", then we might very well choose Bush for the title of the article about him, for essentially the same reasons we have Liberace, which is largely because of Concision. To say that Concision is outweighed by other factors, as it definitely is in the case of "Bush" vs. "George W. Bush" and in the vast majority of all cases involving people, is one thing, and I have no issue with that (unless the other criteria don't outweigh it, which, again, is the issue being discussed above this subsection, not here). But to say that Concision has no preference in those cases, and in this one, because "A person's full name is concise" is, I believe, interpreting this criterion in a way I've never seen it interpreted. To say that Concision has no preference between Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Gandhi per GTB's "A person's full name is concise" interpretation of Concision is to say that Concision has no preference between Wladziu Valentino Liberace and Liberace, and doesn't even prefer George Herbert Walker Bush to George H. W. Bush. I suggest such reasoning reflects a truly meaningless interpretation of Concision, and I'm concerned about this decision setting a precedent for this interpretation of Concision, because it truly would make it meaningless. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) In the English language, not often are middle names used, unless differentiation is needed, or the subject is much more well known with the middle name a part of the common name. With the usage of initials, I'm pretty sure that e. e. cummings would be a good example of this. We only need enough information to distinguish between different subjects, when possible. That's concise AND precise. - Penwhaledance in the air and follow his steps 18:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Exactly. But according to the Gandhi-is-no-more-concise-than-Mohandas-Karamchand-Gandhi interpretation of Concision used in this decision, E. E. Cummings is no more concise than Edward Estlin Cummings because "A person's full name is concise". Does anyone agree with that? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Let me try this again: Use the minimum information needed to distinguish people. And it's actually rare for people to use their full middle name in the US (now, if the full name were used as a custom in the US, then we probably would have the 2 Bushes under their full name and not just their middle initials). Same argument applies to e.e. cummings, to a certain degree. - Penwhaledance in the air and follow his steps 18:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Can you please explain how the point you're trying to make applies to the issue being discussed in this subsection? In other words, do you agree or disagree with the contention that "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" is no less concise than "Gandhi"? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC) It is probably better to have this discussion on the Article Title talk page; this page is really about whether he closed properly or not. The consensus here seems to be that he did. I have given you some single name examples such as Liberace and others, but they are all people who called themselves (and were called to their faces by others) by this one name. Come up with a few examples on Wikipedia of people (who are not royals or pseudo-royals, such as Napoleon) with normal 2-word or 3-word names, born in the last 200 years, whose Wikipedia pages consist of only their surnames. If you can with a few, we can talk on the Article Title talk page; if not, your interpretation of "conciseness" (to include as the first option the bare-boned surname) is unimplementable in practice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) The dearth of just-surname examples (which I don't dispute) is not evidence that supports the interpretation of Concision to mean "A person's full name is concise", or that concision does not mean shorter titles are preferred. The dearth of just-surname examples is evidence of Concision being outweighed by other criteria, most notably Precision which probably accounts for most of it (surname alone is almost always ambiguous and rarely has a primary use) and Naturalness (what "readers are most likely to look for"). But Recognizability and Consistency (since Ronald Reagan is not at Reagan, Bill Clinton should not be at Clinton) play a role too. It's because Precision, Naturalness, Recognizabilty and Consistency all indicate the use of a full name that we almost exclusively use full names as titles in articles about people, not because full names are no less concise than surnames. I mean, newspaper articles use surnames alone throughout the body of articles precisely because surnames are more concise than full names. Isn't that obvious? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC) "Concise": wikt:concise:: "brief, yet including all important information" OED: "Expressed in few words; brief and comprehensive in statement; not diffuse." "concise" and "short" are not the same because it is possible to be "too short" but not "too concise". A lot of the interpretive flexibility is in whether "all important information" (wiktionary) is included, since what is important is arguable. Here, the question seems to be whether "comprehensive" (OED) for a title requires the title to be a unique identifier. But that opens up cans of worms about uniqueness. For example, there are plenty of cases of people where even using the full name as the title doesn't give you a unique title, and you have to disambiguate in various ways. So, for article titles, I'd say the only sensible way to interpret "concise" is as "the shortest title which is unique". That then combines with other criteria (we won't always use the shortest title which is unique). Rd232talk 18:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC) The only sensible way to interpret "concise" is as "the shortest title which is unique". Hmm. I don't think Madonna (alone) is not suitable for being the title of the article about the entertainer because it is not concise, but because it is ambiguous (and not the primary use). Failure on uniqueness does not make it any less concise - it's still concise, and certainly more concise than "Madonna Louise Ciccone". It just needs to be more precise in order to be a title. Thus we have Madonna (entertainer), which is concise, but not as concise as "Madonna". --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Put another way, concise means pithy. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Well, what conciseness means in general, in prose, is different from what it means in the specific context of titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I think you've missed my point, by continuing to equate conciseness with brevity (shortness) alone, when concise is brief and comprehensive (which I argue in the context of the article title has to be interpreted in relation to uniqueness). I would argue precisely, to use your example, that "Madonna", whilst undoubtedly brief, is not "concise", because it isn't comprehensive (because it's not unique). By contrast "Madonna (entertainer)" is concise in the way that I've argued we should understand "concise" in the context of article titles, because it is both brief and unique (enough). You try to call this concept "precise", but what you really mean is uniqueness. And the point about "concise" is that it combines brevity and uniqueness. Example: Madonna Louise Ciccone (born xx, place bla, best known for blahdyblahblah) is increasingly precise, but it's getting away from brevity, whilst uniqueness is satisfied with rather less. Rd232talk 22:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Okay, I'm with you now, but still, in the context of WP titles it's not really uniqueness but "unique (enough)", because being the primary use suffices, even if not unique. But even with that understanding of "concise", it still does not follow that "a person's full name is concise". The U.S. president's full name, for example, is "Barack Hussein Obama II", but we use Barack Obama, which is more concise, and Obama, which is even more concise, redirects to it, thus proving the surname alone is sufficient. That is, if we were to evaluate a proposal to move Barack Obama to Obama, Concision would prefer the shorter one (of course, the decision would not only be based on Concision). This is why I am asking whether anyone agrees with the part of the analysis that found Conciseness to not prefer Gandhi to the four times longer full name. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Shouldn't a debate over the meaning of "conciseness" in the WP:Article titles policy take place at that policy? Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Well, it's about an interpretation that was made in a particular RM decision. But I suppose we can move it and leave a link. Anyone object to moving this over to WT:TITLE and leaving a link here? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I see no reason to burden that talk page with this argument unless someone other than Born2Cycle also subscribes to this position. Is there a second? The actual policy is that there are five good things which the ideal title would have, and concision is only one of them; it may well have, in practice, less weight than the others. Another is precision; the title should be long enough to mean the article subject, not, say, Indira Gandhi; this establishes a de facto convention of using at least first names (with exceptions for odd cases, like Najibullah or Liberace). Exceptions should be made when there is consensus to do so; there wasn't. Another is consistency in following de facto conventions, when they exist. In this case, the use of a first name and not a title of respect is a de facto convention. Lastly, I find Mohandas less recognizable than Mohandas K. or Mohandas Karamchand; recognizability is yet another desirable quality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC) PMA, I don't understand why you're talking about all the other criteria in a discussion about the meaning of one of the criteria in particular. Anyway, when you say "unless someone other than Born2Cycle also subscribes to this position" (my bold emphasis), exactly what position are you referring to by this position? Please use quotes of whatever words of mine are necessary to show that whatever this position is, that it's mine. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC) P.S., my main position here is that Conciseness does not mean that full names are concise as was claimed in the analysis. And Bkonrad indicates agreement with this position when he says, "Gandhi" IS more concise than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". Do you disagree with that? Do you actually disagree with anything I've said? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC) That is to say: Does anybody else see any point to continuing this discussion at WT:TITLES or is this another pf B2C's one-man crusades? We've had those before; we had them under his last user-name. And I bring up the other points, because all five points are intended to be of the same form: in the case of conciseness: "Be brief, unless this causes too much trouble with the other points. " Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC) What does "natural" mean? In the previous subsection we looked at how GTB interpreted and weighed the "conciseness" criterion in the criteria weighing section of his analysis such that he found "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" to be just as concise as "Gandhi". Since then I've read more of the analysis, and am now puzzled by his analysis with respect to the "natural" criterion as well. As he did with Conciseness, he quotes what is actually said at WP:TITLE, and then apparently completely ignores those words and uses a personal interpretation that is quite different from what those words mean, without telling us what that interpretation is, though here he gives some hints by saying "both WP:COMMONNAME and the principle of least astonishment come into play here". Even then, he says nothing about what is the most common name, or even how one might determine which of the candidates in this case is most common. The essence of the Natural criterion is stated by the policy to be, "names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article", but I see no evidence that GTB took this into account at all. If he did, he certainly didn't say anything about that. Apparently reducing "Natural" to mean only "does not astonish", he concludes that based on Natural there is "No Preference", as if readers are just as likely to search with "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" as they are with "Gandhi" when looking for this article. GTB did not seem to consider that Google Scholar gives about 2,400 ghits[49] for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", and 409,000 for just Gandhi [50], and 46,400 if we add Mahatma to that last search [51]. I suggest it's untenable to contend that readers are just as likely to search with "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" as they are with "Gandhi" when looking for this topic. That GTB found "No strong preference" here simply because he believes neither violates the principle of least astonishment is, well, astonishing. Now I am starting to question this decision, since it appears to be based on unreasonable interpretations and applications of at least two of the criteria: Conciseness and Natural. Reasonable interpretations of what the policy says coupled with the evidence indicates a strong preference for "Gandhi" over "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", not "no preference", at least per these criteria, which is all I've checked closely. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Consistent - analysis is reasonable Well, now my suspicions are raised, so off to examine his analysis in terms of the Consistent criterion we go. Here, his interpretation does seem to be consistent with what WP:TITLE says, Titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles.", because he makes statements indicating he was looking at similar articles. Other biographies, for example, mentioning Liberace and Morrissey, but not Christo, Mantovani, Shakira, Cher, Madonna or Teller (entertainer). But he notes that Gandhi "is peerless", that he hasn't seen a close precedent, nor does he expect there is one. In that case one might think on the basis of Consistent, since there are no peers or precedents, there would no preference, right? Wrong! Consistency prefers the full names because he compares to "most of our articles about very famous people" which mostly use full names (never mind that most of these people have ambiguous surnames and perhaps that's why we use full names). In the end, I would have found "no preference" here, but I really can't fault him for finding preference for use of full names since many famous people who are clearly the primary topic for their surnames, like Einstein and Shakespeare, are never-the-less found at their full names. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Precise, Recognizable, Summary I agree with GTB that Recognizable favors Gandhi over "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" (with reservations)[52]. I also agree that Precision favors " "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" over "Gandhi" for the reasons he states[53]. So in summary by my interpretation and reasoning of Natural and Concise (see above), and by our mutual agreement on the other criteria, we have Gandhi favored by Recognizable, Natural and Concise, and "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" favored by Precise and Consistent. If you weigh all factors equally, that favors Gandhi. Adjusting the weights can't change much since Precise can't be very important in a case where the topic in question is primary, and even GTB admitted the Consistent factor wasn't very strong. Again, I think this approach is to be lauded in general, but we really have to agree on what Natural and Concise mean and how they are to be applied -- and state that clearly at WP:CRITERIA -- or we're never going to get consensus on anything. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Improper move of articles (Spanish-language television shows: Capitalized or not?)

Content dispute that requires no admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Taran Wanderer has been the subject of wrongfully moving the article Caso Cerrado to Caso cerrado, as it is titled on the Spanish Wikipedia. I warned him multiple times not to move it & again he wilfully does so. He presented the argument saying that articles of Spanish-language television shows are to have only the first letter in the first word capitalized (which is the proper format on the Spanish Wikipedia) & I tell him we are not on the Spanish Wikipedia & that he should not argue over this. I however found out that he's the only one who argues over this, which seems pretty much embarrassing because nearly all articles of television shows (English or not) on the English Wikipedia have the first letter in ALL words (except the conjunctions, etc. of course) capitalized. This led to a dispute over the desicion & an administrator is needed to make the decision as to whether or not all articles of Spanish-language television shows on the English Wikipedia should have the title format as that of the Spanish Wikipedia. MegastarLV (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC) My argument here is that regardless of this being the English-language Wikipedia, titles in foreign languages should abide to the rules set by their respective languages. English-language capitalization applies only to English-language titles, and foreign language-titles should be presented based on the standards of their specific languages. Caso cerrado, is an article for a Spanish-language television show and the capitalization of its title should abide by Spanish-language standards regardless of which Wikipedia it is presented in. My argument is not that we should abide by the Spanish Wikipedia (hundreds of titles are incorrectly formatted in it, but by rules, it does respect foreign language capitalization [54] (English, "Desperate Housewives" as opposed to "Desperate housewives"), [55], [56] ). I've corrected many article titles based on these same principles and have never come across anyone trying to defy capitalization rules, much less any sort of official Wikipedia policy stating that "foreign-language titles are to abide by English-language rules for capitalization." Many thanks. T.W. (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC) No, the rule is that do what reliable English sources do. Three are cited in the article; all three spell it Caso Cerrado; the titles, as given in the footnotes, are wrong. This should be fixed. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 23:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Too bad the most reliable sources disagree, since they abide by the rules. [57] Next thing you know we'll be moving 101 Dalmatians to 101 Dalmations, since the vast majority of sources, official and non-official, very often spell it wrong. T.W. (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) IMDB is mot a reliable source; and English has no such rules. Those who do wish to write English have a Spamnish Wikipedia to contribute to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC) English DOES have such rules, as does every other language, I suggest you look them up and inform yourself. And IMDb.com is 100% reliable when it comes to the proper capitalization of titles in ALL languages; they have certain policies they follow for all of them and you can look up their guidelines on the subject (I know, I've been using a contributor to IMDb since 2003). "Those who do wish to write English have a Spamnish Wikipedia to contribute to." Not only is that sentence completely messed up, but it's also pretty rude and disrespectful, almost to the point that I could consider "Spamnish" a derogatory term. When writing titles in Spanish, English Wikipedia users are NOT writing in English, but in Spanish, a language that, just like every language, has rules that must be followed.T.W. (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Arguments so far are very weak: 1. "It's embarrassing." 2. "Most articles for Spanish-language television shows are improperly capitalized. 3. "If an official English title/name exists, it is to be used (WP:USEENGLISH)," which is not even applicable. 4. "Spamnish (English)-speakers belong in Spamnish Wikipedia." Claims that "all television shows regardless of language are to be capitalized according to English standards" and "even if incorrect, form most commonly used on "reliable" sources is to be adapted" have yet to be backed up by actual Wikipedia guidelines. I'd like imput from a person with actual knowledge on guidelines (specifically capitalization) and no foreign language prejudices. Thank you.T.W. (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:DÜNGÁNÈ instigating other user against me

I did not even know User:DÜNGÁNÈ until yesterday, but just saw by chance that he has been instigating at least one other user (User:Aua) against me in a veritable pamphlet. The same he did on List of inventions in medieval Islam, where he suddenly came out of the blue, having to the best of my knowledge never shown an interest in the article in the past. This has clearly had an effect on User:Aua (who is new to me either) who ironically first seemed to regard me as Sinophile, but then promptly swung around to classify me as "equally critical of all non-Western lists. Whatever happened to honest contributing!" (1).

Given how elaborated and unprovoked DÜNGÁNÈ's attack on me has been, I request a disciplinary block. By stirring up resentment against me he is bringing WP down to a low human level and there should be no excuse for that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: he has also been instigating other users against User:Aua. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

... you'll want to move this to WP:ANI and ensure you notify the user on their talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy. I already moved this from Wikiquette. Sorry for the inconvenience. Now Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DÜNGÁNÈ instigating other user against me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Admitted sock of blocked user.

Isabella Ranger Station

As an encyclopedia, do we tolerate guesswork like this edit in which Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) asserts that the Isabella Ranger Station was architected by the Architects of the United States Forest Service? (I believe he put that assertion into there because he's contesting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Forest Service Architecture Group.) I told him that I went to the Minnesota Historical Society's State Historic Preservation Office and worked directly off the form that's in their files. If there had been a specific architect listed, I think I would have mentioned it. And, if I really wanted to go to the State Historic Preservation Office to verify it, they aren't open until next Tuesday.

I don't get the accusation. Elkman's version of article, and his infobox generator report on the site, asserts that Forest Service architects are to be credited. He says that is unsubstantiated? It is what he wrote. I added a link for that. Also, I removed his assertion that the place was architected by the Civilian Conservation Corps, which seems false. --doncram 16:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm at WP:AN, though, the content dispute is secondary to Doncram's editing practices and inability to collaborate with other editors. I'm getting really tired of being accused of lying. And, as an encyclopedia, I thought we worked on verifiable information, not guesswork. His continued assertions that I don't know the difference between an architect, a builder, or an engineer are limitations of the source database, because they glop the architect, builder, and engineer into one field. I would have thought he'd clean up his act after coming off a three-week block, but that didn't happen.

Finally, I apologize in advance for the huge walls of text that this discussion is going to produce. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is about Elkman's unsubstantiated assertion in Isabella Ranger Station that a given building was architected by the Civilian Conservation Corps in addition to being designed by Forest Service architects. Discussed already at User talk:Elkman#Your unsubstantiated edits to Isabella Ranger Station and User talk:Doncram#Your unsubstantiated edits to Isabella Ranger Station. I don't see any wp:AN issue here. Elkman should not make unsubstantiated assertions. He, like many other users of his programming, should not be misled by its erroneous output. It is a documented error in his "Elkman nrhp infobox generator" that it mislabels, as architects, associated persons and organizations who were builders or engineers instead. Elkman, why don't you fix your generator? --doncram 16:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In this edit Elkman now removes the probably false assertion that the CCC was an architect. Resolved? --doncram 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to fix in the generator because the field's purpose says, "Architect, builder, or engineer". I can't fix it. In fact, the source forms (like this one for the Cass County Court House, Jail, and Sheriff's House) have a line in Section 8, Significance, saying "Builder/Architect". That's what is transcribed into the database. I can't create information from a database that doesn't exist. Again, you are accusing me of lying and I don't appreciate it. This situation is not resolved. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the NRIS database provides Architect, builder, or engineer. Your generator takes that and labels it "architect=", which is wrong in many cases, and which misleads editors, including, apparently in this case, yourself. As you are aware because it has been pointed out several times to you, an alternative mirror site of NRIS data, the private "NRHP.COM" site, avoids this error, correctly labelling as "Architect, builder, or engineer". For Isabella Ranger Station, see their page correctly labelling it. For one option, you could change your generator output to label the info correctly, perhaps "architect-builder-engineer= ____" (which {{infobox nrhp}} correctly would not display) and further add a hidden note to editors to obtain clarification from the NRHP document before splitting into "architect=" and "builder=" fields that would display. The builder= field was added to the infobox template upon my request recently. Improvements to your generator and to the nrhp infobox are probably best discussed elsewhere. There could be better ideas than this one i suggest now. At a minimum, I think you should include a warning note in your output that the asserted architect= information is wrong about five percent of the time, as has been shown, so it should not be relied upon.

Anyhow, you have acknowledged that the previous versions of the page, which asserted Architect included CCC, was wrong. You wrote both programmed it and wrote it into a Wikipedia article. It was wrong, and you agree that it was wrong. Is that what you mean when you say that I am accusing you of lying? I said the assertion in the article was false. You agree. What is "not resolved"? --doncram 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, I remind you that Elkman's generator is a tool, not a source. If you think Elkman's generator is so flawed... stop using it.

To move beyond the immediate content dispute... what concerns me is that Doncram seems to have learned nothing from his recent long term block. Looking at both this dispute and at his talk page, he appears to have gone right back to his combative editing behavior. And he still insists that it is all "someone else's fault". Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to issue a final warning (e.g. something on the level of {{uw-npa4im}}) and to levy a months-long block if the warning be ignored. Doncram very knows both our policies and the fact that Elkman's generator is a generator, but he continues to make "lies" or "lying" statements over and over again. Such statements plainly have the effect of disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. In an edit summary, I stated I was going to remove a probably false assertion from a Wikipedia article, and did so, and Elkman eventually agreed that it was probably incorrect information, actually in the edit before he opened this wp:AN thread. I did not assert that Elkman was lying. It is also true that the Elkman generator generates sometimes incorrect information, but it cannot be wrong to point that out, in a thread which he opened. And certainly if there is information in a wikipedia article which is inaccurate, that should be corrected. There is no issue of civility or personal attacks or anything like that here, unless by misinterpretation. Nyttend, I wish you would please acknowledge that. --doncram 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was called rude for plainly observing that he did not seem to understand that DodoBot is a bot not a human. He then reframed things as if he understood. --TimL (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram... What needs to change is the entire tone of how you interact with others. Being the subject of two unrelated ANI reports on the same day should tell you something (and the message isn't "they are ganging up on me")... it really is something you are doing. Think about it. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"I don't know what your problem is" is not an acceptable statement per WP:NPA. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that i reacted poorly to TimL's comment with that phrase. Actually the phrasing i used was conditional: "If you are..., then I don't know what your problem is", and I also said "If I have misunderstood something and you are somehow not being deliberatly rude, please explain." YMMV about whether TimL's followup there and here clarified whether he was being deliberately rude. However, i was reacting on my own Talk page to TimL's commenting about what i "seem to grasp" or not, about which he knows little (FYI, TimL, I have quite a good understanding of what bots do, have obtained complicated bot requests that ran across many thousands of articles, and I am an authorized bot operator myself). I was surprised to see him commenting possibly dismissively about me that way on my own page, as if it is now okay for anyone to talk dismissively about me because he observes others have posted negatively about me, and I reacted to his statement but I also qualified my response. Also, I spoke to TimL in similar tone to Elkman's comment to me just before, "What the hell were you thinking with your edits to Isabella Ranger Station ....? I know you're desperately trying to preserve United States Forest Service Architecture Group from deletion, but in this edit, you're accusing me (yet AGAIN) of lying in an infobox." Is that acceptable?

Anyhow, I think I perceived TimL as picking up on negativity expressed in others' comments on my Talk page, and joining in, as if he thought i was a weak target to bash on. I apologize to TimL if that was not correct. --doncram 18:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, you're responsible for your own reactions, and those of others are not the topic here. Rather, the topic here is your longtime pattern of disruptive behavior, which is not something by which Elkman is characterised. I'm not going to do it myself, but if you don't cease this disruption, I suspect that someone will try arbitration before long, and you are not likely to go through that without significant problems. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, you should be glad I didn't reply with the kind of four-letter words that I'd really like to deliver. I'm reaching a point of extreme frustration with you, your edits, and your interactions with everyone else here. The difference between "architect" and "builder" is a known issue in my infobox generator, in the National Register database, and even on the National Register nomination forms. Your characterization that I'm lying, your assertion that the United States Forest Service Architecture Group designed the building (based on no source whatsoever), and your insistence that I fix my generator are the issues that are currently driving me to frustration. And yeah, there's probably a Request for Arbitration likely in the near future if you don't get a clue about your behavior real soon now. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)I have not characterized Elkman as lying, ever, as far as I know. A lie is a deliberate untruth. Elkman's assertions that I have characterized him as lying, at my Talk page and repeated here, are false however. I think Elkman conceived the idea that I was calling him such during one previous wp:AN episode, when he described a Minnesota article he had developed in a way that I understood as him saying that he had misidentified a person as being an architect in that article. I do perceive the Isabella Ranger Station article as one where he was misled by ambiguous information in NRIS, i.e. that he put CCC into the article in the infobox= field, which I removed, as probably false. He agrees that was probably false, so I don't see why he should take offense. Nyttend seems to have accepted Elkman's assertion that I have characterized Elkman as lying. I believe I have not. Show diffs, or please stop repeating this, both of you.

(2) My assertion in the article that the USFS architects designed the buildings was and is my good faith understanding of who designed the buildings. Elkman's developed article already included "architect=USDA Forest Service; CCC" and I believed that the CCC was wrong but the USDA Forest Service was correct. This is based on my detailed reading of many other similar ranger station cases in Oregon and elsewhere where Elkman's NRIS generator report would produce the same ambiguous listing of both the USFS and the CCC as architects and/or builders and/or engineers and where full documentation available clarifies that the USFS architects designed while the CCC built. I emphasized this interpretation by adding it to the text and linking it; Elkman interprets that as incorrect to do and labels that as "guesswork". I accept that another editor can judge the interpretation is not adequately supported, and prefer to remove both USFS and CCC, rather than just remove CCC. That is subjective though, and I repeat my judgment was in good faith.

(3) I am taken aback about Elkman objecting to my asking him to fix his generator. I was driven to point out that error by others' criticism of my own accurately ambiguous statements of what was known in some articles (i.e. my saying that a person was a builder and/or an architect). This is where his generator too-confidently suggests that all NRIS-listed persons are architects, which is accepted by many other editors and written into many articles when in fact sometimes the persons are builders and in rare cases where the persons are engineers. It is a fact that Elkman's generator does mislabel builders and engineers, in the 5% or so of cases that list those, as architects. I am really sorry, but why not fix that? Why not label them correctly as architect-builder-engineer= and require editors to determine which is true? You don't have to, you are a volunteer operating an off-wiki generator that other editors use at their peril, but I really don't understand why you don't fix that and why you should be frustrated about the suggestion.

This is just going in circles, so I will try not to reply further. --doncram 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To address just point #3 of the above: For the last time, I can't generate information that isn't there. I'll characterize it in SQL:

Tell me where the time zone is supposed to come from that. Or, to add another column:

Looks fine until you cross the Mississippi River and realize that a good chunk of St. Cloud, Minnesota is in Benton County, Minnesota and Sherburne County, Minnesota. Oops.

So, for the last time, stop asking me to generate information that isn't in the database. It's there in the nomination forms. And stop accusing me of lying. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, I mentioned this before, but it is worth repeating... if you think that Elkman's info box generator is flawed, (and from your comment that "editors use it at their peril", it seems obvious that you do)... why do you keep using it? Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not the venue for a content dispute, so extensive comments about why the generator is flawed and things like that aren't germane. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Widespread misuse of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A5

From my experience many administrators have misapplied Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A5 to articles that contain the {{wi}} instruction. I have clarified the text on A5 in Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A5. Please can an admin scan through all old A5 deletions as I suspect that many articles have been wrongly deleted for this reason.--Penbat (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• No. Rklawton (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• You are creating a lot of articles that are nothing but a definition, others you are redirecting to wiktionary. Read WP:NOT.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, your "clarification" was reverted at WP:CSD, you may want to discuss that on the talk page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, deletions aren't searchable by criterion, so I don't know how your request could possibly be fulfilled from a technical point of view. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be possible to write a bot script that goes through Special:Log/delete and checks for deletion log summaries like "A5". However, my personal opinion is that these {{wi}} links to Wiktionary are a waste since Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, and thus they should be deleted. (Redacted IP address) Sorry, I somehow got logged out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Forget the whole "scan through all old A5 deletions" thing (even if someone had the wherewithal to do that... I mean, whatever). What's the problem with soft redirecting our readers to wiktionary? How is leading people who are looking for our content to a sister site turning us into a "linkfarm"? It's Wiktionary... !
— V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 03:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Like Ohms, I also thought that A5 was for articles that said things like "Foo is a verb that means 'to screw up on Wikipedia'", not for soft-redirects to Wiktionary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Convention (and consensus somewhere a long time ago) was that those Wiktionary redirects should not be used on every page that would only have a definition. People can search Wiktionary if they need to, we don't need thousands of essentially useless pages. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to add a link to MediaWiki:Newarticletext to direct users to Wictionary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)