위키백과:관리자 게시판/아카이브257

2011년 시리아 내전 - 도시 및 마을 - 역사

안녕. 이 기사는 어떻게 해야 할지 모르겠어.그것에 대한 내 강연에서 이 실마리를 보아라.여기서 가장 좋은 치료법이 무엇인지 잘 모르겠지만, 문제의 사용자에게는 그다지 끌리지 않는 것 같다는 것을 알고 있다.내가 잘못했을지도 몰라.그렇다면 얼마든지 지적해 주시오.시리아 위키프로젝트 토크페이지에 가서 그것에 대한 문의를 올렸는데, 그 페이지에는 별로 트래픽이 없는 것 같다.Killiondude (대화) 05:40, 2013년 11월 18일 (UTC)

(사용자에게 알려드렸으니, 다음부터는 먼저 그렇게 하십시오.)안드레가 암시하는 "고려할 만한 논의"는 내가 보기에는 일방적인 결정이고, 기껏해야 가난하고, 지식이 없는 결정이다.나는 그 모든 것을 읽어보려고 노력했는데, 나는 그가 무엇을 하려고 하는지 정확히 알지 못한다(사용자:트라디디아, 무슨 일인지 설명해줄래?나는 정말 할 수 없다.난 네가 틀렸다고 생각하지 않아, 킬리웃두드.Ansh666 02:04, 2013년 11월 19일 (UTC)

나한테 중요한 질문은 네가 뭘 하려는지야, 킬리온두드?

나는 Mediawiki가 페이지를 제대로 표시할 수 없어 제대로 작동하지 않는 사이트를 재정렬하는 데 도움을 주려 하는 데 문제가 없다고 본다.

나(그리고 다른)가 하고 있는 모든 일은 원본 페이지의 작성자인 Tradedia와 협력하는 것이다.

그렇다면 문제는 어디에 있는가?나는 조종하는 괴짜들과 마주한 듯한 인상을 받는다.어떻게 그것이 위키피디아를 발전시킬 수 있을까?

첫째로, 빠른 삭제 기능은 페이지 작성자가 무엇을 하려는 것처럼 보이는지 확실하지 않은 경우 페이지 작성자에게 최소한 연락하는 것을 배제하지 않는다.나를 포함한 대부분의 문명인들은 그런 공통의 예의를 고려할 것이다.André437 (대화) 03:52, 2013년 11월 19일 (UTC)

André437, 페이지의 주제와 목표가 나에게 명확하지 않다(또는 적어도 내가 마지막으로 그것을 확인했을 때는 그렇지 않았다--그것은 시간의 절반을 열기에는 너무 크고 내가 그것을 볼 수 있을 때 나에게 두통을 일으킨다.나는 이 상황에서 잘못된 것들의 목록을 만들 것이다.

1. 우리는 일반적으로 새로운 이름으로 기사를 복사해서 붙이지 않는다.그래, 끝났지만 표준은 아니야.
2. 그 뒤를 이어 이 페이지의 목적이 무엇인지 아직도 잘 모르겠다.전쟁의 역사인가?전쟁에 관련된 도시와 마을의 역사?왜 이것이 원본 페이지와 별도로 존재해야 하는가?
3. 그 이름은 끔찍하다.적어도 대시는 표준이 아니다.내전이 고유명사라면 자본화해야 한다.
4. 페이지가 너무 커서 로드할 수 없는 경우가 많다.이것도 (분명히) 원본 페이지와 관련된 문제다.

안쉬, 나는 편집자에 대한 토론을 시작할 생각은 없었다.나는 기사에 대해 토론을 시작할 작정이었다.차이가 있어, 그래서 나는 안드레에게 핑계를 대지 않았어.:) Killiondude (대화) 23:41, 2013년 11월 19일 (UTC)

내 경험에 비추어 볼 때, 그들이 당신이 겪고 있는 문제의 근원이라고 언급하는 경우, 그들에게 알리는 것은 여전히 표준적이다. - 통지 템플릿에는 "당신에 대하여"가 아니라 "당신이 관여했을지도 모르는 문제에 대하여"라고 되어 있다는 것을 유의하라.어쨌든, 비록 그것이 지금까지 성공하지 못했다 하더라도, 그가 이곳에 와서 여러 가지 것들을 설명하고 토론하는 것은 유용하고 예의 바른 일일 것이다.Ansh666 00:26, 2013년 11월 20일(UTC)

안녕 안쉬:

1. 나는 페이지 전체를 복사해서 붙여 넣는 것이 표준이 아니라는 것을 이해한다.표시장치 문제를 더 빨리 제거하기 위해 몇 가지 즉각적인 수정(거대한 지도를 혼동하지 않는 등)을 통해 수행되었다.추가 변경은 점진적으로 수행해야 한다.이렇게 하면 실수를 피하기 쉬워진다.
2. 현재 전체 크기가 너무 커서 원본 페이지가 제대로 표시되지 않는데, 특히 참고문헌이 그렇다.우리는 이 문제를 해결하기 위해 페이지를 쪼개고 있다.또한, 분할을 통해 보기 및 편집 속도가 빨라질 수 있다(서버에 대한 부하가 적음, 명백함).현재 진행 중인 전쟁에서 오래된 정보는 전쟁 후의 사람들에 의해 그다지 큰 관심거리가 되지 않는다.그래서 아이디어는 이것의 많은 부분을 현재 페이지에서 해당 파트로 연결되는 다른 페이지에 넣는 것이었습니다. (즉,알레포의 링크로 보이는 알레포에 대한 오래된 정보, 다라아의 링크에서 보이는 다라 등에 대한 오래된 정보 등)그 중 일부는 이미 끝난 것이다.
3. 선택한 이름은 논리적이지만 반드시 가장 우아한 것은 아니다.자본화를 위해 나는 보통 프랑스어로 하는 것을 사용했으므로 그것을 바꾸는 데는 문제가 없다.우리는 제안을 받아들일 용의가 있다.오래된 정보를 담기 위해 "- history" 부분을 추가했다.전쟁이 끝나면 다시 재편될 수도 있다.현재 상태로는, 이미 이 새로운 접근법보다 훨씬 덜 지속성을 가진 많은 하위 페이지들이 있다.
4. 정말 페이지 크기가 쪼개진 이유다.그리고 왜 내가 많은 작은 전송 대신 한 번에 전체 페이지를 복사했는지, 그 과정을 가속화하기 위해서입니다.비록 나는 이 "토론" 중에 잠시 멈췄지만, 변경 내용을 되돌리는 것은 매우 시간이 걸리고 오류가 발생하기 쉬우며, 페이지 크기를 줄이는 데는 확실히 도움이 되지 않을 것이다.
5. 또한 프로그래밍 배경을 가지고 있고 Mediawiki와 친숙하게 지내면서, 나는 다른 편집자들이 주로 구현해 온 페이지를 개선하자는 여러 가지 제안을 해왔고, 오직 그 페이지의 원저자 겸 메인 편집자인 Tradedia의 일치만으로 했다.나는 그가 훌륭한 프로젝트를 가지고 있다고 생각하는데 나는 돕고 싶다.나는 또한 그에게 만약 내가 그것을 다루는 변경에 대한 논란이 있다면, 이것은 대부분 나의 제안이기 때문에, 나는 그에게 약속했다.
6. BTW, 만약 당신이 이용할 수 있는 기능에 어떤 영향력이 있다면, 사용자 정의 변수를 한 페이지에 사용할 수 있다면 매우 좋을 것이다.아니면 이런 변화를 할 수 있는 사람들과 이 문제를 논의하기 위해 어디로 가야 할 지 안다면...André437 (대화) 2013년 11월 21일 10:53 (UTC)

@Killiondude:그건 내가 아니라 너에게 하는 대답이야.Ansh666 18:12, 2013년 11월 21일(UTC)

미안, 나는 안쉬의 댓글에 답하는 것 같은 인상을 받았어.대부분의 요점은 이미 킬리웃두드에게 내려졌지만, 그는 이해하지 못하는 것 같다.가이드라인을 읽어본 그가 왜 문제를 보는지 정황상 알 수 없다.그는 페이지를 분할하는 몇 가지 이유를 반복한다.그래서 누군가는 그가 이의를 제기하는 것이 아니라 지지해주기를 기대할 것이다.그 동안 이 분할은 교착상태에 빠졌는데, 왜냐하면 역전은 시간이 많이 걸리고 오류가 발생하기 쉬울 것이기 때문이다.원본 페이지는 계속 수정되고 있다.André437 (대화) 22:49, 2013년 11월 23일 (UTC)

갈리시아(동유럽)의 이동 되돌리기 요청

신속한 삭제 요청

RfC 폐쇄 요청

이 RfC를 닫을 수 있는 사람이 있는가? [1].고마워요.Malke 2010 (대화) 22:18, 2013년 11월 22일 (UTC)

스노우당 휴업.어쨌든 고마워.Malke 2010 (대화) 18:40, 2013년 11월 23일 (UTC)

콘셉트 캐피털

최근 PROD인 Iception Capital을 사용자 편의에 따라 다음 사용자에게 알리십시오.피그선더윙/노티온 캐피탈, 내가 다시 쓰고 개발하려는 곳.나는 공신력이 쉽게 확립될 수 있다고 믿는다.나는 관심사를 선언하고 지역사회에 개선된 기사를 검토하고 재게재할 것을 요청할 때 다시 그렇게 할 것이다.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy와 대화; Andy의 편집은 2013년 11월 23일(UTC)

삭제 관리자(즉, 나)에게 직접 물어보지 않은 이유?자이언트 스노우맨 12:21, 2013년 11월 23일 (UTC)

여기서 더 빠른 답변을 받을 수 있을 줄 알았던 것 뿐이야. 이용해주셔서 고마워.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy와 대화; Andy의 편집은 2013년 11월 23일(UTC)

위키피디아에서 개선된 기사에 대한 검토와 복원을 요청하였다.마을 펌프(기타)/아카이브 44#Notion Capital.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy와 대화; Andy가 편집한 2013년 11월 23일(UTC)

"제발 나를 막지 말아줘" 제2권...

"Please don't block me"는 현재 나의 아카이브된 직책에 포함되었지만, 지금은 "Please don't block me"의 선에 더 가깝다.사용자:TParis는 나를 무시하고 있다(혹은 그는 내 마음에 꽤 느리다).WMF는 내가 누군지 알아내 VPN 소프트웨어가 지금 켜져 있을 수 있음.그러나 내 생각으로는, 설사 그렇다 하더라도, 오픈 프록시에서 이 편집을 해서 (내 VPN 소프트웨어가 그렇게 하는 것이라면) 잘못한 것은 없다고 생각한다. 왜냐하면 나는 그가 내 사용자 토크 페이지에 남긴 verbiage에 의해 TParis의 마음에 오해가 있었던 것 같기 때문이다.WMF 법무팀에 이 사실을 에스컬레이션해야 정확한 답변을 얻을 수 있을까?내가 소통해 온 사람이 자원봉사자 모임이라면 난 정말 혼란스러워.Biosthmors (talk) pls가 회신에 서명하는 동안 (즉, {{U}) 통지함 (thx 13:36, 2013년 11월 23일(UTC)

네 토크 페이지의 TParis에서 내가 볼 수 있는 것은 IP 블록 면제를 허가하는 과정의 일부로서 주어지는 템플리트 메시지뿐이야. 그래서 아마 그가 당신에게 두 개의 섹션 헤더를 준 것일 거야. 템플릿이 그 자체 헤더에서 떠난다고 추측할 수 있으니까.토론하고 있는 섹션의 이름을 알려줌으로써 좀 더 구체적으로 말해주십시오.나이튼드 (대화) 13:49, 2013년 11월 23일 (UTC)

• 바로 그거야나는 TParis가 대응할 필요가 없다고 본다 - 당신은 IPBE를 부여받았고, 나는 그 누구에게서도 필요한 조치가 없고, 그 누구에게도, 그 어느 곳에서도 어떤 대응도 요구되지 않았다.당신이 물건을 기다리는 정확한 장소로 디프/링크를 제공해 주시겠습니까?ES&L 13:51, 2013년 11월 23일 (UTC)
• Biosthmors - VPN은 개방형 프록시와 같지 않다.만약 당신이 VPN을 사용하고 있다면 IPBE의 사용은 괜찮다.개방형 프록시 또는 TOR을 사용하는 경우 그렇지 않다.하지만 102.4도의 열기에 내가 받은 당신의 마지막 이메일이 있기 전까지, 나는 당신이 VPN 소프트웨어가 실제로 무엇을 하는지 혼란스러워하고 있다는 것을 깨달았다.그렇다면 VPN이 정확히 무엇에 속하는지, 그리고 왜 VPN이 개방형 프록시를 사용한다고 생각하는지 설명해 주시겠습니까?누구의 네트워크에 접속하는 겁니까?아무도 너를 블록으로 위협하지 않아. 확실히 내가 특별히 그런 건 아니야.IPBE가 당신에게 이렇게 스트레스를 줄 거라면, 우리가 그냥 제거할까?--v/r - TP 14:49, 2013년 11월 23일(UTC)
  • 사용자:TPARIS, 답장 고맙고 기분이 좋아지길 바라.나는 급하지 않으니, 얼마든지 앉아 있어라.내가 컴퓨터를 시작하면 자동으로 시작되는 VPN 소프트웨어 이름을 이메일로 보내줄게.공개적으로 공유하지 않는 게 좋겠어.괜찮겠어?사용자 권한을 요청하기 전, 그리고 VPN 소프트웨어가 활성화되었을 때, 일종의 프록시/오픈 프록시 재즈 때문에 편집이 차단되었다.이런 자동 차단 때문에 사용자 권리를 요구하라는 안내를 받았다.고마워요.Biosthmors (talk) pls가 회신에 서명하는 동안 (즉, {{U}}) 통지, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)
  • 그리고 FIY, 지금 내 VPN 소프트웨어는 그것이 활성화되지 않았다고 말하지만, 부분적으로는 활성 상태인 것처럼 행동하고 있다.나는 이런 식으로 행동하는 것을 본 적이 없기 때문에, 내 소프트웨어가 그것이 활성화되지 않았다고 말하지만, 이 바로 그 편집이 오픈 프록시에서 나온 것일 수도 있다는 가능성을 배제할 수 없다.Biosthmors (talk) pls가 회신에 서명할 때 (즉, {{U}) 통지함 (thx 10:28, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)
• @Biosthmors:당신이 정직한 대답을 원하는 질문은 정확히 무엇인가?—DoRD (대화) 17:04, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)
  • 1) 사용했던 메커니즘을 통해 제출한 사용자 권한 요청으로 인해 개방형 프록시에서 편집을 할 수 없는가?그리고 2) VPN 소프트웨어가 개방형 프록시를 사용하는가?나는 내 소프트웨어 세부 정보를 TPARIS에 이메일로 보냈다.Biosthmors (talk) pls가 회신에 서명하는 동안 (즉, {{U}) 통지, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)
    • 아니, 공개 프록시를 통해 편집하면 안 돼.당신이 편집하고 있는 주소는 오픈 프록시가 아니라 웹 호스팅 회사에 속해 있다.많은 웹 호스팅 주소 범위가 오픈 프록시처럼 사용될 수 있기 때문에 차단되었지만 VPN 제공업체에서도 사용할 수 있기 때문에 내가 보기에 당신은 괜찮다.—DoRD (대화) 17:28, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)
      • DoRD, 너 대단해.설명해줘서 고마워.그때 내 VPN 소프트웨어가 나를 곤경에 빠뜨리지는 않을 것이라고 믿는다.고마워요.Biosthmors (talk) pls가 회신에 서명할 때 (즉, {{U}) 통지함 (thex 17:39, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)

도움말! 사용자 차단:아보카토봇

템플릿으로 보호된 페이지에 대한 편집 요청 알림

때때로 보호된 편집 요청을 도와주는 관리자의 경우, 템플릿으로 보호된 페이지에 대한 편집 요청을 할 수 있는 새로운 템플릿({{edit template-protected})이 있다는 것을 알고 싶으십니까?이러한 요청은 다음 범주에서 볼 수 있다.위키백과 템플리트 보호 편집 요청은 템플리트 편집자 권한으로 모든 편집자가 응답할 수 있다.AnomieB에 의해 자동으로 업데이트되는 편집 요청의 주석 목록도 있다.OT at User:아노미봇/TPERTable.새로운 요청이 언제 들어왔는지 보기 위해 이것을 당신의 감시 목록에 넣을 수 있다.{{edit template-protected}} 템플릿으로 만든 요청이 CAT에 표시되지 않음:EP, 그러니까 범주가 평소보다 더 허전해 보인다고 생각한다면 그 이유일 것이다.— Mr. Stradivarius 15:27, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)

이전 계정 이전 또는 종료

2007년, 나는 스테보이스아크라는 이름으로 위키피디아에 가입했다.내가 계정에 대한 사용자 페이지를 만든 적은 없지만, 편집 내역은 여전히 볼 수 있다.불행히도 나는 그 후 비밀번호를 잊어버렸고, 이메일 주소를 계정과 연결한 적이 없어 접속이 불가능하다.그래서 대신 스테보아이스아케라는 새로운 계정을 만들었는데, 그 이후로는 이 계정을 사용하게 되었다.

사용자 이름 충돌에 대한 정책 페이지를 읽은 적이 있으며, 사용자 계정을 병합할 수 없으며, 정상적인 상황에서 원하는 사용자 이름이 이미 생성된 경우 사용자가 계정 이름을 변경할 수 없다는 것을 알고 있다.그래서 만약 두 계정을 병합할 수 없다면, 내 이전 계정이 폐쇄된다면 내 현재 계정의 이름을 바꿀 수 있을까?만약 그렇다면, 그것이 내가 하고 싶은 것이다.

나는 내가 위키피디아 계정을 만든 사람이라는 구체적인 증거를 거의 가지고 있지 않다.하지만, 내가 증명할 수 있는 것은 다른 사이트에서 스테보이스아크라는 사용자 이름을 소유하고 있다는 것이다.여기에는 2007년 내 유튜브 계정, 내 트위터 계정, 2008년 내 스팀 계정, 내 핫메일 계정, 내 G메일 계정, 2010년 내 TF2 위키 계정, 2008년 내 디반탄아트 계정, 2011년 내 Reddit 계정이 포함된다.

시간 내 주셔서 감사합니다

--Stevoisiak(e) (토크) 20:24, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)

여기서는 계정을 닫거나 삭제할 수 없다.이 상황에서 할 수 있는 유일한 것은 추방이다. 하지만 그러기 위해서는 관리자보다는 관료주의자가 필요할 것이다.Hut 8.5 21:19, 2013년 11월 24일(UTC)

크리에이터 통지 없이 소싱된 물품의 비임시적 빠른 삭제

필자는 ictu oculi에서 다른 섹션을 삭제하려는 편집자들이 두 번이나 실수로 삭제한 것으로 보이는 코멘트를 복원했다.Bovlb (대화) 03:21, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)

애니메이션 및 망가 RfC - 업데이트, 폐쇄 요청

나는 애니메와 만화 프랜차이즈의 RfC가 내용을 해결하고 Chris Guualtieri, 류롱, 다른 애니메와 망가위키프로젝트 참가자들 사이에서 분쟁을 벌이며 지난 몇 년 동안 이 보드와 AN/I에 여러 가닥의 실마리를 낳았으면 하는 바램이 컸다.불행히도, 호의의 증대와 관련 당사자들 사이의 공개적 적대감의 갱신으로 인해, 나는 더 이상 RfC가 결실을 맺을 것이라고 믿지 않으며, RfC(발표)에서 탈퇴했다.

만약 권한이 없는 어떤 관리자들이 RfC를 닫기를 원한다면, 나는 당신의 노력에 매우 감사할 것이다.이 문제를 ArbCom으로 가져가고 RfC 때문에 이 계획을 보류할 계획이었던 당사자들에게, 나는 더 이상 당신이 이 계획을 계속 추진하는 것에 대해 반대하지 않는다.

감사합니다, 스벤망구아르 와? 22:31, 2013년 11월 23일 (UTC)

이 길로 가지 마십시오.제3자에 의해 비례적으로 부풀려진 관계없는 논쟁이 RFC의 관이 되어서는 안 된다.—율롱 (琉竜) 22:47, 2013년 11월 23일 (UTC)

Sven Manguard So, AN*에서 마지막 드래그아웃 싸움에서 제안된 RfC가 관련 편집자들 사이에 실패했음에도 불구하고, 당신은 지난 번에 제안된 전 지구 토픽/인터액션 금지를 고려할 의향이 있는가?

주제/상호작용 금지는 무기한 주제(아니메,망가,일본문화에 걸쳐 광범위하게 해석됨)와 상호작용(률롱과 크리스게알티에리)이었다.

그리고 크리스에게 알리는 것도 잊으셨군요.내가 널 위해 이 일을 처리했어.호서 (대화) 15:05, 2013년 11월 25일 (UTC)

급서:나는 ArbCom 사건 전에는 이 일에 관여하고 싶지 않았지만, 우리가 ArbCom 사건을 막을 수 있는 무언가를 준비할 수 있다면, 그것은 모두에게 덜 스트레스를 주는 것이다.

궁극적으로 나의 개인적인 느낌은 류룽과 크리스 구알티에리가 항상 서로에게, 그리고 프로젝트 전체에 걸쳐, 적어도 무한정 상호 작용 금지가 필요하다는 것이다.하지만 나는 그것이 충분히 멀리 갈지 확신할 수 없다.RfC 페이지에서 뤼룽은 내가 더 나은 용어가 없다는 이유로 "미국의 인종적 내용에 관한 논쟁은 이 논의를 아예 끝내서는 안 된다"고 말하며 의사 진행을 포기했다고 반대했다.그는 내 요점을 놓치고 있다.어찌된 일인지 두 사람은 아니메와 만가와 완전히 분리된 분쟁에서, 내가 알기로는 두 사람 모두 전에는 일하지 않았던 지역에서 가까스로 서로를 찾아냈다.크리스 구알티에리는 자동화된 도구를 사용하기 8일 전에 그 페이지(Knockout (폭력 게임))에 대해 되돌렸고, 그것을 그의 감시 목록에 가지고 있었을지도 모르지만, 만약 류룽이 와서 중대한 변화를 일으키기 시작하는 것을 보았다면 뒤로 물러서서 다른 사람이 처리하게 했어야 했다.류룽은 일단 크리스 게얼티에리가 자신을 되돌리고 있는 것을 보고 물러나서 다른 사람이 처리하게 했어야 했다.두 사람은 같은 글을 편집할 때마다 싸운다는 것을 알아야 한다.그럼에도 불구하고 그들은 결국 그것을 하게 된다.

나는 다음과 같은 제재안을 지지할 것이다.

• 률롱과 크리스구알티에리 사이의 쌍방향 상호 작용 금지
• 류룽과 크리스 구얼티에리 모두에 대해 애니메이션과 만화 주제(일본 문화 주제에는 해당되지 않음)를 금지하는 주제
• Ryulong과 ChrisGualtieri에 대한 삭제 및 병합 금지 주제
• Ryulong 및 ChrisGualtieri 모두에 대한 1RR 제한(수동 편집 전용, 도구를 사용한 반달리즘 싸움은 계산하지 않음)
• 모든 제한은 무기한이지만 최소 6개월 후에 항소할 수 있다.

그것만 빼면 문제가 해결될 것 같지 않아.류룽과 크리스 구얼티에이는 서로 멀리해야 하며, 난해한 논쟁이 독이 된 지역을 멀리해야 하며, 전쟁터적 사고방식으로 이어진 행동(반전과 삭제/머지적 토론)을 멀리해야 한다.Sven ManguardWha? 2013년 11월 25일 18:35, 25 (UTC)

아니메와 만가의 주제가 위키리듬과 '프로퍼티로의 리액션' 타입의 기사에 대한 대리전을 할 수 있다는 이유로 패키지에 일본 문화를 추가했었다.나는 한 편집자가 다른 편집자가 페이지를 편집하는 것을 배제하는 그들 자신의 "청구"를 할 때 싸움이 이 주제들로 옮겨질 것으로 예상한다.6개월간의 제재 호소가 적절하다는 데는 동의하지만, 지난 AN 실에서 언급했듯이 디바와 같은 위협이 있었기 때문에 이러한 편집자의 행동개선을 크게 기대하지 않는다(토크) 19:49, 2013년 11월 25일 (UTC)

나는 당신이 어떤 제재에도 루시아 블랙을 포함시킬 필요가 있다고 믿고, 다음과 같은 트윗을 제안한다.

• Lucia Black, Ryulong 및 ChrisGualtieri의 조합 간에 양방향 및 3방향 상호 작용 금지
• 루시아, 류롱, 크리스 게얼티에리 에 대한 애니메이션 및 만화 주제(일본 문화 주제에는 해당되지 않음) 금지 주제
• Lucia, Ryulong 및 ChrisGualtieri에 대한 삭제 및 병합 금지 주제
• Lucia Ryulong 및 ChrisGualtieri에 대한 1RR 제한(수동 편집 전용, 도구를 사용한 반달리즘 싸움은 계산하지 않음)
• 모든 제한은 무기한이지만 최소한 12개월 후에 항소할 수 있다.
• 률롱은 최근 전쟁을 편집하기 위한 도구를 잘못 사용한 후 최소 12개월 동안 롤백을 얻거나 사용하는 것이 금지된다(이것은 24시간 동안 차단되었다.

그 주제는 내가 특별히 그 주제에 대한 공공 기물 파괴 행위를 금지하는 것을 포함시킬 필요가 있다고 느끼는 것을 금지하는데, 왜냐하면 나는 그들이 그것을 다른 사람들에 의한 편집을 되돌리고 주제 금지에 대한 그들의 방식을 이용하기 위한 구실로 사용하지 않을 것이라고 확신할 수 없기 때문이다.

매번 기간이 급격히 늘어나는 표준 제재 세트가 있어야 한다.닉 (대화)20:33, 2013년 11월 25일 (UTC)

나를 끌어들이는 것은 전혀 의미가 없다.나의 주제 금지는 방금 완화되었다.크리스와 률롱 사이에 있는 몰수행위의 증거를 더 찾아내지 못한다면, 나는 그것이 과분하다고 생각한다.AKA 이중위험.루시아 블랙 (토크)20:41, 2013년 11월 25일 (UTC)

@Nick: 내가 루시아를 촬영장에 포함시키지 않은 이유는 루시아가 공식 주제 금지를 벗어났을 때부터 내 입장에서 볼 때, 그녀는 (AN*까지 끓어 넘기지 않고) 대부분 고개를 숙이고 있었다.그녀는 현재 진행중인 이 토론에서 엉뚱하게 언급되어 왔지만, 현재 논쟁의 개별적인 원자를 파헤치지 않고, 나는 그녀가 이전 주제 금지법의 충고를 받아들였고, 그녀의 행동을 신중하게 고려하고 있다고 가정할 것이다.호서 (대화)20:45, 2013년 11월 25일 (UTC)

루시아 블랙의 말이 맞아과거의 제재와 그로 인해 생긴 행동은 그 자체로 향후 제재의 근거가 아니다.그렇지 않으면 제재 만료일을 정하는 이유가 뭘까.루시아 블랙이 그 지역에서 문제 편집자가 된다면, 그녀를 끼워넣는 것은 충분히 쉬울 것이지만, 우리는 그 증거가 있을 때까지 그렇게 해서는 안 된다.Sven Manguard Wha?20:47, 2013년 11월 25일 (UTC)

• 한숨* 놀랍다.나는 이것이 결국 Arbcom에서 끝날 것이라고 예측했다.핵심에는 위키피디아의 만화와 애니메이션 기사의 질을 향상시키고자 하는 크리스가 있으며, 률롱은 그들을 평범하게 유지하기를 원한다.나는 크리스와 마주쳤을 때부터 크리스가 고착된 반대에 맞서 과제를 떠맡으려는 의도와 의지 때문에 대체로 그를 지지해 왔다.크리스가 률롱과 어떤 추론이나 정책적 토의를 쓰든 상관없기 때문에, 률롱은 그저 입장을 바꾸고 기사를 개선하지 않을 다른 이유를 가지고 돌아오기 때문에 조정은 결코 효과가 없을 것이다.요컨대, 상호 작용은 예스(Yes)를 금지하지만, 실제로 품질 향상을 위해 노력하려고 하는 소수의 사람들 중 한 명을 금지하는 것은 주제에서 벗어나지 않는다.사망 시에만 의무 종료(대화) 23:32, 2013년 11월 25일(UTC)
• ChrisGualtieri의 의견 - Ryulong과 나는 이미 이틀 전에 개인적으로 우리의 문제를 해결했다.우리 둘 다 두 프로젝트 공간에 대해 합의를 보았다.률롱 스스로도 그것을 분명히 할 것이다 - 그리고 우리는 그가 AN3에서 24블록 떨어진 직후에 그렇게 했다. 내가 고발하지 않았다.Arb Com을 가져오려고 했는데, Ryulong이 연락할 수 있도록 저장해 둘 준비가 되어 있었어...이런 드라마가 또 생기게 놔두지 않고 그렇게 하려고 했다.류룽은 그의 편집 공간에서 도움을 요청했고 A&M이 똑같이 문제가 있다는 것을 인정한다 - 우리는 동의하지 않을 수도 있지만, 우리는 마침내 어느 쪽도 위키피디아를 파괴하려는 것이 아니며 MOSAM 상황보다 명백한 끔찍한 토쿠사츠 기사에 대한 그의 동맹이 되어 A&M 분쟁 전체가 종결된 경우라는 데 동의했다.그리고 루시아 블랙을 이 일에 전혀 고려하지 마라.우리는 고스트 인 더 쉘(Ghost in the Shell)을 GA 표준에 가깝게 만들기 위해 패치를 만들어왔고 고스트 인 더 쉘(Ghost in the Shell)은 이제 GA가 되었고 그것은 공동 작업이었다.나는 적을 만들려고 하는 것이 아니고 우리 셋이 마침내 서로를 이해하게 되었다.RFC를 폐쇄하되, 실패해서가 아니라, 의견 불일치가 해결되었고 모든 당사자들이 지역사회의 합의를 인정하기 때문이다.지표는 잘 풀리지 않을 수도 있지만, 나는 이 험난한 기간이 끝났고 내가 온라인으로 편집자의 요청에 응답한 페이지의 어떤 제3자 분쟁이 "킬" 행위가 되어서는 안 된다고 느낀다.어떤 "토픽"에 대한 나의 얇은 피부는 더 나 자신의 문제야 - 률롱은 그렇게 의도하지 않았다.그리고 몇몇 사람들이 표현했던 것과는 반대로 - 나는 률롱이 없어지는 것을 원하지 않는다. 내가 Arb Com을 그 결정을 내릴 것을 고려하는 동안, 그것은 불필요해 보인다.누구나 투구 포크를 내려놓고 토쿠사츠 일이 률롱의 만족으로 처리되는 순간 30명의 A&M GA가 출세하기를 기대할 수 있다.ChrisGualtieri (토크) 00:26, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

  나는 정말로 이틀 전에 Chris Guualtieri와 오프사이트에서 연락을 했고 우리는 어떻게 해야 하는지에 대해 합의를 보았다. 그리고 나는 다른 주제 영역을 청소하는데 그의 도움을 요청했다.또한 닉, 내가 롤백권을 획득하는 것을 금지해야 한다는 당신의 진술은 근거가 없다. 내가 최근에 편집 전쟁으로 인해 차단되었다는 논쟁에서 나는 애초에 그 권리를 사용하지 않았다.나는 그것이 왜 애초에 취소되어야 했는지 모르겠다.처음에 롤백을 사용했던 모든 것에 대해 설치된 반짝 롤백을 사용해야 한다.오직 죽음에서만, 당신이 이 사이트에서 내 입장이라고 보는 것에 대한 요약은 모욕적이다.나는 이 페이지들이 "스태그먼트"되는 것을 원하지 않는다.나는 단지 그들이 어떻게 배치되어야 하는지에 대해 다른 의견을 가지고 있다.원하시면 WP:Diva라고 부르십시오. 하지만 제 전체 편집 영역에서 금지된 주제 때문에 사이트 밖으로 영원히 나가게 될 겁니다.이곳은 스트레스를 줄 만한 가치가 없다.—율롱 (琉竜) 03:25, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

솔직히 난 안 믿어.서로 협조하겠다는 당신의 의지는 두 사람이 제재를 받는 데 얼마나 가까운가 하는 것과 정비례하는 것으로 보인다.네 문제를 해결했으니 지금이 몇 번째야?왜 RfC가 시작되었을 때 몇 주 전에, 아니면 두 분이 RfC 2부에 참여하기 시작했을 때 몇 주 후에 이러한 문제가 해결되지 않았는가?RfC로 이어진 논의로 이어진 블로아웃 이전에 왜 의견 차이를 해결하지 못했을까?아니면 그 전에 있었던 폭발 후에?이 스레드를 시작한 이후로 다른 사용자들과 이야기를 나누면서 내가 얻은 일관된 주제는 오래 전에 다른 사람들이 모두 두 분에게 싫증을 느꼈고, 두 분이 주제나 사이트를 금지시키는 솔루션을 중개하려고 하는 것은 결코 통하지 않는다는 것이다.지금 당장은, 지져스라고 불러. 하지만 난 그들과 동의하는 내 자신을 발견했어.

이게 진짜라고 설득하고 싶어?좋아, 여기 어떻게 해야 할지.나는 너희 둘 다 내가 위에서 제시한 상호 작용과 주제 금지를 1년 집행 유예로 자발적으로 받아들이기를 바란다.두 사람이 싸우지 않고 함께 일하거나, 아니면 그냥 떨어져 있는 한 2014년 말까지 제재는 적용되지 않는다.그러나 이 일이 시작되기 전에 중단했던 곳을 두 사람이 집어들고, 두 사람이 서로 싸우거나 전쟁터 행동을 통해 애니메와 만가 주제에 지장을 초래했다는 이유로 다시 이 페이지로 끌려간다면(사전 합의를 얻지 못한 채 전쟁을 편집하고 기사를 병합하고 분할하는 등) 무권한 행정관은 당신이 사기꾼이라는 데 동의한다.선을 그은 후 제재조치가 발효된다.논쟁도 없고, 마지막 순간의 조정도 없으며, 패키지는 효력을 발휘하며 적어도 6개월 동안 유효하다.

그 말에 동의하면 한 번 더 기회를 주겠다.그렇지 않다면, 내가 보기엔 RfC에서 마지막 기회를 잡아서 날려버렸어.이 시점에서 다른 지역사회가 이걸 해결책으로 살지는 모르겠지만, 만약 그게 너희 둘이 야기하는 문제들을 해결한다면, 그들은 그럴지도 몰라.스벤망구아르화?03:55, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

안녕, 난 이 모든 일에 관계없는 제3자야류와 크리스는 이런 토론이 벌어지면 가끔 튀어나오는 그런 사람으로 나를 기억할지도 모른다.내 의견을 말하자면, 나는 류시원이 다른 편집자들과 상당히 대립적으로 반응하는 그의 현재 (당시) 습관에 경종을 울린 이후부터 이 드라마의 상당 부분이 펼쳐지는 것을 보아왔다.나는 류가 전직 행정관이라는 것을 알고 놀랐다; 나는 그가 행정관으로부터, 전 행정관으로부터, 혹은 다른 사람에게, 그가 어떤 종류의 싸움을 했는지 결코 예상하지 못할 것이다.그리고 나서 류시원이 그에 대한 AN/I 토론이 시작되었을 때 나는 불쑥 나타났다.류현진은 자신의 행동을 바로 잡겠다고 했고, 나는 그것이 모든 면에서 좋은 개입이라고 생각했다.그러나 잘 보시오, 그 후 우리는 거대한 RfC와 24시간 블록, 롤백 권리 제거, 그리고 크리스가 개인적으로 류시원을 향했던 것처럼 보이는 수많은 AfD가 있다.

이 모든 게 엉망진창이야.내 관점에서 볼 때, 류시원은 자신의 편집에 너무 많은 개인적 이해관계를 가져왔고 다른 사람들에 대해 매우 오만하게 반응한다.반면에 크리스는 불난 집에 부채질만 하고 이 드라마를 그들 사이에 계속하는 일종의 활력소인 것 같다.내가 문제의 전체 범위를 가지고 있는 것은 아니지만, 그것이 내게 어떤 소리처럼 들리는지, 이 '까맣게 그을린 지구' 아이디어는 어쩌면 가장 좋은 방법일지도 모른다.두 명의 열정적인 편집자가 오랜 시간 동안 차단/무겁게 제한되어야 한다는 것은 유감스러운 일이지만, 일이 그렇게 되어감에 따라, 그것은 필요한 것 같다.류시원의 AN/I에서 말했듯이 두 사람 모두 '나쁜' 편집자는 아니라고 생각하지만, 편집에 대한 열정은 금방 뜨거워질 수 있다.Antoshi ☏ ☏ 04:31, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

류롱은 실제로 내가 삭제 태그를 붙인 카드 기사를 삭제하는 데 찬성표를 던졌다.이것들은 그가 실제로 만든 것이다.[4][5][6] 우리는 이것에 대해 논의했고 다른 몇몇은 삭제되는 대신 병합되어야 한다.나는 오직 한 사람만이 그의 결말을 의심했고 나는 그것을 철회해 달라고 요청해왔다.[7] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

• 우리는 이전에 우리의 문제를 해결한 적이 없다.지금은 "친구하자"가 아니라 서로 싸우기 위해 돌아가자.이 글을 쓰면서 WP를 구하려고 한다.토쿠사츠의 위키백과 주제의 설정이 작동하기 때문에 그것을 유지하는 것은 그다지 어려운 일이 아니다.우리 두 사람이 모든 것에 특별히 동의하는 것은 아닐지 모르지만, 우리 둘 다 위키피디아가 더 나아지기를 원하고 률롱이 그 분야에서 도움을 요청했다는 것을 알고 있다. 률롱은 MOSAM의 개편이 필요하며 토쿠사츠가 확정된 후에 해결하기로 동의했기 때문에 나는 내가 이해하지 못하는 것을 기꺼이 개입하여 도움을 주려고 한다.류룽의 일상 업무는 어떤 편집자에게도 벅찬 일이고 나는 우리 중 많은 사람들이 그가 등을 돌렸을 때 이러한 기사들 중 몇 개가 얼마나 나쁜 영향을 받는지 이해하지 못한다고 생각한다.비록 그 말이 나왔지만...루시아와 나의 이견들이 우리 목에 올가미를 씌우지 않고 해결되었을 때, 나는 "공포"가 휘두를 만한 큰 무기가 아니라고 생각한다.이것은 쿠바 미사일 위기가 아니며 공동체가 문제를 해결하는 것보다 우리 둘 중 하나 또는 둘 다와 함께 할 것이라는 점을 감안할 때 분명 다른 대안적 해결을 보여주고 있다.함께 일하거나 아니면 우리의 주제 중 하나 또는 둘 다 훨씬 더 나빠진다.개인적으로는 그 생각이 마음에 들지 않지만, 프로젝트 공간의 마지막 '이슈'는 서로의 차분한 상호작용을 통해 해결되었다.만약 "RFC"가 이 난장판으로 인해 폐쇄되어야 한다면, 우리 둘 다 시민적이고 적절하게 행동하고 주요 문제에 대한 명확한 합의가 해결되었고 그것에 대한 더 이상의 측정 기준을 얻을 시간이 없다는 것은 변하지 않을 것이다.그리고 률롱이 AFD에 12개 이상의 기사를 지명하고 혼자서 위키피디아의 범주를 변경하고 쌓고 태그를 달고 라벨을 붙이고 분류하는 것에 대해 "대단히" 하지 않은 것은 우리가 함께 일하고 있다는 꽤 좋은 징조라고 생각한다.ChrisGualtieri (토크) 04:22, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)
  • 그리고 솔직히 스벤, 난 네가 우리에 대해 드라마틱한 글을 올리기 전에 우리 문제를 해결했다고 말했잖아.우리 두 사람이 해결해서 내가 이걸 발견했을 때 놀랐어.11월 12일부터 Knockout 페이지를 보고 있지만.[8] 특정 출처에서 찾을 수 없는 인종적으로 충전된 텍스트를 삽입한 IP가 User_talk:72.92.132.215에서 메모를 하는 것을 발견했고, 그는 자신을 되돌리는 것보다 나를 되돌렸고, 나는 그렇게 한 것에 대해 감사했고 환영/도움말 템플릿을 떨어뜨렸다.인종은 나에게 민감한 주제고 나는 률롱이 그런 의도를 가지지 않았다는 것을 깨닫지 못한 채 화를 냈다. 그것은 세상의 종말이 아니다.오해는 일어나지만 '이슈'는 A&M이나 일본과 접선적인 관계도 아니어서 RFC 이전부터 '드라마틱한' 일을 하지 않았는데 왜 이 드라마가 있는지 모르겠다.ChrisGualtieri (대화) 04:36, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)
    • 위키 이외의 대화를 꺼냄으로써, 당신은 나를 곤란한 입장에 빠뜨리고 있어, 크리스 구얼티에리.나는 상대방이 동의하지 않는 한 오프위키 대화는 오프위키(off-wiki)로 유지되어야 한다고 굳게 믿는다.공개적으로 언급할 생각은 없었지만, RfC에서 철수하여 이 실을 시작하기 직전에 벌어진 이 분쟁에 밀접하게 연루된 누군가와 IRC를 놓고 40분 동안 대화를 나누었다고 말할 것이다.그 대화 또한 내가 당신과 률롱이 정말로 일을 꾸몄다고 믿기를 꺼리는 이유야.이 문제가 ArbCom으로 넘어가지 않는 한, 이 경우 내가 누구와 대화를 나눴는지, 무슨 내용이었는지 공개적으로 밝히지는 않을 것이다.그것이 내 삶을 훨씬 더 편하게 해줄 것이고, 내가 왜 이 문제가 해결되는 것에 자신감을 잃었는지 다른 모든 사람들에게 정확히 말해 줄 것이지만, 그것은 또한 이 대화를 아무에게도 이득이 되지 않는 방식으로 변화시킬 것이다.나는 그 대화에 앉아서, 심지어 하나 있다는 것을 모든 사람들에게 알리지 않고, 그것과 함께 오는 홍보 히트를 받는 것에 만족했다.나는 3RR 블록이 RfC를 탈선시킬 만큼 충분히 큰 거래는 아니라는 것을 알고 있지만, 그것이 내가 RfC에서 물러난 주된 이유인 것처럼 행동할 용의가 있었다. 왜냐하면, 나의 더 나은 판단에도 불구하고, 나는 여전히 많은 사람들이 금지되지 않고 이 문제가 해결되는 것을 보고 싶기 때문이다.하지만 나는 어찌할 바를 몰라; 나는 여기서 해결책을 중개하는 것에 지쳤다.이쯤 되면 정말 어떻게 해결되든 상관없어.하지만 내가 또 다른 ChrisGualtieri vs.AN이나 AN/I에 있는 률롱 실을 다시 한번, 나는 적어도 1년 동안 전면적인 사이트 금지 권고를 할 것이다.지역사회는 이제 지긋지긋해졌고, 난 더 이상 너희 둘을 곁에 두기 위해 싸우지 않을 거야.Sven ManguardWha? 18:36, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)
      • - 오프위키? - 응? - 네가 그 연락처를 흘렸으니 내가 열게 될 거야. 창피하지도 비밀도 아니야.IRC에서 한 줄에 언급했지만, 당신은 그것에 응답하지 않았고 나는 당신이 그것을 읽지도 않았다고 생각했다.포털에 대한 나의 질문에 답하기 몇 시간 전이었다.만약 포털에 대한 질문이 특권이라면, 사과하지만 IRC나 여기에 존재하는 어떤 오해에 대해서도 신경 쓰지 않는다.우리에 대해 40분이나 얘기했어?그래서 뭐나는 A&M에서 화해했고 그것이 내가 의미하는 바였다 - IRC는 세미 오프위키, 세미온이지만 위의 반응을 자극한 것이 무엇인지 모르겠다.어떤 대화를 나누었든 분명히 화가 났을 거야.나는 여전히 RFC가 성공적이었다고 믿고 있으며 그에 대한 류룽의 발언을 반영하고 있다. 그래서 위 드라마에 대해 내가 놀랐던 것이다.만약 당신이 A&M과 관련이 없고 내가 제출하지도 않은 3RR의 어떤 것이 조금 슬픈 모든 것을 가라앉히기에 충분하다는 것을 알고 있다면.비록 그 오해가 우리의 돌파구와 동맹에 앞서 있었지만 - 공동체는 그것이 우리의 문제를 만족스럽게 해결할 수 없다는 것을 보여주었고, 우리가 개별적으로 가지고 있는 의견 불일치는 DRN, RFC, ANI, 중재 그리고 ArbCom이 상호 합의할 수 있는 어떤 결과를 초래하지 않을 것이다.그렇다, 나는 압도적인 합의로 그것을 끝내도록 강요하는 공동체의 능력에 유혹을 받았다. 하지만 이미 동의한 것처럼 보이는 입장을 제쳐놓고도 실제적인 세부사항은 단지 4명 정도의 사람들에게만 흥미가 있다.앞으로 6개월 동안 함께 일합시다. 만약 그것이 빠르게 상호 작용 금지를 타파한다면, 나는 "사건이 해결되었다"고 의미 없이 말하지 않는다.률롱은 이것으로도 충분히 스트레스를 받고 있지만, 처리되었고 AFD와 률롱의 지역 개혁에 대한 자신의 열망에 대해 토쿠사츠 동맹과 긍정적인 반응이 우리가 분명한 합의에 도달했다는 것을 의미하지 않는지 나는 잘 모르겠다.드라마 페이지에서 몇 달만 빼면 이게 진짜라는 걸 알 수 있을 거야.ChrisGualtieri (토크) 00:50, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)
        • 네가 언급하고 있는 대화는 분명히 내가 언급하고 있던 것이 아니다.Sven Manguard Wha? 01:09, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

좋아, 이제 지긋지긋해.만약 관리자가 RfC를 닫기를 원한다면, 그것은 매우 감사할 것이다.거기서 실행 가능한 합의를 보는 사람들이 있는데, 그렇다고 한다면 우리는 절대 그것을 낭비해서는 안 된다.그러나 나는 개인적으로 이 문제를 해결할 수 없다.나는 RfC에 많은 시간을 투자했고, 이 토론에 많은 시간을 투자했다. 그리고 나는 그 어떤 시간도 결국 건설적인 결과를 초래했다고 생각하지 않는다.ArbCom 사건이 있기 전까지만 해도 나는 다시 류롱이나 크리스구얼티에리에게 말을 걸 생각이 없고, 이 또는 이와 관련된 어떤 실타래에 더 관여할 계획도 없다.누가 여기서 조각을 줍게 되든, 행운을 빈다.Sven Manguard Wha? 01:09, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

크리스와 내가 화해했는데 왜 자꾸 ArbCom을 언급해?—율롱 (琉竜) 10:34, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

두 분이 (위에서 언급한 바와 같이) 잘 지내려는 노력이 두 분이 제재를 받는 데 얼마나 가까운가 하는 것과 정비례하는 것처럼 보이기 때문일 겁니다.기존 지역사회 정책은 너희 둘이 존재하는 금지된 전쟁터를 확산시키는데 성공하지 못했고, 커뮤니티가 제재를 승인한 마지막 제안이 제안되었을 때 그들은 이번 마지막 기회인 RFC를 위해 단락되었다.In my counting this has been the 3rd or 4th RFC held over this issue with each one being a failure to get the space to be settled down and to have you and Chris not at each others throats and at a various form of DR (DRN,3O, RfC, AN, AN/EW, ANI, etc.) every few weeks because one or the other throws a tantrum and those outside the topic space have그걸 정리하기 위해서.호서 (토크) 12:33, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

RFC는 그 목적을 달성했다.스벤이 더 이상 참여를 절대적으로 거부하는 것은 ArbCom이 사적으로 처리된 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 다음 단계라는 것을 의미해서는 안 된다.—율롱 (琉竜) 18:40, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

역문 파괴 행위

• 206.127.96.82 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

"뒤로 텍스트" 파괴 행위를 주의하십시오. 예를 보려면 위의 내용을 참조하십시오.

반달리즘은 본문을 거꾸로 바꾸지만, 어떠한 추가나 제거 없이는 녹색/빨간색 텍스트가 추가/감산되는 한 실제로 수정된 텍스트로 나타나지 않는다.

이걸 확인할 수 있는 특정한 남용 필터나 공공 기물 파손 감시 방법이 있는지 모르겠어.

혹시 누군가가 이 일에 대해 반달패트롤 보드를 돕고 경보를 내릴 수 있을까?

감사합니다.

— Cirt (대화) 17:21, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)

나는 일반적으로 (이런 특정한 종류의 공공 기물 파괴 행위를 본 적은 없지만) 이런 말도 안 되는 소리 때문에 내 감시 목록의 (0) 편집본을 보려고 한다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 18:38, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)

ykaens yrev woH...위에 나열된 IP를 차단했다.마크 아르스텐 (대화) 19:02, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)

어떻게 된 거야?내가 모든 것을 거꾸로 다시 입력하는 데 터무니없는 시간을 들인 것과 달리, 그 코드는 아무것도 바뀌지 않은 것처럼 보인다.혹시 양방향 텍스트를 지원하기 위해 이상한 컨트롤 문자를 삽입한 것은 아닐까?Nyttend (대화) 03:09, 2013년 11월 25일 (UTC)

lmth.rotareneG-txeT-esreveR/moc.cinahcemtxet//:ptth gnidulcni ,gniht fo tros siht od taht seitilitu ffo dna enilno suoirav era erehT .dnuora dehctiws gnieb yllaer era srettel eht ,oN _{Hint: click on the link; it still works)} --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

니텐드, 그들은 유니코드 형식 문자(예: 오른쪽에서 왼쪽 표시)를 추가하고 있다.파일 크기에 3바이트(UTF-8의 RLM 크기)를 더하지만, 0폭 포맷 문자여서 디프에서 눈에 보이는 새로운 문자로 나타나지 않고, 새로운 줄을 넘어서는 효과가 없다.VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:58, 2013년 11월 25일(UTC)

상기시켜주는 것으로 WP:VisualEditor에는 예기치 않게 이것을 일으키는 버그가 적어도 한 개 있었는데, 버그 퇴행은 불행한 삶의 사실이다.보통 사람들은 문제를 알아차리고 저장하기 전에 고치려고 하지만, 만약 당신이 "VisualEditor"로 태그된 편집에서 이것을 본다면, 나에게 WP:VisualEditor/Feedback으로 알려줘.고마워, Whatamidoing (WMF) (토크) 20:23, 2013년 11월 25일 (UTC)

버그 퇴행이 삶의 불행한 사실이라면 개발자와 테스터들은 매일 밤 자동 회귀 테스트를 시작해야 한다.이렇게 되면 삶의 사실이 상당히 드문 일로 바뀐다. --Guy Macon (대화) 11:55, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

사용자에 대한 불만 사항:니키마리아

관리자 작업이 요청됨

보호된 리디렉션

BIIT를 Rawalpindi#Barani Information Technology Institute인 Arid Farming University로 리디렉션하고 싶다.또한 바라니 정보 기술 연구소(그 페이지가 보호된다면, 나는 아직 보지 않았다)는 아리드 농업 대학, 라왈핀디#바라니 정보 기술 연구소.캔자바브라카다브라 (토크) 00:41, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

완료. Nytend (대화) 00:50, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

폐업 요청하다

다음 RFC는 9월 6일에 개장하였다.나는 WP에서 폐쇄를 요청했다.ANRFC는 10월 12일인데 반응이 없다.관리자가 좀 닫아 주시겠습니까?위키백과 대화:스타일# 설명서모스:IDENTITY RFC: "분쟁이 없을 때..삭제, 보관, 변경?

고마워, 가브리엘F (토크) 04:30, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)

제임스 맥기브니

관리자가 제임스 맥기브니에 대한 보류 중인 변경사항을 검토하십시오.기사는 PC2는 물론 완벽하게 보호되므로 관리자가 아닌 사람이 검토할 수 없다.편집 전쟁에서 보호를 통한 편집으로 보일 수 있는 상황에서 '분쟁 중에 PC를 사용하지 않기 때문에 이 편집이 어차피 있을 것' 같은 코멘트로 받아들여질 수도 있다.감사합니다, Callanec(대화 • 기여 • 로그) 06:13, 2013년 11월 28일(UTC)

나는 모든 개정안이 WP와 잘 맞아떨어져서 수락했다.PC의 관점.나머지는 기사의 yalk 페이지에 속하거나 블록 로그라도 가능해야 하지만, 편집에 BLP 정책 위반은 없다.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)

이에 관한 적극적인 양말 조사 [[13]와 WP:BLPN에서 검토 요청이 있다. 헬 인 A 버킷 (토크) 10:35, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)

• 정리가 좀 더 필요할 것 같아서 내가 보호 장치를 완전히 제거했어.마크 아르스텐 (대화) 20:05, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)

서로 다른 IP 주소의 장기 "Alvin and the Chipmunks" 반달

미안하다.나는 이 반달에 대한 나의 이전의 글이 관리자 게시판/사고란에 더 잘 게시되었을 것이라는 것을 방금 깨달았다.

나는 지금 그 부분에 내용을 옮겨 놓았다.친절한 테니스 팬 (토크) 21:39, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)

"장기 앨빈과 다람쥐 반달"이라는 제목의 보고서가 나왔을 때 누군가가 상어를 뛰어넘었다.비리디타스 (토크) 02:59, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

기록 연결 및 페이지 이동 요청

• 컴퓨터가 3일 동안 중단된 동안 범주:역사 병합 및 위키백과 후보:요청된 이동/기술 요청이 쌓였다.나 말고 다른 관리자 중에 이력관리랑 페이지 이동 방해하는 사람 있어?여기 영국은 오후 11시 55분이야.Anthony Appleyard (대화) 22:49, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

  나는 역사 병합을 할 줄 알지만, 일반적으로 그 범주를 주시하지 않는다.위키피디아에서 또 멀어질 거면 얼마든지 ping해줘.— Mr. Stradivarius 09:47, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

엘렉시스 먼로(새로운 정보)

아티클스페이스 편집 알림

최근 Natale Hollay 기사의 주요 기사 리뷰에 따르면, 이 기사 공간 편집 알림(제거된 이후)이 내 관심을 끌었다.

• 할로웨이의 공지사항을 편집하십시오.

그것은 3년 이상 동안 기사에 실렸다.나는 이 질의를 ANI에서 실오라기 하나 걸치지 않았는데, 3일 전에 템플릿이 제거되었기 때문에 더 이상 "사건"이 아니지만, 아직 명확하게 밝혀야 할 문제가 있다.

나는 기사공간에 이런 편집 고지를 접해 본 적이 없었고, 그것이 이루어질 수 있다는 것조차 깨닫지 못했다.조사하다 보니 a) 기사공간에 관리자만이 편집통지서를 배치하거나 편집할 수 있고, b) 아르브콤 제재가 있는 많은 기사에는 편집통지서가 있다는 것을 알게 되었다.기사에 사용된 날짜 형식에 대한 언급이 포함된 몇 가지를 찾았지만, 이러한 취지의 '경고' 통지가 있는 제재가 시행되지 않은 FA나 기사는 전혀 알지 못한다.

본질적으로 "관리자들이 지켜보고 있다"는 것이 적절하거나 다른 FA들에게 일어나야 하기 때문에 FA 편집에 대한 이 정도의 "경고"라는 문제에 대한 해명이 필요한 것 외에, 나는 또한 이 기사에 가장 관여하는 관리자가 이와 같은 편집통지문을 배치해야 하는지 아니면 누가 배치할 수 있는지, b) consi에 대한 후속 조치도 원한다.관리자에 대한 우리의 입장은 도구 사용과 관련된 것을 제외하고 기사를 순찰하는 다른 편집자와 같으며, 왜 "관리자"에 대한 문구가 위협적이고 비협조적일 수 있는 지에 대한 것이다.나조차 모르는 FA에서 이런 일이 계속됐다면(FA 과정에 내가 관여했다는 점을 고려하면) 다른 FA들이 몇 명이나 따라 했을까.다른 사람들은 이제 그들이 이것을 할 수 있다는 것을 깨닫거나, 혹은 이렇게 했을지도 모른다.여기 위키피디아에서 관리자가 기사를 편집하지 않는 한 더 넓은 지역사회가 그것을 인식하지 않고도 그가 주 편집자인 기사에 대한 편집에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 능력을 가지고 있다.

우리는 이런 종류의 편집통지서를 가지고 있어야 하는가, 기사와 관련된 관리자들이 배치해야 하는가, 그리고 우리가 이 중 몇 개가 저 밖에 있는지 알아낼 방법이 있는가?SandyGeorgia (토크) 23:23, 2013년 11월 25일 (UTC)

편집통지서가 많지만, 이들 중 다수는 편집자에게 기존의 재량적 제재(예: 이스라엘-팔레스타인 기사)를 통보하기만 한다.문제의 편집 고지는 아마도 부적절하게 선을 넘었을 것이다. 그러나 그것이 백지화되었기 때문에 (그리고 최근의 WP에서의 신랄한 정도를 고려했을 때:AN/I 토론) 편집자의 적절한 가이드라인에 대한 보다 일반적인 질문에 집중하는 것이 좋을 것이다.마스트셀^Talk 23:21, 2013년 11월 25일(UTC)

그렇다, 바로 그것이 문제다: 위키피디아에서는 별로 언급되지 않았다.편집통지.(우린 내가 글을 좀 더 일반적인 것으로 만들기 위해 내 글을 정리하고 있을 때, 너무 구체적인 ANI로부터 그것을 베꼈을 때 곤란을 편집했다.SandyGeorgia (토크) 23:27, 2013년 11월 25일 (UTC)

내 경험상 편집 고지는 특히 대부분의 기사에 영향을 미치는 이슈나 개발 상황에 관한 최근 기사에서 적절한 소싱 등이 필요한 편집을 상기시키기 위해 숨겨진 코멘트를 대신하여 점점 더 많이 사용되고 있다.아마도 그 편집 고지의 이상한 점은 관리자들에 대한 언급이었을 것이다. 그것은 단지 관리자만이 문제를 해결할 것이 아니기 때문에 적절하지 않은 것처럼 보였다.나는 개인적으로 편집 내용을 상기시키는 데 문제가 있다고 보지 않는다. 편집자의 질이 나쁘다는 것은 다른 편집자에게 더 큰 부담을 줄 수도 있다.완전한 보호가 적용되는 동안 브래들리 매닝 기사에 IIRC 편집통지가 사용되었는데, 이는 관리자를 언급하는 것이 적절한 몇 안 되는 경우 중 하나일 것으로 보인다.FA에게 편집 고지는 덜 중요할 수 있지만, 잠재적으로 도움이 될 수 있는 제재 없는 경우가 될 수 있다.닐 아인(대화) 04:38, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

템플릿 참조:편집통지/페이지/아미 연못(예: 템플릿):알림/페이지/Aslan(해제) 또는 템플릿:편집통지서/페이지/69 (섹스 포지션) 또는 템플릿:편집자/페이지/앤더스 베링 브레이빅(편집자가 아니더라도 이 문제에 대해 상당히 많은 논의가 있었다는 것을 내가 봤을 수도 있고 알고 있다.물론 날짜 형식 문제를 제외하고 언어 형식에 대한 그들의 사용도 드물지 않을 수 있다.템플릿:편집 알림/페이지/Air New Zealand 및 더 중요한 템플릿:편집 알림/페이지/애프터 이스케이프(비디오 게임)약간 다르지만 적어도 한번은 유용하다고 생각되는 템플릿:편집통지서/페이지/안토닌 스칼리아.

P.S. 이러한 사례들 중 어느 것이든 적절성에 대해 구체적으로 언급하지 않고, 커뮤니티로서 우리가 그것을 사용해야 한다는 것을 시사하지 않은 채, 편집 가능한 편집의 발달의 의도 중 하나가 그들의 기사 사용을 지적한 것이 아니었을까?적어도 나는 도움이 되긴 했지만, 내가 그들을 처음 봤을 때, 그들은 특히 기초 POV에서 말하는 페이지, 게시판, 사용자 페이지 등에 그다지 중요하지 않아 보였다고 항상 생각해 왔다.위키백과에서도 알 수 있다.템플릿이 여러 개 있다는 알림 편집:템플릿 및 카테고리 편집:편집통지서 템플릿, 나는 적어도 두 개의 이전 예제가 이것을 사용했다고 생각한다.

닐 아인(토크) 05:22, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

더 많은 샘플에 감사드리며, 이 샘플들은 모두 편집자의 효과적인 사용방법의 예들이다.나는 할로웨이 FAR이 기사 위에 올려져 있다는 것도 몰랐고, 이제 위키백과의 기사에서 그들의 적용에 관한 가이드라인에 공백이 있다는 것을 알게 되었다.편집통지.이 사례가 밝혀졌기 때문에 WP와 같은 문구와 함께 더 많은 FA들이 이 예들을 사용하는 것을 보게 될 것이다.OWNE#Featured 기사.그것이 내가 생각하기에 더 넓은 이슈에 대한 관리자 논의가 도움이 될 것 같은 분야 중 하나이다; 그 페이지는 추가적인 소유권이 없는 방법으로 템플릿의 적절한 사용에 대한 논의를 포함하도록 확장될 필요가 있다.반복적인 이슈와 새로운 편집자가 항상 대화 페이지 FAQ를 읽지 않는 수많은 추천 기사를 편집한다.또 다른 관련 이슈는 그 기사들 중 하나에 편집통지서를 작성하도록 관리자에게 요청해야 한다는 것이다.ANI 또는 여기에서 이러한 요청을 하는 곳은 어디인가? 샌디조지아(Talk) 16:21, 2013년 11월 26일(UTC)

• [ec: 좋은 아침 샌디!]원칙적으로 (그런) 편집 고시에 반대하지는 않겠지만, 그 안에 있는 "관리자"에 대한 언급은 불필요하고 수사학적으로 ("킬링 효과") 있을 수 있다.나는 우리가 더 많은 지침이 필요하지 않다고 생각한다; 나는 정기적인 편집 과정이 그것을 처리할 수 있다고 생각한다. 이 경우에는 매우 늦었지만.Drmies (토크) 2013년 11월 26일 16:24 (UTC)

• 고마워, 드레이어스!자, 구체적으로, WP의 문구:OWNE#기능 기사가 FA 편집자격을 위해 적합하다고 생각하십니까?만약 그렇다면, 비관리자 요청에 대한 적절한 포럼은 WT일 수 있다.아니면 봇을 운영해서 모든 것을 해야 할까?아니면 우리가 알고 있는 관리자에게 개별적으로 접근하는가?아니면 템플리트를 변위시킬까?SandyGeorgia (토크) 16:48, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

나는 편집 고지에 문제가 없다고 본다.그것은 다르게 표현될 수 있지만, 그것은 중립적으로 쓰여졌고 정책에 대해 정확했다.그레그잭P부머! 2013년 11월 26일 16시 42분 (UTC)

나는 이런 종류의 메시지를 전달하는 편집통지의 아이디어를 지지한다; 내 생각에, 이 편집통지의 유일한 문제는 콤마 스플라이스와 다른 문법 문제들이다.Nyttend (대화) 2013년 11월 26일 17:59, (UTC)

나는 미국 131번 국도에 편집통지서를 추가했다(템플릿-편집자는 관리자만이 아니라 이들을 추가할 수 있다, btw). 단지 고속도로의 한 구간이 재선전되었기 때문이다.MDOT가 그들의 지도를 온라인으로 업데이트하면, 나는 마일리지의 변화 등을 감안하여 기사를 수정할 수 있다.업데이트하기 전까지는 모든 IP가 "잘못됐다"거나 그런 수치들을 엉망으로 만들고 싶지 않아.나는 특히 안정성과 일관성이 중요한 FA들에게 그들이 유용할 수 있는 또 다른 예로서 제안한다.임자디 1979 → 18:20, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

• 약간 접선으로서, +ACC(템플릿 편집기 외에)는 다소 문구에 영향을 줄 수 있는 편집 노트를 만들 수 있고 만들 수 있다는 점에 주목할 필요가 있다.Kevin Gorman(대화) —예약되지 않은 코멘트 추가 18:22, 2013년 11월 26일(UTC)

• 케빈 고만, +ACC가 무슨 뜻인지 모르겠다.누가 케빈이 말하는 101버전의 더미 좀 줄래?SandyGeorgia (토크) 22:15, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)
  • 그는 "계정 작성자" 권리를 가진 사용자를 의미한다.이는 제목 블랙리스트를 통해 편집자 생성 보호가 구현되는 부작용이다.계정 작성자는 블랙리스트의 대상이 아니므로(또한 사용자 계정 생성을 방해하고 업무에 지장을 줄 수 있기 때문에) 편집자 메모를 작성할 수 있다.그게 합법적인 건지 아니면 그냥 알려진 부작용인지 모르겠어.절차상으로는 과거에 사람들이 페이지(대부분의 비쇼넨, 어떤 이유에서인지, 누가 직접 할 수 있는지)에 편집자 주석을 추가해 달라고 부탁한 것으로 알고 있으며, 나는 그 요청이 타당해 보일 때 응한 것으로 알고 있다.별일 아니야, 정말.2013년 11월 26일, 22:20, Writ Keeper(UTC)

내 생각은 Drmies의 생각과 같다: 관리자에 대한 부분만 틀려 보인다.이런 종류의 통지는 신실한 편집자들이 FA에 인용 자료를 추가하는 데 유용할 수 있다. --Coemgenus (토크) 18:34, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

• 같은 토론이 100억번 반복되지 않도록 엘크(FA)에도 이와 다르지 않은 것을 추가했다.특정 사용자만 만들 수 있지만 일단 만들어지면 누구나 편집할 수 있다는 점에 주목할 필요가 있다.Beeblebrox (대화) 23:39, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

네가 틀린 것 같아, 비블브록스.방금 템플릿을 편집하려고 했는데:Editnotes/Page/Elk, MediaWiki가 허락하지 않았다. --Floquensock (대화) 23:46, 2013년 11월 26일 (UTC)

이것은 엘크에게 보내는 페이지 공지사항이다.
이 편집통지는 관리자, 계정 작성자 및 템플릿 편집자에 의해서만 작성되거나 편집될 수 있다.
페이지에 대한 변경을 요청하려면, 대화 페이지에 추가한 후 요청에 대한 설명을 참조하십시오.난 놀랐어, 왜냐하면 나도 편집자가 만들어지고 나면 누구나 편집할 수 있다고 생각했기 때문이야.내 유일한 사용자 권한은 IP 블록 면제(기본 계정이 관리자이기 때문에)와 자동 확증이다.Nyttend 백업(대화) 00:36, 2013년 11월 27일(UTC)

편집 고지를 편집하려면 "편집" 플래그가 블랙리스트 항목에서 편집 고시에 대해 설정되었으므로 편집 고지를 만들 때와 동일한 블랙리스트 재정의가 필요하다.2013년 11월 27일(UTC) 00:42, Writ Keeper♔ 00:42,

그건 내 잘못인 것 같아.편집 통지의 일부가 초능력 없이 사용자에 의해 수정되었다고 맹세할 수 있었다.비블브록스 (대화) 01:58, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

나는 관리자에 대한 문구 외에 통지가 적절하고, 필요하며, 정책별로 정확하다는 데 분명한 공감대가 있다고 본다.나는 그들이 모든 FA에 표준으로 추가되어야 한다고 생각한다.아마도 누군가가 기꺼이 대담하게 이것을 표준 절차로 가이드라인에 언급할 것을 제안할 것인가?그것이 기술되어 있든 간에, 그것은 우리의 표준이 되어야 한다. 나는 얼마나 많은 FA들이 그들의 지위를 잃었는지에 대한 통계를 가지고 있지 않다. 그러나 나는 그것이 지속적인 편집의 결과라고 장담할 수 있다.나는 한때 얼마나 많은 GA들이 그들의 지위를 잃었는지에 대해 어떤 사람이 모인 수치를 본 적이 있다. 그리고 그것은 내가 알고 있는 것보다 훨씬 더 많았다; 나는 우리가 그것을 조사한다면 얼마나 많은 FA가 있는지 궁금하다.카멜빈키 (토크) 02:40, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

이 숫자는 WP에서 확인할 수 있다.FAS, 해당 페이지의 토크 페이지 및 WP:FFA. 당신의 내기는 틀렸다; 대부분의 FA들은 그들을 지켜보는 사람들이 위키피디아를 떠날 때 황폐해지거나, 처음부터 그들이 표준이 아니었기 때문에 패배한다.게다가 WP:FAR은 빈털터리가 되었고 패배해야 할 기사들은 지명되지 않았다; 내 개인적인 추정으로는 적어도 현재 FA들의 20~30%는 표준이 아니다.이 편집 고지를 추가한다고 해서 기준에서 떨어지는 FA의 비율이 달라지지는 않을 것 같지만 보는 이들의 편집이 쉬워질 수 있다.SandyGeorgia (토크) 15:35, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

요약:

1. 이 영역에 정통한 사람이 위키백과 페이지를 업데이트할 수 있는가?편집통지?
2. WP와 유사한 편집 공지 추가:모든 FA에 대한 기사들이 공감대를 형성하고 있는 것 같으십니까?

SandyGeorgia (토크) 15:33, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)

아니. 이곳은 대부분 관리자나 나처럼 악당들이 많아 관리자들을 감시하는 이사회에 한정된 합의를 바탕으로 그 두 가지 결정을 내리기에 적절한 장소가 아니다.이러한 변경을 위한 논의는 당신의 두 번째 제안을 위한 VPP에서 이루어져야 하며, 첫 번째 제안의 경우 그 장소는 위키백과의 토픽 페이지가 될 것이다.편집통지.일단 거기서 합의가 이루어지면 그것은 성립될 수 있다.그러나 두 번째 제안이 적거나 의무화되어야 하는지는 의문이다.그것은 허용되어야 하지만 의무화 되어서는 안 되며 나는 이 제한된 논의에서도 그것이 의무화되어야 한다는 것에 대한 합의를 보지 않는다.카멜빈키 (토크) 02:51, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

권한 없는 관리자는 대화 시 왕실의 직함을 사용할 때 RfC를 평가하고 닫아야 함:스타일/생체 설명서

위키백과의 대화:스타일/생체 설명서#왕실의 "제목과 스타일" 사용과 왕실의 직함을 폐지한 척하는 자들과 그 가족들을 언급하는 글과 템플릿에 존댓말 접두어 사용 (이름의 길이만으로 송어 한 마리를 받을 만함) 나는 그 결과에 대한 심각한 의문 때문에 RfC 마감을 하지 않았을 뿐이다.여기 제 댓글을 보십시오.논란이 되고 있는 RfC를 종결시킨 경험이 있는 편향되지 않은 관리자가 합의점을 평가하여 RfC를 종료할 것을 요청한다. --Guy Macon (대화) 15:23, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

내가 충분할까?--Ymblanter (대화) 17:01, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

충분히 좋은 것 이상. :) --Guy Macon (대화) 17:24, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC

좋아, 내가 집에 도착하면 한 시간 후에 보기 시작할 거야.---임블란터 (대화) 17:32, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

완료--Ymblanter (대화) 19:45, 2013년 11월 29일(UTC)

CU 및 OS 도구 보유자의 활동 수준과 관련하여 제안된 중재자 동의

CU와 OS 도구 보유자의 활동 수준에 관한 중재자 동의가 제안되었다.코멘트를 하려면 모션 페이지의 모션에 있는 토론에 참여하십시오.고마워요.Callanec(대화 • 기여 • 로그) 01:51, 2013년 11월 30일(UTC)

관리인

이제 실험실에서 편집 내용을 삭제했다.관리자가 삭제된 편집 내용을 다시 표시함.—사이버 파워 19:23, 2013년 11월 27일(UTC)

최근 관리 작업 통계(예: 3개월 또는 6개월)가 어디에 있는가?--Ymblanter (대화) 21:26, 2013년 11월 27일(UTC)

아니, 하지만 난 만들 수 있어—사이버파워^Chat_Online 23:11, 2013년 11월 27일(UTC)

사실 그건 매우 흥미로울 겁니다.마크 아르스텐(토크) 04:48, 2013년 11월 28일(UTC)

정말 좋겠다.--Ymblanter (대화) 06:26, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)

네, 그것들을 제공하십시오.고마워, jni (대화) 19:44, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

하는 중...—사이버_Online^{Merry Christmas} 파워 12:52, 2013년 12월 1일(UTC)

사용자 이름 정책

두 가지 질문이 있다:

1. WP:CORPNAME은 "회사, 그룹, 기관 또는 제품의 이름(예: AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgets)으로 명확하게 구성된 사용자 이름USA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt)는 "홍보용으로 간주되기 때문에 허용되지 않는다".또 "회사나 단체, 상품에 관한 기사에서 홍보 사용자명을 채택하고 부적절한 홍보행동을 하는 유저는 차단할 수 있다"고 명시하고 있다.

   기사에서 홍보하지 않는 프로모션 사용자 이름이 있다고 가정해 보십시오. 사용자가 이름 변경을 거부할 경우 해결책은?이빨이 없으면 "허용되지 않는다"는 말이 무슨 의미가 있는가?

2. WP:UAA의 지침은 "이 페이지는 너무 노골적이고 심각한 문제인 사용자 이름을 위한 것이므로 즉시 차단해야 한다"고 명시되어 있다.또 "사용자와 덜 심각한 위반행위에 대해 협의해 선의로 계정 이름을 바꾸거나 탈퇴할 수 있도록 해달라"고 명시하고 있다.

   유사한 질문: 사용자 이름과 관련하여 사용자가 사용자 이름을 변경하지 않을 경우, 어디에서 보고하시겠습니까?

--Bbb23 (대화) 17:19, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

두 번째 질문 먼저: WP:RFC/N은 보통 그러한 시나리오의 다음 단계 I이다.첫 번째 질문에 대해서, 나는 UAA에서 행정부를 순찰하는 것에 다시 동의한다. 그리고 스팸 발송자 이름에 관해서라면 무엇이 차단되고 무엇이 아닌지는 누가 어떤 순간에 보고서를 처리하느냐에 달려있다.그 정책은 "관리자 재량"이 그것의 시행을 높은 변수로 만들 정도로 충분히 모호하다.또한 내가 보기에 그곳의 몇몇 단골들은 지역사회에서 승인되지 않은 "AFC에 대한 편집만이 유일한 편집" 면제와 같이 구체적인 상황을 어떻게 처리해야 하는지에 대한 그들 자신의 의견을 바탕으로 면제를 생각해냈는데, 그것은 단지 한 두 명의 순찰하는 관리자들이 하나여야 한다고 생각했기 때문에 일종의 표준 예외가 되었다.나는 사용자 이름 정책이 주기적인 공동체 검토와 정비가 필요한 것이라고 생각하는데, 이제 다시 그렇게 해야 할 때가 된 것 같다.Beeblebrox (대화) 17:36, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

정말 도움이 됐어, 비블브록스 고마워두 번째 질문에 대해서는 WP의 지침에 무언가를 추가하는 것이 좋지 않을까.WP에 대한 UAA:RFC/N? 분명 어딘가에 묻혀 있을 텐데 몰랐어.나는 이 지역을 전혀 순찰하지 않는다.--Bbb23 (대화) 17:55, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

허, 머리말 어딘가에서 언급된 줄 알았는데 아니었어.페이지 머리글과 편집통지에 모두 추가했다.Beeblebrox (대화) 2013년 11월 29일 18:19, (UTC)

• 여기서 강조해야 할 점은 홍보 사용자 이름을 가진 편집자들은 대개 좋은 의도를 가지고 있다는 것이다. 그들은 COI를 가지고 있지만 그들은 그것에 대해 투명해지고 있다.우리는 사람들이 그들의 갈등에 대해 정직하다고 거칠게 공격하는 입장이 되고 싶지 않다. 따라서 기본 목표는 가능한 한 좋은 방법으로 문제를 처리하는 것이다.Luie496 (대화) 18:17, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

나도 동의해.나는 스팸 사용자 이름에 대해 매우 강경하게 대하곤 했다. 스팸 사용자들의 대다수가 우리가 이 주변에서 그런 종류의 것을 허용하지 않는다는 것을 이해할 수 없다는 것이 내게 분명해지기 전까지는 말이다.그것이 내가 가장 불쾌한 스팸 발송자를 제외한 모든 사람들을 "부드러운" 차단하는 것을 좋아하는 이유다.이 블록은 그들에게 조직을 대표하는 이름을 절대 사용할 수 없다고 말하지만, 차단 해제 요청을 하지 않고도 즉시 새로운 계정을 시작할 수 있는 능력은 우리가 다른 기회를 줄 용의가 있다는 것을 그들에게 알려준다.Beeblebrox (대화) 18:23, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

정책 해석이 처음이 아니라 이 논의를 촉발시킨 UAA 관리자로서, 나는 그들이 계정을 만들 때 우리가 사람들에게 이것에 대해 경고하지 않는다는 나의 관찰을 덧붙일 것이다.나는 우리가 (우리가 가지고 있는 가정은, 공동체의 일원이 될 가능성이 있는 합법적인 편집자들이 대개 그러한 사용자 이름을 사용하지 않기 때문에 우리가 어느 정도 필터링할 수 있다는 것이다)라고 생각하지는 않지만, 이것은 회사나 조직과 유사한 사용자 이름을 (나에게) 차단하지 않는 한, 또는 해제되지 않는 한 차단되지 않도록 하는 것을 요구한다.그들이 그 단체들을 홍보하기 시작할 것이다.예외는 '연결된 아말감 위젯 주식회사'의 맥락에서 명확한 홍보 의도(역할 계정의 제안과 결합되는 경우가 많다)를 나타내는 이름이다.마케팅 부서"라고 말했는데, 나는 그것을 즉시 차단한다.다니엘 케이스 (대화) 21:44, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

나는 RFC를 통해 이 이슈를 재방문하는 것이 적절하다고 생각한다.이러한 사용자 이름 블록은 우리의 차단되지 않은 프로세스와 이름 변경 프로세스를 방해하고 역효과를 내는 것처럼 보인다.미술관 주인이 위키피디아를 편집하고 있다면, 미술관에 관한 기사에 대한 계정 편집을 검토할 때 그 사실을 알고 싶다.연필 제조사, 타이어 레그로오버, 우쿨렐레 화가용 디토.게다가 우리의 정책을 따르는 것은 부정직을 조장하는데 이는 비뚤어진 결과로 보인다.—Kww(토크) 21:51, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

정책의 이력에 대해서는 잘 모르겠지만, 단순히 사용자 이름을 만든다고 해서 사용자 이름을 만드는 사람이 실제로 조직에 연결돼 있거나, 그 중 연결돼 있는 사람이 조직에서 그들을 대표할 수 있는 권한을 갖는다는 것을 보장할 수 없다는 점이 한 가지 걱정거리였을 것이다.그래서, 나는 당신의 제안에는 누가 편집을 하는지 아는 것이 더 낫다고 생각하지만, 차라리 그것을 "거짓" 이름 뒤에 숨기는 것이 낫다고 생각하지만, 나는 OTRS가 어떤 식으로든 관여해야 한다고 생각한다.내가 제안하고 싶은 것은 조직 사용자 이름은 허용되지만, 그들이 보고되고 알려졌을 때, 그들은 OTRS를 통해 계정이 공식화 될 때까지 소프트 차단된다.그러한 경우, 차단을 해제할 수 있지만 WP에 대해 경고한다.NPOV, WP:COI 및 WP:PROMO. 만약 그들이 부적절한 편집을 시작한다면, 그러한 정책들을 위반하는 것에 근거하여 하드 차단을 받을 수 있다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 22:51, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

"정책 이력을 잘 모르겠지만, 단순히 사용자 이름을 만든다고 해서 사용자 이름을 만드는 사람이 실제로 조직에 연결돼 있다는 보장이 되지 않거나, 그 중 연결된 사람이 조직에서 그들을 대표할 수 있는 권한을 부여받는 것은 아니라는 점이 한 가지 걱정거리였을 것이다.내 추측에 의하면 누가 그 글을 썼든 간에 잠재적으로 기업적으로 들리는 사용자 이름들이 그 조직들과 아무런 연고도 없고 그들을 홍보하려는 의욕도 없는 사람들에 의해 사용될 수 있다고 생각하지 않았다.심지어 진짜(cf)도 있다.사용자:브롱스 디스카운트 주류(Bronx Discount Week)는 그가 알 수 있는 한 어떤 실제 조직도 그 이름을 사용하지 않도록 특별히 확실히 했다).어떤 사람들은 그냥 노는 것을 좋아한다.그리고 왜 그들은 법인명을 아이러니하거나 장난스럽게 사용했기 때문에 생산적으로 위키피디아를 편집하는 것을 포기해야 하는가?다니엘 케이스 (대화) 05:24, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

"사용자:"XYZcorp"은 단일 개인만을 위한 계정이어야 한다는 것이다.그래서 'XYZCorp에 표시'는 허용되지만 'XYZCorp PR 어시스턴트'는 허용되지 않는다.나는 그 원칙의 이유를 모르지만, 내가 한 것이 아니다라는 변명을 피하고, 대화를 더 쉽게 할 수 있게 하며, 개인이 WP뿐만 아니라 그의 고용주에게도 어느 정도 충성심을 느낄 수 있는 기회를 개선해 주는 좋은 원리로 보인다.

나는 독일 WP가 회사 사용자명을 허용한다고 믿고, 나는 그들의 경험을 알고 싶다.내가 보기엔 "사용자:"XYZCorp"은 허용되었고, COI 정책을 크게 완화하지 않는 한 계정이 직접 기사를 편집할 수 없었다.많은 "사용자:XYZCorp' 계정은 노골적인 광고와 함께 곧바로 뛰어들게 된다. "우리는 최고의 재료를 사용하는 것과 혼합된 고급 서비스를 제공한다... 이 분야에서 쌓은 우리의 수년간의 경험과 경험이 당신을 도울 것이다.「등」

물론 그들을 탓할 수는 없다.이러한 상황을 크게 완화시킬 수 있는 것은 가입 전에 WP가 무엇인지에 대한 간략한 설명과 "위키피디아는 백과사전을 만들기 위한 프로젝트다.당신 자신이나 회사에 대해 세상에 말할 수 있는 곳이 아니다.그와 같은 편집은 삭제될 것이다.만약 그것이 당신이 염두에 두고 있는 것이라면, 이것은 당신을 위한 사이트가 아니다 - WP: 참조:AUTO 및 WP:PSCOI." 그렇게 하면 엄청난 좌절과 낭비되는 움직임을 줄일 수 있을 것이다. 하지만 나는 그것이 절대 허용되지 않을 것이라고 우려한다.JohnCD (대화) 23:23, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

내 추측에 의하면 누가 그 글을 썼든 간에 잠재적으로 기업적으로 들리는 사용자 이름들이 그 조직들과 아무런 연고도 없고 그들을 홍보하려는 의욕도 없는 사람들에 의해 사용될 수 있다고 생각하지 않았다. 아니면 진짜가 될 수도 있고.네 추측이 틀렸을 거야.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 05:54, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

• 이 토론에 유용할 수 있는 몇 가지 관찰을 추가하겠다.UAA에 가입할 수 있는 프로모션 사용자 이름의 비율에 대한 나의 추정치는 기껏해야 1% 정도 된다.일반적인 홍보 계정은 사용자 페이지에 광고를 위해 만들어진다.그들은 거의 기사를 작성하거나 기사 공간에서 편집을 시도하지 않는다.오히려 계정을 만들어 스팸메일을 깔고 떠난다.이러한 계정은 일반적으로 빠른 삭제, 스팸 사용자 페이지 삭제, 계정 차단 등으로 표시된다.나는 1000개가 훨씬 넘는 그런 계좌에 꼬리표를 붙였다.나는 약 1%를 UAA에 보내고 나는 계정의 홍보 성격이 분명하지만 대부분의 사람들만큼 노골적이지는 않을 때 그렇게 한다.지난 8개월 동안 내가 관찰한 새로운 사용자 계정은 대다수가 단순히 사용자 페이지에 스팸을 넣기 위해 만들어진 다음 계정이 폐기되기 때문에 정책 변경을 고려할 때 명심해야 한다고 생각한다.나는 많은 (대화) 00:51, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

나는 이것에 대해 사용자 이름 정책 토크 페이지에 게시했다.—rybec 01:15, 2013년 11월 30일(UTC)

• 다니엘처럼 나도 보통 역할 계정을 차단해.스팸 메일의 경우, 그것이 그들이 하고 있던 것이었다면(일반적으로 호소한 소수의 사람들은 "우리는 당신에게 우리의 훌륭한 서비스를 제공할 수 있도록 당신으로부터 소식을 듣기를 희망한다....에 대해 저희에게 연락하십시오."는 홍보용이다.나는 그들이 잘못하고 있다는 것을 받아들이고 도움을 요청한 몇몇 계정을 알고 있다.때때로, 그 회사가 충분히 주목할 만하다는 것이 증명되었지만, 이제 이름을 바꾼 작가는 그 한 기사를 고수했다.나는 이름을 바꾸고 일반적인 문제에 대해 상당히 정기적인 편집자가 된 사람을 생각할 수 있다.내 생각으로는 의심의 여지없이 몇 개 더 있을 것이지만 많지는 않을 것이다.이러한 역할 계정 중 일부는 회사가 아닌 외부 홍보 담당자에 의해 만들어질 수 있다고 생각한다.이것은 홍보 연설의 사용에 근거한다.보통 그런 잡동사니를 쓰는 사람은 없어. (내가 지운 기사 한 건이 너무 나빠서 회사가 무슨 일을 했는지 알 수도 없었어.)그러나, 내가 많은 사람들 중 하나라고 말하듯이, 이러한 사용자 페이지(그리고 심지어 대화 페이지) '프로파일'은 그냥 버려진다.그들 중 몇몇은 페이스북에서와 같이 프로파일에 '입장'되어 있다고 생각한다.BTW 나는 다른 누군가가 이것을 알아챘는지 모르지만, 인도의 스팸 포스터는 전체 사용 회사 이름에 나와 있지 않다.그들은 가볍게 버려진 개인 이름(아마도 그들 자신의 이름은 아닐 것이다...)을 사용한다.페리돈 (토크) 21:25, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)
• 첫 번째 질문에 대한 답변: 만약 그 사람이 문제적으로 편집하지 않고 있고, 사용자 이름을 바꾸기를 거부한다면, 당신은 계정을 차단하지 않는다.특히, 만약 당신이 이름 변경을 부드럽게 장려하는 사람들 중 한 명이라면, 당신은 스스로를 WP:라고 생각해야 한다.관여하고 다른 사람에게 맡긴다.WP에서 논의 가능:RFC/N 만약 당신이 특별히 터무니없다고 믿는 사용자 이름에 도움이 필요하다면, 그러나 당신에게 홍보적으로 보이는 이름을 유지할 수 있는 몇 가지 완벽하게 합법적인 이유들이 있다. 여기에는 많은 그러한 이름들이 Commons와 다른 위키피디아에서 허용되고 있다는 사실, 그리고 SUL로 인해 영어 위키피디아는 실제로 명령할 수 있는 위치에 있지 않다.전 세계에 대한 사용자 이름.
  "공정한 경고" 범주의 경우:2011년 토론에서 "위젯USA에 표시"와 같이 명시적으로 허용된 이름을 추가하게 된 결과를 (마지막으로) 만들었다.이는 일부 COI 분쟁에 도움이 되었고(일부 COI 단골들이 이를 권고했기 때문이다) 보다 일관된 시행 관행을 제공했다.이것들과 이것들과 같은 다양한 예들이 내가 생각하기에 약하다고 생각하는 이유들 때문에 논쟁되어 왔다. (예를 들어, 혼란의 계속되는 증거에도 불구하고 정책이 완벽히 명확하다는 지지되지 않는 주장 또는 정책 페이지의 모든 변경은 내가 먼저 어머니 역할을 할 누군가를 필요로 한다는 믿음 때문에)대부분의 사람들이 그런 명확화가 필요하다고 믿었던 시기에 이러한 작은 명확화조차 그 정책에 포함시키는데 얼마나 오랜 시간이 걸렸는지에 근거해 볼 때, 나는 정책 전체를 개혁하려는 노력이 누구의 시간으로도 가치가 있다고 생각하지 않는다.WhatamIdoing (대화) 23:15, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

해피 추수감사절

축하하는 분들에게 모두 행복한 추수감사절 보내기를. :-)—사이버파워 14:53, 2013년 11월 28일(UTC)

고마워, 너와 여기 있는 다른 모든 사람들에게도 추수감사절을 축하해.:) 지식탐구 (대화) 14:57, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)

좀 늦었지?WilyD 15:00, 2013년 11월 28일(UTC)

좋은 지적이야.확실히 하자면, 위의 "... 양쪽 연못의 이쪽" 논평은 북극이 아닌 대서양과 태평양을 언급하였다 :) - 당크 (밀어서 대화) 16:29, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)

오 안돼, 그럼 난 추수감사절 잘 보내.그리고 햇빛이 3일밖에 남지 않은 나.케임브리지베이날씨 (토크)20:59, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)

• 우리 유대인 친구들에게 행복한 하누카!자이언트 스노우맨 16:14, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)
• 그리고 해피 하와이 독립기념일 또는 라 쿠오코아!--마크 밀러 (토크) 20:30, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)
• 그리고, 진정 먹을 수 있고 복합 탄수화물로 가득찬 신을 가진 세계에서 가장 크고 가장 유명한 비종교에 속한 사람들을 위해, 메리 크리FSMas와 행복한 휴일들.[14][15] :) --Guy Macon (대화) 20:33, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)
• 나의 첫 번째 추수감사절, 이 끝에서 :)지금까지는 재미있어 보였지만, 세이프웨이 혼합물은 내가 4인용 칠면조를 17파운드나 가지고 있다는 것을 의미하지만.재미있겠다.아이언홀드 (토크) 00:01, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)!
• 모두 행복한 추수감사절 보내세요!AutomaticStrikeout(자동 스트라이크아웃) 01:52, 2013년 11월 29일(UTC)

전형적인 체계적 편견!HiLo48 (대화) 02:10, 2013년 11월 29일 (UTC)

• 모든 사람들이 추수감사절을 즐겼기를 바래!Sportsguy17 :) (토크하려면 클릭 • 기여) 2013년 11월 29일 17:56, (UTC)
• /늦은/ 즐거운 추수감사절 보내세요!— —χς 00:44, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)

중재 위원회 선거 스크루티너에게 임시로 지역 CheckUser 권한을 부여하는 동의에 관한 중재안

중재 위원회는 발의로 다음과 같이 결의하였다.

2013년 중재 위원회 선거를 스크러디네이션할 목적으로, stewards User:Mathonius, 사용자:비투주, 사용자:마타냐 및 사용자:스크러티너로 임명된 테겔은 본 동의안 통과 시점부터 선거결과 인증까지 효력을 발휘하는 현지 체크유저 임시허가를 받는다.

중재위원회의 경우, Bb23 (대화) 18:25, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)

여기에서 논의하십시오.

쉘드레이크

나는 루퍼트 쉘드레이크 기사의 토크 페이지를 보고 있다.내가 보기에 WP에 문제가 있는 것은 매우 명백하다.TRURSE 또는 The Truth™일 가능성이 더 높다.현재 빛보다 더 많은 열을 발생시키는 원인 중 하나는 Iantresman(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)이다.이 사용자는 이력이 있다(Wipedia: 참조):중재/과학 및 위키백과에 대한 요청:중재/프링 과학/증거 요청).

Iantresman이 과학계에서 변두리 혹은 허튼소리로 여겨지는 개념들을 믿는 사람이라는 것은 꽤 분명하다.토크 페이지를 읽은 나의 견해는, 그가 어떻게 그 논문이 과학계에 의해 인정된 거절의 맥락에서 그 논문이 그러한 변두리 신념을 정확하고 중립적으로 반영할 수 있는지에 대해 논의하기보다는 그 주제의 변두리 신념을 옹호하고 있다는 것이다.

그의 토크 페이지에서 그는 자신이 적어도 하나의 프린지 주제에서 활동적인 주제 금지 형식이라고 말한다. 나는 이것을 검증하지 않았지만 프린지 주제에서 그의 주된 목적은 ArbCom에 따라 그것들을 중립적으로 문서화하는 것이 아니라 그들을 옹호하는 것이 될 것이다.

그를 1년간 보호관찰에 처하게 한 사이언스 중재 이후 7년 만이다.나는 현재의 분쟁이 훨씬 더 오래 진행된다면 그가 제재되거나 금지될 것이라고 의심한다. 왜냐하면 그는 점점 더 공격적인 (혹은 열정적이거나 당신이 뭐라고 부르고 싶은지) 변두리 POV를 옹호하고 있기 때문이다.단일 목적과 옹호 계정의 입력으로 이미 어려움을 겪고 있는 기사에 대한 진보를 저해하고 특정 POV를 홍보하기 위해 위키에서 벗어나라고 권하고 있기 때문에 이 문제를 완화시킬 필요가 있다고 생각한다.가이 (도움말!) 2013년 11월 30일 12시 44분 (UTC)

말도 안 되는 소리.내 기부에 문제가 있는 곳을 단 한 군데도 보여주지 않았거나 당신의 주장을 지지하지 않았다는 건 너무나 명백하다.만약 당신이 옳다면, 당신은 (a) diff를 찾는 데 문제가 없을 것이다 (b) 다른 편집자들과의 의견 불일치는 없을 것이다.이렇게 막연한 '비판'에 답하기는 어렵지만, 여기에 다음과 같은 내용이 있다.

1. 나는 2012년 1월 3일 이후로 기사를 편집하지 않았다.[16] 아릿대에 대한 나의 편집사항 중 하나도 삭제되지 않았다.나는 100% 성공적이고 긍정적인 기여에 대한 기록을 가지고 있다.나는 전에 너에게 이것을 말한 적이 있다.[17]
2. 내가 편집한 내용은 쉘드레이크의 작품에 대한 설명을 뒷받침하는 자료를 유사과학으로 추가하는 것을 포함하고 있다.[18]
3. 나는 Sheldrake의 작품에 대한 비판을 포함해야 한다고 말했다.[19]
4. 나는 Sheldrake의 연구를 거부하는 과학자들이 있다고 말했다.[20][21]
5. "나는 쉘드레이크의 작품이 옳다고 주장하거나, 제안하거나, 심지어 다른 사람들이 생각한다고 주장하는 것을 암시하지도 않았다."[22]
6. 나는 "그 누구도 쉘드레이크의 작품을 "사실 또는 다수 의견"으로 묘사하는 제안은 아니다[23]라고 말했다.
7. 나는 우리가 관련 정책을 고수해야 한다고 여러 번 말했다.[24][25]
8. 나는 Sheldrake의 아이디어가 유효한지 아닌지 모르겠다[26]고 진술했다.
9. 나는 "어떤 편집자도 일부 과학자가 개인적으로 필적과학이라고 믿는 것을 배제하라고 제안하고 있지 않다"[27] [..] "나는 이 연구의 필적학 중 일부를 부르는 몇몇 주요 원천을 잘 알고 있으며, 그것들을 포함시켜 기쁘다"[28] [..] "나는 그 특정한 원천을 기쁘게 제공하고 인정해왔다.셸드레이크의 연구는 유사과학이라고 한다."[29]

이것들 하나하나가 너의 주장과 모순된다.참고용으로 다른 편집자는 "영구적_Buling_of_Rupert_Sheldrake_Editors" ([30]) --Iantresman (talk) 15:15, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)을 읽기를 원할 수 있다.

나는 너의 Talk 페이지에 있는 의견을 참고했다.그곳이 문제가 존재하는 곳이다.당신의 답변에 자기비판이 없다는 점이 눈에 띈다, 나는 이것이 문제의 일부라고 생각한다.토크 페이지에 대한 당신의 논평은 고착된 견해들의 집합과 완강한 타협을 거부하는 것을 나타내는데, 이것이 당신이 다른 곳에서 제한을 받은 이유다.문제는 이것이 일어나고 있는지 여부인데, 특히 해당 기사의 문제점을 감안할 때, 주제 금지를 받을 만할 정도로 아직 심각한지 여부다.다시 말해, 당신은 도움이 되지 않지만, 당신은 행동할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 방해하고 있는 것이다.가이(도움말!) 15:45, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

나의 현재 주제 금지는 사건에 기여하는 편집자 중 한 사람의 논평과 사건이 시작되기 전에 내가 한 기사에서 한 논평에서 분명히 알 수 있듯이 "철저한 타협 거부"와는 아무런 관계가 없다.[32] (나에 대한 당신의 견해와 모순되는 점)디프를 제공하십시오. 이는 불합리한 요청이 아닙니다. --Iantresman (대화) 17:30, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

이안, 너의 모든 문제는 너의 방해적이고 거드름 피우는 편집과 관련이 있어.토크에서의 당신의 행동은 다음과 같다.Rupert Sheldrake는 과학, 프린지 과학, 그리고 유사 과학 기사에 대한 주제 금지를 지지한다.PhilKnight (대화) 17:48, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

나는 WP를 통해 다음과 같이 읽었다.DISPSIGHSIGNS와 나는 네가 주장하는 거만한 편집의 흔적을 찾을 수 없다.나는 2012년 1월 이후로 쉘드레이크 기사를 편집하지 않았고, 내가 편집한 모든 편집이 여전히 그 기사에 남아 있다.즉, 100% 편집 기록을 가지고 있다.나는 다른 편집자들이 같은 우려를 표명하고 있기 때문에 합의에 반대하는 것이 아니다.구체적인 고민이 있다면 디프(diff) 예시를 제시해야 한다. --Iantresman (talk) 18:46, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

이안, 네 행동에 대한 다른 사람들의 판단이 네 행동보다 더 객관적일 가능성을 생각해 본 적 있니?생각일 뿐이야.가이(도움말!) 19:11, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

물론 그렇다. 그리고 여러분이 이미 아래의 몇몇 논평에서 볼 수 있듯이, 일부 편집자들은 여러분의 의견에 동의하지 않는다.그러나 내가 믿는 것을 아는 체하는 것은 객관적이지 않으며, 이것이 금지할 근거라는 것은 매카시즘을 연상케 한다.하지만 너는 그 문제를 좌지우지하고 있다.나는 당신의 주장과 명백히 모순되는 몇 가지 차이점을 찾아냈는데, 당신은 당신의 주장을 뒷받침하는 몇 가지를 제공할 수 있어야 한다. --Iantresman (대화) 19:56, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

이봐, 마틴피 사건을 생각해봐그는 결국 평생 금지되었다.나는 편집자로서 그리고 약간의 오프라인으로 그를 꽤 잘 알고 있었다.개척 대상자에 대한 개인적 지식과 가능한 진실성 때문에 개척 대상자에 대한 공정하고 균형 잡힌 대우를 옹호하는 사람이 여기에 한 명 있다면 바로 나 자신이다.나는 마르틴피가 이러한 과목들에 대한 공정하고 균형 잡힌 대우도 추구했기 때문에 마르틴피를 동맹으로 여겼다.내가 알기로는 그는 내가 미쳤다고 생각했다.그가 원하는 것은 좋은 균형잡힌 기사뿐이었다.

요점은 여기서 쟁점은 공정하고 균형잡힌 문제인데, 이런 주제들이 적어도 중립적인 설명을 받을 자격이 있다고 생각하는 사람은 순전히 과격파라고 단정하는 사람들은, 반대되는 견해를 가진 편집자들을 제거함으로써 가까스로 기사를 지배해 왔다는 것이다.그게 결론이야

필나잇과 함께 또 다른 온건한 편집자를 제거하려고 준비하는 것 같군기껏해야 이것은 귀찮은 죄이다.톰 버틀러 (대화) 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

나는 사이비 과학에 대해 잘 모르지만, 나는 그것이 극도로 민감한 주제라고 본다.나는 위키피디아에 대한 나의 초기 경험에서 그 중 일부를 기억한다.나는 Iantresman이 어떤 식으로든 사이비 과학적인 주제를 사이비 과학이 아닌 다른 것으로 발전시키고 있다고 보지 않는다.나는 그가 쉘드레이크 기사의 특정 항목에 대한 합의를 정중하면서도 확고하게 달성하려고 노력하는 것 외에는 어떤 것에 대해서도 불합리하게 고집하고 있다고 보지 않는다(나는 다른 기사와의 그의 이력을 어느 정도 알고 있다, 어쩌면 그가 거기서 어떻게 행동하고 있었는지도 모른다).나로서는 요즘 그 글과 그 토크 페이지만 보고 있어.저기서 나쁜 행동이 너무 심하다.아마도 나쁜 말장난은 사이비과학이 나오는 표준일 것이다.그것은 위키피디아에 좋지 않다. 특히 그것이 기사로 요약되는 곳에서는 더욱 그렇다.루 샌더 (대화) 18:50, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

그렇게 말하지만, 과학적인 사실로서 에너지 보존의 상태에 대해 의문을 제기하는 것이 타당하다고 생각하는 사람으로서 그렇게 말하는 것이 오히려 야당으로서는 요점이 된다...가이(도움말!) 19:07, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

아니, 에너지의 보존은 사실이 아니라 법이야우리들 대부분이 그것을 사실로 간주한다는 사실은 그렇게 하지 않는다.여러분은 과학의 역사에서 "많은 물리학자들이 한동안 방사능 방출이 에너지 보존을 위반했다고 생각했다"고 회상할 것이다[33].물론 방사능이 법을 위반하지는 않았지만 물리학자들은 "과학적 사실로서 에너지의 보존 상태에 의문을 제기하는 것이 타당하다고 믿는다"고 말했다.그리고 그것은 사실이다. --Iantresman (대화) 19:27, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

나는 마틴피를 기억한다. 그리고 ScienceApologist도 기억한다.두 사람은 정반대의 견해를 가지고 있었고, 내가 기억하는 한, 가차없이 서로를 미끼로 했다.둘 다 타협하는 법을 배웠더라면 그 프로젝트는 더 나았을 것이다.Guy (Help!) 2013년 11월 30일 19:09 (UTC)

Iantresman은 Sheldrake에 대한 기사를 찾아내고 그들의 내용을 토크 페이지에서 토론하고 있다.이 기사들 중 많은 수가 쉘드레이크의 연구에 대한 과학자들의 말을 인용하고 있다.Iantresman의 노력의 결과로, 우리는 이제 압도적으로 많은 해설자들이 Sheldrake의 견해에 동의하지 않지만 그럼에도 불구하고 그를 진정한 과학자로 간주한다는 것을 안다.이는 셸드레이크의 작품이 유사과학이라는 믿음에서 과학계가 통일된 것으로 묘사하려는 편집자 모임의 의제와 상충된다.사실 소수의 논평자들만이 이런 주장을 했다.Iantresman은 이러한 편집자들의 POV-pushing을 폭로하는 그의 효과 때문에 표적이 되었다. 그들 중 누구도 관점에 동의하지 않지만 여전히 그것을 과학적인 것으로 간주하는 것이 가능하다는 것을 이해하지 못하는 것 같다.알폰조 그린 (토크)20:06, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

그렇지는 않다.출처를 읽어보면, 그의 사상이 비과학적이기 때문에 그들은 그가 과학자라고 생각하지 않는다는 것은 꽤 분명하다.Iantresman(토크·논문)은 출처를 창의적으로 해석하고 자신이 말하지 않는 말을 한다고 주장하는 데 매우 능하다.다음은 WP:프린지 과목, 다른 척 하지 말자, 그리고 몇몇 편집자들, 많은 SPA들은 단지 여기서 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 이해할 만큼 현실을 충분히 이해하지 못한다.분명히 자기 선택이 진행되고 있다.Sheldrake의 아이디어가 거의 확실히 가치가 있다고 생각하는 사람들은 그것들 또는 그들의 맥락을 충분히 이해하지 못한다.우리는 셸드레이크 지지 편집자들이 그것을 편집하기 위해 그것을 혼자 남겨두면 더 나은 텍스트를 만들 수 있을 것이고, 따라서 미묘한 뉘앙스를 바로잡을 수 있을 것이다.현재 셸드레이크에 찬성하는 편집자들은 터무니없이 큰 막대기로 그것을 두드리고 있는데, 필요한 것이 약간 미묘한 트윗일 때 그것을 몰딩하기를 바라고 있다.바니 더 바니 (토크) 23:20, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)

내가 이미 제공한 믿을 수 있는 이차적인 출처에서 증명된 바와 같이, 셸드레이크를 과학자나 과학자로 구체적이고 분명하게 묘사했다.[34] 그들이 비판을 할 수도 있고, 심지어 그의 가설을 거절할 수도 있다는 논쟁이나, 이것이 모두 포함되어야 하는 "프링게" 주제라는 논쟁은 없지만, 그것은 당신이 말한 것이 아니다.그와 그의 직업 사이언스라고 부르는 사람들이 있다는 것에 대해 논쟁의 여지가 없으며, 나는 그러한 인용구를 기사에 포함시켰다.[35] 동의하지 않는 경우, 몇 가지 신뢰할 수 있는 보조 출처에 견적을 제공하기만 하면 된다."Sheldrake는 과학적이다", [36] "Sheldrake는 과학자로서 어느 정도 존경을 받는다"[37] "Rupert Sheldrake, 생화학자"[38] 등 --Iantresman (토크) 00:02, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)

그렇다, 우리는 또한 그를 "교수" 또는 "화학자"로 묘사하는 "신뢰할 수 있는 출처"를 가지고 있다.체리는 자신의 관점에 맞는 "신뢰할 수 있는 출처"를 선택하는 한편, 소수의 과학 저널리스트들이 사용하는 단 하나의 자기 정체성 있는 단어 라벨을 단 한 마디의 단어 제한으로 무시한 채, 명백한 사실에 얽매이지 않기 때문에 전적으로 피상적이고 이 경우에는 틀렸다, WP:NPOV와 양립할 필요도 없다. 위키피디아는 마법을 쓸 필요가 없다.ne word catch-all descriptors - 우리는 오히려 페더럴적으로 짧은 정확한 설명을 선호할 수 있다, 그것이 우리가 가지고 있는 것이다.바니 더 바니 바니 (토크) 00:29, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)

나는 그를 필자가 필자가 필자가 찾을 수 있는 한 많은 출처를 취재했다.나는 어떤 출처를 정하거나 배제하지 않았고, 확실히 당신이 제안하는 것처럼 과학 저널리스트만 포함하지는 않았다.다시 말하지만, 당신은 당신의 사실을 확인할 수 있는 출처를 제공하지 않았다. --Iantresman (대화) 00:42, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)

나는 관리자가 Guy에게 WP에 의해 그의 진술을 뒷받침하는 다른 의견들을 제시하여 그의 원래 직책을 다시 작성하도록 요청하고 싶다.INDCRIT "간접비판을 피한다" 및 WP:WIAPA "심각한 고발은 심각한 증거를 필요로 한다.증거는 종종 확산과 연결의 형태를 취한다."-Iantresman (대화) 00:55, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)

Iantresman이 토크 페이지에서 가식적이고 순전히 파괴적인 편집으로 토크 페이지를 채우는 것과 관련하여, 나는 사람들을 여기에서 그 내용을 언급할 것이다. [39]. 편집된 내용에서 Iantresman은 Rose가 *"Granted its scientific" - Prude"라고 진술한 것으로 제시한다. 스티븐 로즈.[40] 로즈가 쉘드레이크 형태 공명의 과학성을 지지하는 것처럼, 출처로부터의 실제 문장이 "왜 쉘드레이크 가설이 어떤 홍보를 계속 받았는지 물어볼 가치가 있다." -- TRPoD는 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC) 얀트만이라고 불린다.이제 내 토크 페이지와 Sheldrake 토크 페이지에 오답은 실수로 잘못 읽힌 것이며 의도적으로 잘못 읽힌 것이 아니라는 것을 명확히 했다. -- TRPoD는 2013년 12월 2일(UTC) 'Doom 21:47, The Red Pen of Doom'으로 불린다.

과정 복원

사용자 공간에서 삭제된 임시 페이지

도... 고마워.블루보어 (토크) 19:02, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)

병합 요청:토크: 완벽한 공간 및 토크:완벽한 세트?

금지 제안:산카라만크

관리인의 눈은 짐보의 토크 페이지에 요청되어 있다.

니텐드 언블록

Nyttend's Arbitration block of Sportfan5000

User:62.88.128.136

This anonymous user always vandal. He added the joke in Sergio Busquets. This is proof: old version Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Final warning given. IP seems to have stopped for now. The place to report vandalism is WP:AIV. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:BrokenRedirects

Hello friendly admins... I noticed that the backlog at Special:BrokenRedirects has got quite long. Apparently bots are no longer doing the work of deleting broken redirects. Could some of you please take a look at this report and possibly delete some of the broken redirects listed there? Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This has mostly been done now. Thanks very much to Diannaa and R'n'B! — This, that and the other (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I work on Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken redirects whenever I can. I can batch-delete thousands of broken redirects that are former titles of now deleted pages because the deleting admin didn't check for redirects (I've ranted about this in the past, I know). But I'm a slacker, what can I say. More troubling is that a few pages keep getting added to the DBR despite not being broken redirects in any way; I remove them and they get added right back... so I'm unsure what do to about those, if anything. I have not knowledgeable at all about how these reports are generated. A quick exmple of this issue: the two SPI reports that keep popping up as "broken redirects". If someone with time, willingness and know-how can look into this, it might be something worth fixing! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• By Odin's scraggly beard, was it really as fucking simple as a goddamn underscore? @This, that and the other:, you have my thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• A new version of Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken redirects has not been generated since Nov 4. I have posted on the bot operator's talk and hopefully that part of the problem will get rectified shortly. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Updates are irregularly infrequent at best. I only run through it once a month or so anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• On closer inspectionl I doubt that actually has anything to do with it. If/when the reports are moved to Labs, these weird database issues should hopefully clear up (or at least decrease in number). — This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Broken redirects (configuration) should be updating daily. The Toolserver is on a slow march to its death. I imagine moving all of the reports to Labs would help. Any volunteers? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Help request

I may need help on the article Hugo Treffner Gymnasium due to a conflict of interest from two editors editing the page. The user IvarVi (talk · contribs) is a student editing the page for schoolwork, and an editor editing from the IP address 80.250.112.173 (talk · contribs) is their teacher. A relevant discussion is on my talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In connection with this, I left a message on the teacher's talk page, explaining that it was not appropriate to ask other Wikipedia users not to edit a specific article so that his students could work on it exclusively, and suggesting that he create an account and copy the article to userspace so that the students could work on it there. I also pointed him to WP:Education program. Anyone with additional thoughts might want to add to the thread there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Mass creation of very improbable redirects

I first left a note at User talk:Rybec#Redirects, but I have since noted that other editors like User:Anthony Appleyard do the same, so I'll post it here instead (I'm not going to try to find every editor who has done this individually).

User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks is a list of pages with lots of page views, but no article or redirect (yet). Some editors use this page to create the redirects, to help those editors using these search terms. The problem is that the page (or the script behind it) has a problem with unusual letters, accents, and the like, rendering them rather bizarrely. The result is that redirects are created with claims that they have been used thousands of time per month, while in reality they are never used (obviously, since they are extremely improbable).

Examples;

• Mar\xC3\xADa Gabriela Isler was created as a redirect because it supposedly was used as a search term "2036 tries/week". In reality, It had been used 0 times in the last 90 days([59].
• Gisele B\xC3\xBCndchen
• Lo Que La Vida Me Rob\xC3\xB3
• Te Ika-a-M\xC4\x81ui
• Cambodian\xE2\x80\x93Thai border dispute
• Raven-Symon\xC3\xA9
• 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification \xE2\x80\x93 UEFA Second Round
• Rhinoceros Party of Canada (1963\xE2\x80\x931993)
• Kimi R\xC3\xA4ikk\xC3\xB6nen

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of these created by at least three editors over multiple months. This should a) stop, b) gett mass-deleted, and c) the list corrected. Fram (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As an example of the improbability of this list; Lady Saigō has been viewed 1634 times in the last 90 days[60]. But the redirect Lady Saig\xC5\x8D was created because it was claimed to have had more than 1,000 views in a week[61]. It is unusual for redirects to have more page views than the actual target page, I think... Fram (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

yes, there is definitely something amiss here. GiantSnowman 11:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I've found a short old discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 113#Are thousands of people a day not finding the articles they want? which may be of interest. Fram (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• At the top of User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks it says that "Entries containing \x appear to originate from percent encodings of real titles but with % incorrectly replaced by \x (discussion). The error is probably made by some external software." Regards, — MoeEpsilon 12:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering that none of these appear on stat.grok.se (the page view statistics), I wonder whether the errors aren't created by some internal software instead of external software. In any case, there seems to be little value in creating these redirects, and (as indicated below) some potential problems with using this list). Fram (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree, about the \x redirects, they don't appear to be useful and they aren't actually receiving any hits. I started looking at some other redirects that seemed silly and were created such as 2006 FIFA World Cupm (compare to 2006 FIFA World Cup), and grok.se actually did turn up some stats: "2006 FIFA World Cupm has been viewed 5620 times in the last 30 days." I could probably argue for the deletion of that redirect as nonsense, but you have to wonder why there was a spike in people typing "Cupm" for no apparent reason. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 13:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the developer, these assumptions are mistaken. There is an issue here: This \x thing is a real problem. It doesn't appear like it is a problem because stats.grok.se is broken in the way that it handles these requests. Let's work with the Brandon Ríos article as an example. This is percent encoded in Wikipedia's backend systems as Brandon_R%C3%ADos. If you try entering this encoding into stats.grok.se, it is the equivalent to searching for "Brandon Ríos" sans encoding (many recent hits). The problem here surrounds Brandon_R\xC3\xADos. Stats.grok.se says no views for this exist. However, go on over to the raw daily statistics traffic files which WE BOTH aggregate over. Get a file from late last week (this is largely hypothetical, you don't need to do this, these are BIG files, and I've done it; but someone could recreate this to show I am not lying) then "grep/search" that file and you will plainly see lines corresponding to Brandon_R\xC3\xADos (i.e., views). These are the views correctly reported at WP:TOPRED. Something about the stats.grok.se input screws up these cases. I assume it has something to do with the way escape characters or encoding are handled (it is tricky). I have spent many many hours investigating cases at WP:5000 and WP:TOPRED where users indicate my numbers do not agree with those of stats.grok.se. Every time I can point to evidence in the raw files which support my aggregation (see a recent one). I write only to confirm that some software out there is trying \x encoding and serving red links. I will support whatever policy the community decides regarding whether these redirects should be created (or alternatively, code could be created in software that handles them automatically). West.andrew.g (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there were a couple of others with an m or an n added which got created and get quite a few hits. It looks like some bot, or another non-human error, not thuosands of humans suddenly deciding that Michael LeMoyne Kennedyn4000 hits this month is more logical than Michael LeMoyne Kennedya(0 hits) or any other extra letter. I don't think we should be basing the creation of redirects on such obvious non-human results (just check [62] thoroughly and the pattern of additional "m" or "n" becomes extremely obvious. On the other hand, the page also lists Ramesh Tendulkar, which contrary to all these dubious ones has not been created as I write this down, but which is an actual, correct, human search term for either Sachin Tendulkar or his father. Fram (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • User:Vanisaac/test/4 - Oh boy.. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 13:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
      • That's helpful, a partial list of what to nuke! Fram (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I totally support the deletion of the redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• I agree, the creation of these redirects needs to stop. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 20#Opera (web browser)m for a recent example of a discussion in which the consensus was to delete a large number of implausible redirects. One of the issues raised in the discussion was the implausibility that a human (and not a malfunctioning bot/script) would have generated the supposed demand for these redirects. WJBscribe (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• About page Mar\xC3\xADa Gabriela Isler above :: is http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Mar%5CxC3%5CxADa_Gabriela_Isler counting accesses from outside, or accesses from within Wikipedia, or both, or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Pages with "\x" in the title always show zero hits. If you change "\x" to "%" the site will decode the special characters and redirect you: for instance, if you try to see the statistics for Mar%C3%ADa Gabriela Isler you will be redirected to the statistics page for María Gabriela Isler. —rybec 06:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have added a warning to the TopRedlinks page, here. Please remove, make stronger, make more visible, ... if this isn't enough or too much. Fram (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  The warning seems like a good idea to me. Should we add something to say that this is not an appropriate task for automation and that each new redirect must be individually considered? Anyone who uses AWB to mass create these redirects now that the issue has been flagged up should really have their AWB access revoked. WJBscribe (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice of you to keep an open mind until you've talked with the people actually making these things. First of all, every one of these is individually considered, and I consider it to be extremely bad faith for you to have accused me otherwise. (BTW, nice job, Fram et al, of notifying involved editors) If the term is not so common that I have no doubt that we don't have that article, I will check on the target by hand, but I am not a bot, and I apply editorial judgement to each redirect created. So far, I've ended up with a bot having to fix a double redirect only twice out of around 700 of these. Second, what is your solution? Take a look at the stats pages: this is not some errant bot pinging the site over and over: these page requests show the unmistakable sign of human behavior: a big initial jump and slow trail-off - I've even noticed a double spike, where the link is obviously posted a second time somewhere else. These are links getting posted somewhere, with real, actual people trying to access these pages. Now I don't know why they are getting mangled, or where they are coming from, but my back-of-the-hand calculation puts these new redirects as serving about half a million page requests per week. I don't know what the answer to fixing this is, but until you come up with something better, please don't threaten those of us who are trying to mitigate the problem. Half a million people trying to access specific pages on this site and being thwarted is a real problem, so tell me what solution is better than redirects. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 02:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Bit defensive don't you think? How about "yes, I agree they should be individually considered and that is what I do..." Why assume I'm accusing you of not individually considering redirects you have created? My point is a simple one - don't use automation for large numbers of controversial edits. Creating these redirects is clearly controversial, so users wanting to work from these lists need to be very careful that they are establishing a consensus for their edits. Also, I think we're exaggerating the consequence of what the lack of these redirects will do. There's no evidence that a human user (if it really is a human) will simply give up without these redirects, rather than just search for the article they are looking for some other way. WJBscribe (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I'm not sure how your statement that you do consider the redirects individually squares with your comment that, having been told a number of redirects were deleted following an RfD discussion, "Well, if they show up in this week's run, I'll be recreating them - surely individual consideration would include making sure the redirects had not already been considered by the relevant community process and deleted? WJBscribe (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are individually considered. The criteria are: 1)are they getting over a thousand redlink requests a week (from the list)? 2) is it a legitimate target to redirect to? 3) is the requested page a legitimate target in and of itself? If it passes #1 and #2, and fails #3, that's my criteria. #3 is important: we've had several dozen +p page requests, but I can't make a legitimate justification that Catp or SQLp and similar page requests aren't technical terms that should be left for someone to make an actual article. Likewise, I don't know enough about marketing and gadgets to say that Samsung Galaxy S IIm isn't a new product in the pipeline, so it doesn't get one. I've engaged people at the redlink talk page on numerous occasions about how to go about doing this, trying to get feedback on what the criteria should be for when we nuke these guys. Because yes, I don't like them at all - that's why I kept a list of every last one created - but I can't ignore half a million hits per week, and I still don't see any suggestions about how to handle these any better. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 12:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Chiming in (since Fram left me a message and I did create a few redirects before I thought better of it): I agree with Fram and support deletion of these redirects. Trivialist (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are many reasons for redirects. Some are valid, some not. Most on User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks appear to be errors in Wikipedia bots. Underscores, and trailing single letter such as 'n' or 'm' appear to fit into this case. I recommend posting on Bot owners' noticeboard to see if the cause of some of the issues can be identified. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 17:37, 29 November 2013

• Distinct from my role as the person who generates these reports, and as I mentioned at User_talk:West.andrew.g/Popular_redlinks#trailing_m_and_n, I don't support the creation of these redirects. One primary reason is that we are treating the symptoms and not the cause of the errors. The \x encoding and "m/n" issues are almost certainly errors in software. When we provide redirects for broken software, we are obfuscating the fact something is wrong to those software users, causing possible further distribution of buggy software. They should hit a red link, as it makes obvious something is broken. Now, I think WP:TOPRED is a valuable resource that can guide article creation and (as we are learning here) provide insight as to how API software, crawlers, etc. might be mis-configured. However, we need to reign in which redirects are created. Consider also there is some evidence (see the "topred" archives) that people are spamming\visit redlinks (perhaps with a bot) in order to bolster the fact an article should exist (essentially an AfD "keep" tactic)? West.andrew.g (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Just like to note here that the comma key and the m key are right next to each other on most keyboard layouts. I've seen this outside Wikipedia, in family tree records. Occasionally someone will be said to have been born in "New Yorkm" or similar. Which means it could, or may have already done so, find its way here.--Auric talk 03:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note, since it doesn't seem like anyone has mentioned this yet: wherever the slashes and random symbols are in the redirects above, there is a letter with a diacritic or some other mark on the letter on its target's title. As mentioned someplace else in this discussion, this has to most likely be a software problem of some sort. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

More serious than improbable misspellings alone

Delving further into this, it appears that based on the same page (e.g. [63]), redirects for other terms are created as well, e.g. Arabic texts to Wikipedia pages. Perhaps not a problem in theory (though of dubious value), but when you are creating redirects to e.g. Pornography, as most of these were (I also saw one to Zoophilia, and recent ones to Penis and Buttocks (you may notice a pattern here)), you have to be extra careful not to create BLP violations and the like. One such redirect was from سكس ليلى علوى, an entry on the top redlinks list, which redirects to pornography but gets translated (by Google Translate) as Sex Leila Alawi, where Leila Alawi is Laila Elwi, an Egyptian non-pornographic actress. It looks like that page is a combination of script errors and some external manipulation (I doubt that there are really suddenly thousands of people looking for سكس بنات المدرسه ("sex girls school") on enwiki). Fram (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• This seems more and more like there are a few users who are blindly creating redirects without actually knowing what they mean, which is grossly irresponsible behavior. Looking at this example my feeling is that we should delete all such redirects and the persons who created them can then go back through the list and make sure they actually know what it is they are creating instead of just blindly following automated suggestions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• The first one Fram mentions, I have nuked from orbit. I've got to say, I support a mass culling of this nonsense within normal processes, but that BLP one had to go. Courcelles 17:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Rybec's reply

The "\x" encoding was discussed back in June, and someone requested that the Mediawiki software decode "\x" to "%"

If some definite pattern can be detected, such as these URLs with non-standard hexadecimal escapes, and there are substantiated expectation that it will persist, then developers should consider some URL rewrite built into the engine.

It's very likely that stats.grok.se does this decoding, hence it will always show zero requests for these mojibake, no matter how many actual requests there were. I suggest fixing the Mediawiki software before deleting the redirects.

The Arabic redirects were discussed earlier this month, at [64]. I've only created two since then, طيز and زب. As Fram notes, they redirect to Penis and Buttocks. However, it's Fram who has redirected them to those pages. I had created them as soft redirects to pages on the Arabic Wikipedia about the exact Arabic terms. In other words, I had made [[en:طيز]] a soft redirect to [[ar:طيز]] and made [[en:زب]] a soft redirect to [[ar:زب]]. Fram objects to the fact that en:طيز redirects to en:buttocks and the other redirects to penis after Fram's own changes [65] [66]. This puzzles me. The documentation for Template:Soft redirect advises its use for making "short pages inviting readers to visit another page on a different Wikimedia project."

I think the Arabic-language traffic may be from people attempting to bypass censorship, or an intersection of:

1. people who look for pornography on the Web
2. browser software that has a Wikipedia search feature
3. computers with English-language browsers, which search the English Wikipedia when that search feature is used
4. people who speak Arabic
5. people who use their browser's default search engine to find pornography

The Arabic Wikipedia has pages called طيز and زب; although it's not customary, I think it's helpful to users of the site to provide links for popular search terms in foreign languages. According to stats.grok.se, one of these terms received 24,509 hits on the English Wikipedia in the 90 days before I created it, and the other 28,188. I think directing readers to the Arabic Wikipedia is appropriate when they make a search such as this; the interwiki links provide a means of navigation back to the English Wikipedia.

Let's add How to write Simple English articles to this discussion. I created it as a soft redirect to [[simple:WP:How to write Simple English articles]]; instead of mentioning it here, Fram simply deleted it. According to stats.grok.se it was requested 4385 times in the past 90 days. Fram called it a cross-namespace redirect, but it was not: instead, it sent readers to the Simple English wiki.

I requested creation of Your first article as a cross-namespace redirect to WP:Your first article. It's been created as a soft redirect. It received 21,519 requests in the last 90 days.

—rybec 22:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It does seem a little puzzling for Fram to be complaining about redirects that they made themselves. That seems to deserve a response. Bovlb (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I came across these soft redirects when patrolling new pages. Soft redirects (off enwiki) shouldn't be made when we have actual targets for the pages on enwiki. But after having changed (not made) these two, I started investigating this further, and came across first Rybecs improbable creations (and put a note on his talk page), and then those of others, all based on the same list (which I then brought here). Seems (to me) like a rather logical chain of events. Fram (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fram had written:

Perhaps not a problem in theory (though of dubious value), but when you are creating redirects to e.g. Pornography, as most of these were (I also saw one to Zoophilia, and recent ones to Penis and Buttocks (you may notice a pattern here)), you have to be extra careful not to create BLP violations and the like.

The statement is misleading because it was Fram, not I, who redirected طيز and زب to the English articles penis and buttocks. I had made a soft redirect from طيز to the طيز page on the Arabic Wikipedia, and likewise for the other page. Before making the pages, I looked on stats.grok.se, checked Google Translate and viewed pages on the Arabic Wikipedia. I think that counts as being "extra careful"; what further care is needed and how exactly are these pages harmful? If an Arabic speaker doesn't know a common English word for "penis" or "buttocks" (I've checked a few English slang terms such as cock and arse, and there is navigation from them), I think it's fair to assume that the person has little command of the language, and would be better served by the Arabic Wikipedia article.

High traffic to طيز can be seen starting in July 2008, with 1218 requests shown on stats.grok.se [67] The next month there were 10,368 requests [68] and traffic remained high (thousands of requests per month) after that in every month I checked. The pattern for زب is the same. Fram is using the word "improbable" for terms which have received thousands of per month over the course of five years. That's contrary to the usual meaning of the word.

Only 14 minutes elapsed between Fram's first note to me [69] and the AN notice [70]. —rybec 03:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Pages like How to write Simple English articles? 8 hits in June 2013, 7 in July, and then suddenly from August on these start to come in (a few hundreds per month), and suddenly in November they get a few days with over 500 hits, and other days with none[71]. Rybec, the problem is that you failed (which is understandable) and still fail (which I don't get) to see that it is not true that "one of these terms received 24,509 hits on the English Wikipedia in the 90 days before I created it, and the other 28,188. I think directing readers to the Arabic Wikipedia is appropriate when they make a search such as this;" is correct: the number of hits is correct, but these are not from "readers", these are from either bots or seriously bored trolls. It is also very strange that these searches drop to nearly zero after the redirects have been created (redirects are still counted in stats, see e.g. [72], so it's not as if redirects don't show up here). These are not "readers looking for information", these are bots or trolls or software errors, and we shouldn't be blindly catering for them. Fram (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What is meant by "blindly catering"? Besides Andrew West's list, stats.grok.se, and the Wikimedia Foundation's analytics team, what other sources of information ought we consult? Redirects are cheap; must their creation be preceded by extensive research?

When creating the page, I noted in the edit summary that there had been only 7 requests in July, but high traffic from August on. I looked at the June graph too, but didn't want to make the edit summary overly lengthy (there is a limit to how long it can be). Fram has started another discussion about the How to write Simple English articles page, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_2#How_to_write_Simple_English_articles. I mentioned there that the page received high traffic from November 2012 through February 2013. Fram's assertion that traffic to the redirects I've created must be from bots or trolls rather than readers is unconvincing. As I noted above, طيز and زب have received consistently high traffic starting in July 2008. I too noticed the drop in traffic after most of the Arabic redirects were created (a few showed increases). The drop happens the same day the redirect is made. I think it's consistent with censorship. As I pointed out in the RfD discussion, several Arabic-speaking countries conduct Internet censorship of pornography.

The stats.grok.se graph for سكس بنات المدرسه بنات المدرسه (link may have an extra space in it; feel free to correct) shows traffic dropping off after 15 November, when the redirect to pornography was created. I speculate that once requests for سكس بنات المدرسه started returning the Wikipedia page about pornography, rather than an error page, the censors promptly began blocking those requests. Fram wrote "I doubt that there are really suddenly thousands of people looking for سكس بنات المدرسه ("sex girls school") on enwiki" and indeed the traffic for the term picked up gradually beginning with 137 requests in December 2008, 322 the next month, 269 in February 2009, 3616 in June 2009, 23903 in December 2009, 68566 in December 2010, 43319 in December 2011, then declining to 18147 in December 2012, 10774 in September 2013 and 9384 in October 2013. Then this November the redirect was created, and the troll behind all this decided to stop his bot the same day, because trolls want to be obvious? I don't think so. —rybec 03:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Rybec, if you can't be bothered to follow normal talk page habits like not replying in the middle of someone's post, proper indentation, and the like, making it hard if not impossible to see who said what in the above thread, then don't be surprised if people don't answer (or don't believe that a lack of answer means that you are right). Anyway, if you truly believe that thousands of people every month come here who fit the description "If an Arabic speaker doesn't know a common English word for "penis" or "buttocks" (I've checked a few English slang terms such as cock and arse, and there is navigation from them), I think it's fair to assume that the person has little command of the language, and would be better served by the Arabic Wikipedia article", and that all of them are only interested in sex (since sex-related Arabic search terms, ranging from the possible to the rather improbable, are the only ones appearing in that list, ever), then it is indeed rather useless to try to convince you of the opposite. Most people in this discussion seem to disagree with you though. I am curious though what you mean when you say "the Wikimedia Foundation's analytics team"? The tool that provides the data that both the redlink list and stats.grok base their results on? If you use three sources (assuming that you have somehow checked the "analytics team" yourself, then maje sure that they are mutually independent; otherwise an error in one will be an error in all three. Fram (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and what is the enigmatic "Only 14 minutes elapsed between Fram's first note to me [29] and the AN notice [30]." supposed to indicate? Should I have waited longer before starting an AN discussion? I didn't start the AN discussion because you hadn't replied, that would have been ridiculous. I explained why I started the AN discussion right from the start, because the problem was a lot larger than I first thought (more articles, more groups of articles, more editors). If you have a problem with that, please tell us what the problem is. If you don't, then perhaps drop the innuendo and refrain from adding such sentences which do nothing to solve the issue. Fram (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

These continue to be created...

People, can you at least wait until the end of this discussion before making more of these redirects? Hideki T\xC5\x8Dj\xC5\x8D was created yesterday (the editor making this, User:Anthony Appleyard, had been notified of this discussion on 29 November). Fram (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Week 3

So this week's list of 1000+ redlink hits has come out; and for the second week in a row, the collection of +m/+n redlinks this week is approximately half the size of last week - a quick look shows it's on the order of about 100. I don't think any unbiased observer would conclude that this is a coincidence, and since the work of putting in these redirects has been paying off in reducing our +m/+n redlink requests from about a million three weeks ago to about a quarter of a million last week, is anyone going to throw a fit if I keep fixing these things? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 19:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Counting ones like Adam_Shulman and $domain, there are 173.

I've sent Diederik van Liere an e-mail in the hope that he'll look into the \x, Arabic and foom/foon/foop traffic. —rybec 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rybec for contacting me! I think the best course of action is to open a Bugzilla ticket under the product 'Datasets' and component 'webstatscollector'. That way the Analytics engineers get notified and we have an easier time tracking and discussing this issue. Drdee (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to "throw a fit" as you so neutrally describe it. What is the value in "reducing our incorrect redlink requests"? We should look at the cause of these requests, not simply hide the symptoms by polluting the mainspace with nonsense redirects. Fram (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the page views of Technology internetm; [73]. Do you really believe that suddenly thousands of humans start making this typo, and as suddenly they stop making it as well? This search term would have disappeared from the list of redlinks anyway, whether you had created it or not, unless there is some bot monitoring these and hitting the page until we create the redirect. The solution is to remove these from the list on creation (or if possible to find the bot doing this, it may be an onwiki-operated bot or a malfunctioning script), not to create pointless redirects only to reduce the length of some maintenance list, but without any benefit to Wikipedia and its readers. Fram (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the probability of such mistakes by humans. Take e.g. Batman, viewed nearly a million times the last 90 days[74]. Ending in "n", it is a logical target to get an accidental double "n" at the end of the search string; this has been tried 7 times in the last 90 days. With an extra "m", you get 1 hit for the last 90 days. That's one in a million. But we are to believe that "Technology Internetm" has been typed 55,000 times the last 90 days? Rubbish. Fram (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources of some search spikes

Looking at [75], the first ten (terms which got "no" hits before September, and suddenly thousands a day?) are the same as the categories on e.g. [76] and [77] (left side, under the list of years). Perhaps its time to stop all creations from that list (and simply stop generating the list to avoid the temptation), as there is very little value in it, we are not identifying human searches that fail, but bots and scripts, for 99%; not only the obvious improbable ones but also the at first glance possible ones are not generated by readers, and shouldn't be a driving factor behind our processes. Fram (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Now this is the first coherent alternative to the reddit/blog/facebook hypothesis I've yet seen. My question is, if this is coming from bots mangling content on a catholic news site, why are we getting clearly wiki-formatted requests like Black Friday (shopping)m? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-) But I claimed "some" search spikes for a reason. I don't know what or who generates the "m" and "n" searches, but I hope you agree that they are not usually typed by humans in our search box or in Google search. They may be caused by bad links somewhere, or bad software at WMF level, or bots/scripts/pageview experiments, or bad rendering of the pageview lists, or ... but the vast majority of redlinks (and now bluelinks) on that list aren't cases of people trying to find a page and not getting there (hence my "Batman" comparison above, which indicates anecdotically the amount of "real" end-m and end-n typos). Fram (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never suggested that they were search terms, nor do I think anyone ever has. The going assumption was that these were links... somewhere, being mangled by that site. The problem we've been trying to ameliorate was always that hundreds of thousands of people per week were following a link to Wikipedia, only to find an incoherent error page instead of the intended content. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

But it's extremely unlikely that hundreds of thousands of people were actually following these links from some unknown pages. The figures on the redlink list, compared to the pageviews for the actual pages, suggest that in some cases, all pageviews were supposed to come through that incorrect link. This is extremely unlikely. Fram (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Example:

• Collection Lot (with that capitalization) gets 659,000 hits in September[78]; its target EBay gets only 110,000 hits the same month[79]. Once the redirect is created (In October 2013, based on the most-wanted list), the number of viewers suddenly drops to first one-third and later one-sixth of the previous number, but still this means that supposedly nearly all the traffic to EBay comes through Collection Lot, which is rather unrealistic. Collection Lot is the 55th most popular search term on Wikipedia. Yeah right... Note that Collection lot (with more standard capitalization) is still a redlink, without any problems apparently. Fram (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

These seem as though they should all be deleted. My guess is they are both created by, and largely followed by, bots and automated processes, not by people looking for information. We should be encouraging the source of the error (making the typo) to correct it, rather than helping them perpetuate it. That keeps both our namespaces and our data clean. It may help to maintain a whitelist of "redlinks" from external sources that seem bot-generated; to help sift through the rest for reasonable redirects to create. – SJ + 18:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps unfortunately, stats.grok.se is case-insensitive. It shows the same statistics for collection lot and ColleCtion LoT. —rybec 07:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Status

So, we have at least four distinct groups of similar problems, with quite a few people arguing for deletion of them (certainly the first three), but not everyone agreeing on this (or not for all groups). We need some resolution on which ones to delete (this can be taken to RfD if that is preferred), and how to prevent further creation of these (assuming that they will indeed be deleted by consensus).

1. Redirects from pages names plus final "m" or "n"
2. Redirects from incorrectly rendered diacritics, accents, or other special characters (the "/x" redirects)
3. Redirects from Arabic sex-related strings
4. Redirects from less obvious search strings which get massive (disproportionate) hits, like Collection Lot, or 18k Gold Watch, viewed more than 500,000 in February[80], or five times the number of hits that the target article Watch received)

Do I take it to RfD or do we have a consensus-gathering here (or are there other preferred solutions to this)? Fram (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The comment from Andrew West dated 18:14, 29 November explains that the "\x" traffic is real and that the zero hits always reported by stats.grok.se is incorrect. The associated redirects should not be deleted unless the Mediawiki software is changed to decode "\x", or unless there's a good reason not to honour the requests. How these redirects might cause a problem has not been explained.

Eight of the Arabic redirects were recently discussed at RfD [81]. I've only created two since, and those were simply soft redirects to the Arabic Wikipedia. What harm there is in directing readers to an Arabic page about the specific Arabic term they searched for has not been explained. These terms have received high traffic since 2008; some appear to have received millions of requests. I explained in the RfD how Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran all censor pornography. For the record, I don't harbor the misconception that Arabic-speaking people "are only interested in sex". Rather, it's a topic of universal interest which is censored in some parts of the world. —rybec 12:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read Andrew Wests comment as if that traffic was in any way real (human) though. How exactly are readers supposed to end up at the "wrong" page? If I type Brandon Ríos or Brandon Rios in the search box, I get the correct result. What do people use to get at the redirect / wrong character instead, en masse? What string do people type to get Malin_\xC3\x85kerman instead of Malin Åkerman? And where do they type it?

The Arabic redirects: again, you are working on the assumption that thousands of Arabic people flock to the English Wikipedia and use Arabic search strings on it because (apparently) the censors don't recognise this when used on an English Wikipedia page, but don't allow it on the Arabic Wikipedia (and then you soft redirect them to the Arabic Wikipedia anyway)? Your explanation is to me utterly unconvincing, and the appearance of rather farfectched search strings on the one hand. and the etreme drop in searches for this string once it has been created, e.g. [82], seem to indicate that there is something else going on.

Do you e.g. really believe that 25,000 people have searched for "Lebanese Community" (Google translate of سكس لبناني ), which seems to be better translated as "Lebanese Sex"? This got 60,000 hits in February 2009[83] and has been receiving thousands of hits every month since, until the redirect was created, then it dropped to near zero... Fram (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence (in my view) that the "\x" redirects are not causeed by humans and/or have no impact on people trying to find an article.

• Guillain–Barré syndrome gets some 25,000 pageviews per month.
  • Guillain\xE2\x80\x93Barr\xC3\xA9 syndrome gets, according to [84], 25,000 page views per week, or 4 times as much as the target article
  • And yet, it is impossible to see when that redirect was created, presumably creating extra traffic to the target article[85]
• IS–LM model gets 1378 hits in the whole of June[86]
  • IS\xE2\x80\x93LM model on the other hand gets more than 6,000 hits per week in June[87], or more than 20 times the hits the target gets
  • But yet again, no increase in hits for the target can be seen when the redirect is created[88], it even drops the next month[89]

I know that the \x hits don't show up in stats.grok, but the increase they bring to their target should surely be visible? Fram (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The "m" and "n" redirects are now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#12 Years a Slave (film)m. Fram (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Create a "reassess and delete after" temporal template similar to "update after." For highly-used implausible-typo redlinks that are of a type that there is a consensus to create (for the sake of argument, let's say that a consensus develops that Redirects from incorrectly rendered diacritics, accents, or other special characters (the "/x" redirects) are better than redlinks), encourage a human or, where the intended destination is obvious, have a bot put in a WP:SOFTREDIRECT along with a "reassess and delete after" template dated 7-14 days in the future. When the timeout expires, have a bot check the recent page usage and either reset the clock or delete the page. Also, because this is designed to be temporary, there should be a "this is a temporary page" template at the top of the page. Consider making the page {{noindex}}. Why a softredirect rather than a regular one? So that hopefully someone will alert the webmaster of the incoming link to fix their web site, that's why. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-human typo redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone up for a range block?

See the history of my talk page, a blocked user keeps popping up as an IP to challenge the block of one of their many socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Two edits across a ... /14 of address space? ... ?

I agree we need to remind MK of their unwelcomeness, but a /14 rangeblock (if even that small... it's a /12 of Verizon space [90] ) seems excessive.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(following up on my own ...) - an edit filter? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

They haven't come back in a bit, so it may not be necessary at the moment. I am not super involved with this user, all I did was decline an unblock request, but it seems like their topic focus is narrow enough that page protection may be an effective tool if and when they return. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hounding

Tagging suspected sockpuppets

I am requesting review, by someone who is more experienced in the matter, of the use of {{IPsock}} and {{Sock}} on the user pages located in the following categories:

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 79.180.48.58
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 187.208.150.144
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mbreht

The categories were nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 25, but I have closed the discussions as being outside the scope of WP:CFD. In those cases where {{IPsock}} or {{Sock}} are being used appropriately, they will automatically categorize a user page and a category should exist. In those cases where {{IPsock}} or {{Sock}} are being used inappropriately, the user page should be deleted (nearly all of them contain no history other than the addition of the template) and the category will be depopulated automatically.

It is worth noting that the addition of the sock template has been reverted on many of the affected user pages. If the templates belong, they should be restored; if they do not belong, the user pages probably should be deleted to remove the negative history. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ping (to prevent archiving). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No Signpost?

Hi,

I noticed that there is no Signpost for the week of 11/27? Is this because it was Thanksgiving week, is the Signpost down, or was this an unusually boring week? Does someone know? Sportsguy17 (talk • contribs • sign) 02:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The ed17 would be the person to ask. I think it may have something to do with an ongoing deficit of writers, which Thanksgiving couldn't have helped. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 03:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page, thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC

Have just opened an RFC for a periodic review of the username policy and how it is enforced. Hoping to get input from both UAA regulars and folks with no regular involvement in this area so that a consensus can be formed on some issues that are a bit grey at the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream VS Jessica Nigri (and Facebook and what not)

User:Nyttend

This admin refuses to discuss a dispute over whether the Crittenden Farm article should include the farmhouse's date of construction, that it is listed on the NRHP, and the township that it is located in the article's opening paragraphs. I have asked him to use any forum he wants to solicit outside input after he accused me of having "unclean hands" when I posted the issue to the wp:NRHP noticeboard. He has threatened with strange accusations of vandalism and for adding unsourced content. He has banned me from his talk page but is now stalking my edits. He's removing see alsos to the NRHP county listings of properties I've added. He's removed sourced content on the Moon Lake, Florida article I created. This is very problematic since I'm not even allowed to discuss these issues with him. I believe some intervention is needed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

For example here he targets a redirect I made of a person's name to the home named for them. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• WP:DR, third door on your left, take a ticket and wait in line. Thanks Guy(Help!) 19:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, but they don't hand out tickets. Maybe better to use WP:DRN which is the fourth door on the right. No tickets but there may be a small wait.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Candleabracadabra has created dozens of unsourced pages despite warnings from others (see my recent contributions, cleaning them up), so the "strange accusations of vandalism" are my reminder that {{uw-unsor4}} is a redirect to a vandalism warning. He's begun making personal attacks and wonders why I stop attempting to have a logical discussion when his responses are "your arguments are idiotic" — it's impossible to have a logical discussion with someone who answers with ad homines. He violates the speedy deletion policy by removing a speedy deletion tag from a page that he created (see {{uw-speedy1}}). His statements at WT:NRHP portray the situation very inaccurately, ignoring the fact that he's repeatedly attempting to add some information that's not in sources and other information that appeared just one sentence before. He thinks "The community does not have a good reputation in recent years", without any context, is helpful and neutral to the Moon Lake article he noted. He thinks that this page is a reliable source for the addition of information to the Crittenden Farm article. Why again am I the one at fault here? This is definitely a situation for which our unclean hands article is applicable. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Diffs to alleged policy violations? I didn't see anything seriously problematic in Candleabracadabra's recent edits. No need for admin actions here. jni (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, I don't see a problem either. Candleabracadabra creates stubs. That's within policy, and does not require sources. That's why they are called stubs. I do see a problem with issuing templated warnings for creating those articles. The "unsourced" warning is for use when adding the material is likely to be challenged. I don't see anything in any of those articles that are likely to be challenged, and I would suggest that you stop slapping templates on him. GregJackP Boomer! 20:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, did you check my edits to his talk page? I've given him no templates whatsoever. Problematic edits include

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 9 (not precisely diffs, since these are all bad page creations), in which he creates pages with no sources whatsoever, as well as creating the pages with badly unhelpful layouts and leaving them for several days. It's one thing if you make a simple typo and fix it immediately, as he did to a typo that appears at #6, but another thing if you create a pile of pages and abandon them until someone comes along to clean them up, and then you come here to complain about the cleanup because the cleanup guy is "removing see alsos to the NRHP county listings of properties", even though we virtually never include those links and removing them gets them in line with our normal page style, and even though I'm not about to go back and remove them. The "this page" link up above is added in these two edits, the first of which adds unsourced information that's at variance with the sources already in the article. WP:OVERLINK violation. And see the "Crittenden Farm" of his talk page, in which I'm told that "arguing that we shouldn't [my argument] is.. well.. idiotic" and that "I know you won't play fair because we both know your argument is ridiculous". He wonders why I won't bother discussing with him when he comments on the contributor, not on content: you can't make logical arguments or have a reasonable discussion with someone whose responds with ad homines. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You did leave this. While looking at the diffs you provided shows that he needs help with putting images into the pages, it is not a violation of policy to create unsourced pages, so long as they do not deal with a BLP. That is why we have a BLPPROD tag, but not an UNSOURCED-PROD tag. It may be irritating to others, those that tend to clean up those articles, but it is not a violation of policy. Encouraging Candleabracadabra to get a mentor would be a good idea, but they are subject to no sanctions. This same discussion was held several years ago IIRC. GregJackP Boomer! 22:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced stubs might not be a policy violation in their own right, but these articles have all kinds of other issues, and the uncivil comments and general WP:IDHT behavior by Candleabracadabra are getting to be a problem. Candleabracadabra just doesn't seem to be putting a lot of effort into these articles; on top of everything else that's been mentioned, note this post, which is one of the longest notifications I've seen that bot make. This would be OK if he/she was willing to listen to feedback and fix issues, but when he/she's calling other editors jokers and idiotic it makes working with him/her rather difficult. I'm not sure the behavior issues are at the point of requiring sanctions, but they certainly look like they'll be a problem in the future if they're not at least addressed. TheCatalyst31^{Reaction•Creation} 23:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced stubs are not a policy violation, and neither is "not putting a lot of effort into articles", nor is getting the formatting wrong when you start a page. From a quick look at a third of those diffs, "all kinds of problems" seems to mean that someone needed to provide Candle with some information about the utility of the "thumb" setting for images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting déjà vu with regard to unsourced stubs of NRHPs. Killiondude (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

To the users who have said that creating unsourced stubs is not against policy - how about the verifiability policy? I see nothing in that or WP:STUB that says it's ok to create unsourced stubs. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour^{♪ talk ♪} 03:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. WP:BURDEN applies as well. MarnetteDTalk 03:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:V says "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." It does not say "All content must have cited sources." Policy has long been that articles must be verifiable, but need not be verified unless contentious or challenged, except for BLPs. If this has been changed, please link to the consensus discussion that changed it. DES^(talk) 03:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There hasn't been any change, but rather I think it depends how you interpret the words "likely to be challenged". I suppose you could have a stub whose content is so obvious as to not require a citation, but that would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour^{♪ talk ♪} 04:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• The policy is that material must be verifiABLE, not that it must be verifiED by citations currently present in the article.
• BURDEN does not apply unless and until an individual person, using their best editorial judgment (e.g., not mass-adding unref tags to dozens of new articles), decides to specifically challenge the material.
• WP:V contained a link to the definition of WP:LIKELY for several years, but the link seems to have gotten lost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

About your first point, the policy is not just that material must be "verifiABLE". Per DES's quote above, if material has been challenged, or is likely to be challenged, then it must be verified by a citation to a reliable source. That's why I said that it depends on your definition of "likely to be challenged", as there are a variety of viewpoints on this issue. See Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue for a case in point. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"BURDEN does not apply unless and until an individual person, using their best editorial judgment (e.g., not mass-adding unref tags to dozens of new articles)"? Where did this little gem come from, WhatamIdoing? I've never understood why you seem to champion unsourced material, but this is beyond anything you've attempted to state before. It is completely wrong: it would be quite legitimate for any editor that doubted the veracity of any of these unsourced stubs to blank it, citing WP:BURDEN. They could do so to dozens per minute, if they so chose. At that point, any editor that restored the unsourced material without providing an inline citation would be a candidate for blocking.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Blanking is a WP:CHALLENGE. The BURDEN is on you (assuming you want to restore the material) as soon as the material has been challenged. The BURDEN is not on you unless and until someone else has actually challenged the material. Until that moment, your personal belief that the material is not WP:LIKELY to be challenged, and therefore does not require inline sourcing, prevails. And as you know, people coming around and saying, "I challenge every unsourced sentence from here to infinity" or "I challenge every article tagged with the unref template" is not accepted as a valid challenge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The burden lies solely on the person wishing to restore the material, WhatamIdoing, and your efforts to discard some challenges as "invalid" have never been supported by policy. If someone were to blank large groups of these unsourced stubs, it would be against policy to restore any of the material without providing an in-line citation, even if the person making the restoration felt that insufficient research had been done prior to the blanking.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have never said that you may restore challenged material without providing an inline citation. Did you read what I wrote? "Blanking is a WP:CHALLENGE". If material is removed as a challenge, then you may not restore it without an inline citation. If you go search through WT:V's archives, you'll find that I've repeated this for years.

There are, however, some widely accepted exceptions. Nobody objected to the removal of a fact tag from an unsourced sentence claiming that humans normally possess four fingers and a thumb. The "challenge" was considered invalid because your average four year old knows that this statement is true, and the only possible reasons to add a fact-tag were either severe incompetence or as a joke. Nobody objects even to reverting blanking if it is believed to be vandalism rather than an actual challenge. (And if for some strange reason, you do, then you should convince the community to remove all mention of blanking from WP:Vandalism and turn off the anti-vandalism bots that revert blanking, rather than arguing here.)

What I'm trying to tell you today is that before the material is challenged or blanked, there is no requirement that inline citations be provided (for this kind of non-BLP, non-quotation material). After the challenge is issued, it is required. Before the challenge is issued, it is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The continued production of large numbers of totally unsourced stubs is not a policy violation, but only minimally helpful, & we have the right to expect better. Usually they occur in situations where the sourcing would be fairly obvious to anyone working with the subject--as is the case for NHRP. This is a cooperative project--many eds. are not conveniently able to do full proper sourcing themselves, and need to leave it to other people, but anyone who puts in an article uses information from somewhere. A common origin of these stubs is using a database--but then the ed. can at least cite the database--a raw citation to a database search is not a very good source, but it's a starting point. Another origin is when someone takes or finds a photo of something, and uses it as the base for an article. If the ed. found the photo, they found it somewhere. If they took the photo, the descriptive information has to have come from somewhere--often a marker or plaque at the site. If so, the ed. can at least say that--and possibly include the marker in the photo, For occasionally users, we're glad to get the contributions however ill-formed; but a regular user should figure out how to make their work helpful and appreciated, not a constant subject of criticism. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are we even having this conversation in AN? We have far worse editors than Candle that leave all sorts of rubbish to be mopped here daily. jni (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• The reason I brought this here was to find out whether an admin can bully and intimidate an editor away from working on an article. It's ironic that the discussion has veered into issues about improving articles rather than creating stubs. Why would I want to improve articles when this is the kind of harassment I am subjected to when I try to do so?
• The article on Crittenden Farm is not a good one. It includes no dates in the opening paragraphs, it doesn't include the township where the farm is located in the opening paragraphs, and it didn't even note that it was listed on the NRHP up front. Where it does give the date the farm was established (somewhere in the body of the article), the date conflicts with the date of construction of the farmhouse given in the infobox. This is because the farmhous predated the sheepfarmer who came to occupy it, but this isn't covered in the article at all. It's crappy work and I was attempting to get it up to speed and improve it. I was met with hostility and an unwillingness to collaborate.
• It is a beautiful home, the wife of the sheep farmer who came to occupy it is part of the family that the county is named after (sutherland I think it is), and her father is, I think, one of those buried in the cemetery on the property (if I recall correctly). But this isnt' covered well and it's not possible to improve an article when the admin excercising control over it responds by stalking my edits and threatening me with bogus warning about vandalism and personal attacks, when he is the one that hijacked my attempts at dispute resolution at the WP:NRHP page seeking outside input and he is the one engaged in banned behaviors. I think bullying is wrong. Period. Nyttend should shape up.
• I know TLDR, but whatever. Those are the facts.
• I would also like to address some of the other issues raised here. I have improved LOTS of stubby articles sourced only to NRHP information. I have made LOTS of corrections to articles on NRHP subjects (and LOTS of other subjects). We are a collaborative enterprise. *It helps to have a stub to start with and the idea that we are better off with nothing is silly.
• It's a travesty that we have so many redlinks for these beautiful properties, especially ones for which there are photos. I have every intention of continuing to create articles on them. I have also created lots of articles on the architects who designed them and worked to expand the coverage of the locatities where they are located.
• If someone want to have a broader discussion about whether we should create short article on subjects or whether we have to work up more complete articles right off the bat they are welcome to do so in the proper forum, but I think they would arguing against the best interests of the encyclopedia and against its history of collaborative development.
• I write articles by hand so I make lots of mistakes. I have shortcoming. i spell things wrong. I appreciate all those editors who categorize and improve my work. Thank you.
• I prefer thumbnail photos and good opening paragraphs to infoboxes, but I live with the consensus in favor of the oversized boxes that in my opinion overemphasize NRHP status and make the image smaller with less room for other images.
• It's unfortunate that Nyttend seems to have gotten away with his bullying tactics. I don't think that's appropriate behavior for an admin. But I will try to move on to other areas where he isn't active. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

First, although I supported you (Candleabracadabra) on the creation of stub articles, you need to be aware of a couple of things.

• In no way do I think that Nyttend was bullying you.
• You need to work on the size of the photos, because the size that I was seeing in the articles you created were not thumbnails, they were full size.
• You need to look at what was stated by most of the editors here - the articles that you are creating are not very good. You need to work on improving this.
• You need to drop the issue with Nyttend. GregJackP Boomer! 06:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

GregJ, if you don't think issuing multiple bogus warnings, threats and accusations, stalking my edits to other pages and expanding the dispute while prohibiting me from contacting him on his talk page, and making personal attacks against me isn't bullying I think you are mistaken.

I didn't thumbnail those photos because my experience had been that photos in articles I created on NRHP subjects were quickly added to infoboxes anyway.

There are lot of articles that aren't very good, but I disagree with you that an article with basic facts is a problem. I think coverage of the basics about a subject is far better than nothing and a decent starting point.

If you wish to argue that we should have nothing instead of articles on these historic properties with the basics from NRHP I am happy to consider your position. I think that's a difficult argument to make. I am confident that the articles I make are a lot better than what was here before their creation (nothing).

The article I was trying to improve is crappy. It doesn't even describe the property's location, name, and history accurately. But I will leave it to you and others to fix it. Have fun. I have already moved on.

Nyttend's bullying has stopped, so at least that's good news. I am sure that if I had stalked his edits, as he did mine, and started reverting his work combatively I would have been bocked. But such is an example of the double standards that operate here. He certainly adds a lot of good photos, so for that we can be thankful. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend has now returned to making disruptive edits to antagonize me. He moved the J. R. Carmichael House article into my userspace. He prodded my article on the White-Haines Building. He removed a statement I added to Ruggles Township noting that the Crittenden Farm is located there saying it was unsourced, even though a photo of the farmhouse is in the article's infobox and he knows that it is in fact located in the township. I don't think this kind of diruptive antagonism is appropriate from an admin and I will certainly not be "banned' from his talk page while he's attacking my work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The J. R. Carmichael House move is an interesting one [[104]]. I'm not totally up to speed on policy but in the absence of any warning or discussion it feels really wrong to me that an admin (or, come to think of it, presumably any user) can arbitrarily decide that an article is 'not ready for user space'. Isn't that what WP:CSD, WP:PROD or WP:AFD are for?--Korruski^Talk 15:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC) - Update: Indeed, a moment's research suggests that this action was in breach of WP:USERFY#NO. --Korruski^Talk 15:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that may be another problem with the NRHP conventions that say use the listing name. That also gives us building articles with 'company' in the name when that is clearly wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't some editors been sanctioned for blindly following the NRHP guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see why the against-policy move has anything to do with NRHP conventions. You may need to explain further!--Korruski^Talk 08:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I get an assessment of Carnegie Library of Albany. I got a message from Madman bot was I was editing it and tried to modify it enough so that it was sufficiently different from the source. I also added the additional sources that the waymarking source was based on. Nyttend deleted the article. If it is too close to the source can someone just trim the offending bits. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the last revision of the article before its deletion, I don't see an unambiguous copyright violation as Nyttend claims. The first paragraph is independent of the source cited in the deletion rationale, and while the second paragraph mostly paraphrases the source, it doesn't strike me as an especially close paraphrase (and certainly isn't an unambiguous violation). I'll give Nyttend a chance to respond, but I'd be willing to restore that. TheCatalyst31^{Reaction•Creation} 05:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

MadmanBot flagged it as a copy of http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM8WBT_Carnegie_Library_of_Albany_Albany_GA, which contains links to other pages including http://www.albanygeorgia.biz/attractions/venues.html, cited in Nyttend's G12 deletion summary. There are two issues: the first paragraph may be based on a different source, and copying then rewriting (Candleabracadabra's response to MadmanBot and above) is not allowed. That creates unauthorized derivative works that must be rewritten entirely or deleted outright. (The best pages I could find are WP:Suspected copyright violations/doc and WP:Text Copyright Violations 101#Sample scenarios.) Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Please close discussion WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden

Please disposition WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden which has been open for more than one month. Thanks --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Bump --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving a page over redirect

Per Talk:Reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela#Another idea: Move content to Death of Nelson Mandela would it be possible to move Reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela to Death of Nelson Mandela over the current redirect? Thanks for any help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Done — Scott•talk 20:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Request to undelete all subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I

I have asked for this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_107#All_subpages_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FRobert_I, but my request was archived without anyone taking action (I shouldn't be too surprised, even if this is about a 2006 arbitration case, it is arbitration, so automatically causes most admins to wince and look for something easier to tackle). So I am bring it to a more general forum. As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Courtesy_deletion.3F, this was deleted in violation of modern Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking, through this deletion happened several months before courtesy blanking became recognized as part of our policies (the "Robert I" page was deleted on August 11, 2006; del pol from that time doesn't discuss any related concept; "courtesy blanking" had a dedicated page created in September that year, recognized as a policy shortly afterward, was mentioned in del pol in October 2006, with the dedicated page merged there in June 2007).

The deletion of Robert I page remains, as far as I can tell, the only example of any page deleted due to "courtesy"; other arbitration pages, both before (ex. June 2005 "Internodeuser" case) and since, have been occasionally courtesy blanked (never deleted) instead. Nothing suggests this was an exceptional case, different from all the other cases where regular blanking was used instead. The deletion does not appear to be warranted by a policy, neither past nor present, nor was there any type of extraordinary circumstances declared by ArbCom (nothing is visible in the description of the undeleted main "Robert I" arbitration page, it's never censored summary here, nor confirmed by the present arbitrators (see discussion linked above). Any concerns about privacy should and can be resolved simply by blanking, any deletion is an unjustified overreaction. As such, I am asking that we bring this exception back into the fold of our regular deletion policy, by undeleting affected pages (and of course, summarily blanking them per the cited DELPOL:BLANK).

In case anyone needs further rationale for undeletion, consider the following points: 1) no-one will be harmed by the undeletion (the main page for this arbitration case, with all the usernames and verdicts, was undeleted years and properly blanked ago anyway, with no problems arising); 2) those pages were improperly deleted, rules (deletion policy) should be followed; 3) the very concept of "courtesy deletion" sets up a bad precedent, from possible deletion creep to discussion of censorship. In fact, my request to have this undeleted is not because I am a policy freak (I like top think of myself as an IAR-supporter), but because the very concept of deletion based on such policy-unsupported, flimsy and subjective rationale as "courtesy" makes me fearful that this precedent will lead to further abuse of deletion policy, opening way for censorship. I want to ensure this is recognized as a mistake not to be repeated, before someone else stumbles upon this and concludes censorship-friendly "courtesy deletion" was ever a good idea and tries to resurrect it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 07:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with the deleting admin? (SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) who remains very active). I note that you haven't advised them that you've opened this thread, despite it containing criticisms of the deletion of these pages back in 2007. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the Committee would need to approve of this, given that the pages remain under their jurisdiction. --Rschen7754 07:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've notified SlimVirgin accordingly. And yes, discussion with SlimVirgin should have been undertaken before bringing it here, she's still actively editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Seraphimblade. Piotrus has requested undeletion of these pages in several places in the last couple of weeks, including on 21 November at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee; [105] on 25 November at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion; [106] and on 26 November on my talk page. [107] The 25 November request for undeletion received no response (Piotrus didn't let me know about it) and was archived earlier today by the bot. [108]

All the case pages in question were deleted in 2007 after a complaint that their existence was causing embarrassment. Complaints about related pages (not directly about the pages Piotrus has highlighted) took place over a fairly long period, and involved several admins and others. There were complaints about BLP and privacy violations, and I believe the complaints reached the Foundation. The request to delete these particular pages came to me because I had earlier dealt with one of those related issues.

I informed the ArbCom about the deletion request at the time, before I deleted the pages, in case there were objections. One page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I, was undeleted in 2008 because it was needed for a community-ban discussion, but the other pages (evidence, workshop, etc) remain deleted.

As I said when Piotrus first raised this, I don't really mind either way, and would prefer that others decide whether to undelete. But it would help if Piotrus could explain why he has focused on these pages, and what has changed about the situation that would make undeletion a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You guys are right, I should have pinged User:SlimVirgin. I did so for the first thread on the Arbitration pages (and I think I raised this on her talk a while ago too, and she declined, through I cannot easily locate her archives to link and verify); I thought it would be sufficient, but you are right, I shouldn't have forgotten about pinging her about this discussion - no slight intended. I hope none of my criticism sounded harsher than intended: back in 2006 or so our policies were still evolving, and SlimVirgin was certainly acting within the bounds of being an admin for that time and place.

Now regarding my interest in the old ArbCom pages: as a Wikipedia researcher, I am looking into the history of ArbCom, and I am in particular interested in voting patters (i.e. public records on Proposed Decision pages). The Robert I page is the only one I've found so far which has been censored out of public availability (so the public is denied the usually public record on which committee members took part in voting on the case, and how they voted, among other things of potential public interest), and this happened without any easily located justification.

Since (correct me if I am wrong) several parties, including SlimVirgin herself above and the several standing members of the committee in the thread I linked in my op (cc User:Rschen7754) stated that they see no problem with restoring those pages, provided they are blanked (as it the long standing policy to limit visibility and search engine indexing of pages with potentially embarassing information, while retaining the transparent nature of our discussions, where the type of revealed information does not require escalation to oversight deletion, which has not been proven the case here), can we just undelete it, blank it, and move on? Undeleting and blanking takes a minute, and we have wasted much more time discussing this simple request, clearly in line with existing policies, for no good reason that at least I can see. All I see so far is an unorthodox decision taken years ago, and the word ArbCom scaring everyone, including modern arbitrators, from taking responsibility and bringing that old decision in line with the modern policy... c'mon people, there's no Pandora Box here, closing admin stated so much herself, undeleting this will not cause anyone to get desysoped, banned or flogged. Nor outed or embarassed, since the main page have been safely restored years ago, to nobody caring much. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 03:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"the several standing members of the committee in the thread I linked in my op (cc User:Rschen7754) stated that they see no problem with restoring those pages" - that's certainly not how I read Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Courtesy_deletion.3F. --Rschen7754 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Quoting User:SirFozzie: "I have no problem with having the rest of the pages undeleted". User:David Fuchs: I read his comment as abstains, asks if there was any special reason to have the page deleted rather than blanked per regular practice - as others have noted since, no there wasn't. User:Risker: ditto, states that since s/he simply sees no point to it (I think I addressed that sufficiently). Feel free to correct me if I am interpreting those comments wrong (I am echoing the cited editors in case they'd like to do just that), but as far as I am reading them, those ArbCom members who commented on this so far are not objecting to undeletion and are mostly unconcerned about this issue. Therefore, to cite David again, "It seems likely that if the same circumstances happened today the pages would have been courtesy-blanked rather than outright deleted." - let's bring this old incident into consistency with modern policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 05:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Conducting some sort of vague "research" into the history of ArbCom seems a pretty poor reason to restore material which was deleted on privacy grounds to me, and such an argument would not be accepted by ethics committees and the like. Blatantly miss-quoting the discussion by the current Arbs hardly strengthens your case, especially as they're actually the decision makers here. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Nick-D: I find your ad hominem red herring comments about the value of my professional work, and accusations of lying ("Blatantly miss-quoting" without any further detail as to what was misquoted), uncalled for and offensive. My reason for asking for those pages to be undeleted is irrelevant to the merit of this request and my disclosure of my interest was a simple courtesy to the editor who asked; any further discussion of my motivations is distracting to the subject at hand, which is the undeletion request. Similarly, I have already acknowledged in my disclaimer that my interpretation of Arbitrators post may be incorrect, but it was done in good faith, and I provided quotes and rationale for my interpretation; if you disagree with it please provide an explanation of similar level, quoting or referring to a specific part of their post, to prove me wrong; just saying that I am wrong does not make it so. I therefore kindly ask you to refactor your preceding post, in the spirit of WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA, as I don't believe that discussing my person in the fashion you engaged in here is conductive to the productive discussion (I'd appreciate it if we could focus on discussing the topic of undeletion rather than any specific editor, whether it's me or you). I'd be happy to refactor this very post once you refactor your post as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 06:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Rschen that the arbcom folks who commented, declined to actually per se consent to undeletion. (But, disagree Nick that the Prokonsul's take was blatant anything... the arbs were pretty verbosely-n-carefully saying one thing... and-then-on-the-other-hand saying maybe another... sigh). Unless, that is, given a "good reason" that such action was necessary, and failing that somewhat-vague criterion, either abstained or voted to stick with the status quo. Some reasons immediately spring to mind. Reason #1, transparency transparency transparency. Reason #2, perhaps the Prokonsul will produce something useful from their arbcom-archaeology-research. Reason #3, retroactive policy-consistency is not mandatory but it seems like a reasonable idea. Hope this helps. p.s. Actually it said "embarrassment" grounds, not privacy grounds; I don't know if outing was involved, and in fact, nobody is saying what was involved, which strongly suggests (to my perhaps-bizarre way of thinking at least ;-) that the deleted stuff cannot be very terrible.

p.p.s. Since nobody has voiced *objections* besides why-bother-without-a-good-reason, that I have heard... and transparency seems like a primordially-good reason to my mind... I suggest that undeletion followed by page-blanking be implemented, as soon as possible. Because, reason #4, probably all the digital ink spilled on the discussions-whether-to-undelete, will dwarf the digital ink spilled on dissecting the actual-soon-to-be-undeleted-stuff, itself. If there is a reason to keep the stuff deleted, that trumps transparency and the rest, well, then just say that security or legality or verboten content means that the stuff must stay deleted. But enough round-and-round speculation, just undelete it or somebody who knows it is too sensitive step up and *say* it cannot be undeleted because $foo, please-n-thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite correct. Indeed, I did not intend to say Arbitrators have given their consent for that; rather that they have not voiced any clear objection. But it is likely more correct to say, as you do, that they are very non-committal and ambiguous, and one could interpret what (little) they said in any way. Very... politically astute of them. Sigh indeed. I was hoping that a discussion at ANI would either generate more interest, or would quickly result in a consensus, but it does appear that in a few days I'll have to simply file a formal Request for Arbitration Clarification or Amendment. Through I can't help but wonder if that request won't be ignored as well, as everyone will keep avoid taking responsibility and admitting that the deletion was a mistake (unnecessary if good-faithed censorship where regular page blanking was used before and since). Censorship, after all, is a quiet and mostly a victimless crime, letting the sleeping dogs lie is easy. But undeletion, now, is an action, and actions could cause someone to complain... why make the difficult choice where the easy one - to do nothing, quietly endorsing this unjustified violation of deletion policy - worked well for years? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 06:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't there something more productive to do? Who cares whether horrible admin abuse occurred seven years ago? I see that at least one editor does care and is on a mission to right great wrongs, but IMHO a plausible reason would need to be produced to justify making people take the time to work out whether there was a good reason for the original action, and whether anything in the deleted material really should remain out of view. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• See this mention of legal threats in the visible part of the Robert 1 case for some hint of what the problem might be. The locus of the dispute was the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost. That article and its talk page have (between them) about 2,000 deleted edits. The deletion may have been done for BLP reasons and to avoid legal trouble for Wikipedia and some individual editors. (Admins can look at the deleted material if they want to convince themselves that the legal issue actually exists). Under these conditions it's hard to be enthusiastic about restoring the information. A Google search for Gregory Lauder-Frost will give you some hint of why he is controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unless it can be showed that there indeed where issues beyond the established courtesy blanking, i.e. office action or oversight-type concerns, which so far nobody has been able to confirm, this remains a good faithed but unnecessary deletion. In fact, I'll note that any speculation that there were such extraordinary circumstances comes from individuals totally unconnected with that case; nobody "in the know" (i.e. the closing admin or the committee members) have stated that any extraordinary circumstances exist (if they did we wouldn't need to speculate about them). Issues that come to arbitration are, by default, controversial; nothing about this case that has been said so far suggests that policy-exceptional deletion, resulting in effect in the only case of secret arbitration proceedings, was required instead of the regular courtesy blanking. Regarding legal threats, no policy supports deletion of arbitration cases in which this issue arises, and having reviewed hundreds of arbitration cases, I could easily point to many other arbitration cases from that timeframe where parties were similarly blocked for legal threats, and nobody deleted (or even blanked) the said pages. Rather than assume there was some sikrit need-to-know reason for deletion, Ockham's Razor suggest it was a simple mistake, which should be rectified by undeletion and blanking, as supported by our policies, which, for the n-th time, do not allow for any "courtesy deletion", not unless such an exception is justified by WMF, the committee or the community, none of which appears to have been the case. Whether it was 2006 or 2013, admins cannot delete arbitration pages because they think "it's a good idea". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 06:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• If this deletion happened 6 years ago and (as Piotrus himself emphasizes) it was a unique occurrence, and as nobody has made a peep about it til now, I don't understand what makes Piotrus "fearful that this precedent will lead to further abuse of deletion policy" or why it's suddenly so important that we get the pages back. If Piotrus really just wants the pages for research into voting patterns, that could be handled by someone sending him the contents privately, so undeletion is not required for that purpose. Piotrus has been around forever and surely knows some administrators who can email the pages to him. Despite this, Piotrus has forum-shopped this thing to at least 5 venues so far, wikilawyering about policy and beating drums about "censorship" and mentions plans to file an WP:ARCA in a few days if the current fuss isn't enough. That sounds to me like the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and I have to wonder what it's really about.

  Piotrus, do you already have the pages? Is there something particular in them that you want the rest of us to see, and if yes, can you say what it's about (since you're Mr. Transparency)? Saying we should follow policy for the sake of following policy is IMHO not impressive (WP:BURO). If you really want the pages (a lurching, drooling beast of drama ISTM) back onto the wiki, one idea might be to get them privately and then post them in your userspace. If you're comfortable doing that, maybe that solves the problem from your perspective. If you're uncomfortable, you might consider that the admins who have declined to undelete the pages might feel the same discomfort, so it would be nice to cut them a little slack.

  Piotrus's request seemed reasonable at first, but his increasing insistence and relentless campaigning makes me feel and more like something is amiss.

  Regards, 50.0.121.102 (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I see any point to dredging through long-deleted things to find ones whose deletions can be questioned. It sounds like the case pages for this case led to complaints about real-life problems and, especially in the past when revdel and oversight weren't as (or at all) usable, content was often deleted to handle issues like that. When that was done, the reasons for those deletions were unlikely to be presented publicly at the time (what was the point of removing the content from public view if you went on to say "here, I am deleting a page that [name] says is causing people to think he is [thing]"?). I could make a career of going through years of deletion logs and finding-and-restoring page histories that were deleted through "poor man's oversight" instead of being revision deleted or oversighted, or of going through revdel logs to find entries that I think don't meet the policy bar, but that's not a worthwhile use of time. Absent any particular reason for any of that long-deleted content to be restored - and absent any knowledge of the circumstances that caused each of those edits to be deleted - there's no benefit, and quite possibly potential harm, in restoring deleted content because "I think this was unnecessary" or "because I'm curious" or "because I think everyone should be able to see". If Piotrus needs the content of these particular case pages, I imagine a properly explicatory request ("I am researching [exact topic], and have reason to think [case page] contains content relevant to the history of that topic, so I would like to see [case page]'s deleted content" rather than "I'm researching Arbcom, and so I want all Arbcom pages to be publicly viewable") made to Arbcom or to an admin familiar with the case would get the deleted page's content sent to him privately with little fuss. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

While I might take mild exception at the translation of governing-body-transparency into the diminutive form of everyone-should-be-able-to-see, the suggestions by Fluffernutter and 50 that the best way forward is for the Prokonsul to request a private copy of the pages, or at least, of the ArbCom votes that were deleted along with the rest of it. From the hints of EdJohnston, who it seems has in fact looked at the pages in question, and found them to be a potentially-legal-defamation-or-similar problem, probably the stuff would be revdel nowadays. Anyways, per WP:IAR it seems clear that Flutternutter is correct, there isn't much point to trying to make our policies unified and consistent, when right on the tin is says we are *against* having any such thing. If any rule prevents you from improving wikipedia, ignore it.

Anyhoo, the ball is in our respected Prokonsul's court -- will you be happy if you get private copies of the pages, so you can complete your research? Because truth be told, I don't care about being able to see the old pages, if it was necessary there are 1400 admins and surely some of them would DTRT if it were really necessary... but that said, I *do* care about your research. I'm planning to rely on it, so therefore would like it to be as correct and complete as possible.

I agree with your philosophical position, that transparency is inherently the best policy, and that consistency is an essential component of fairness, but one of the main reasons we have ArbCom -- and for that matter a specially restricted checkuser setup -- is to Protect The Names Of The Innocent (And/Or Legally Powerful), because that rule protects wikipedia herself. This is a slippery slope, no doubt. Given that we have to protect the physical server-farm, which in their activity embody wikipedia, though, it seems pragmatic to take EdJohnson's word that the material is reasonably kept from the eyes of the general public, in this case. But feel free to get a second opinion, or a third, from a few admins you know. Maybe even Flutternutter, who I note is an oversighter as well as an admin. Can you peek at (or perhaps you have already peeked at) the pages in question, Flutternutter? Do you agree with EdJohnston that it would not Improve The Encyclopedia, to include morale of contributors, to undelete? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspected attempt at outing by Socialmedium

Request for Guidance

Hi..

There's been a lot of activity at WP:PUF in the past few days, and there's been concerns expressed that I'm being over zelaous. Would someone uninvolved like to do a review and figure out where I am mis-applying the rules?

I'd really like a second opinion.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG - I'm not sure that you're being overzealous, but I do think that if you put a bit more time and thought into your deletion nominations, you'd be able to better identify problems, and in doing so, would have a higher accuracy rate and place things in better forums. For example, the "Michel Georges Sassine" series (five images you brought to PUF) are, based on the information provided in the image description pages and in the article, from between 1968 and 1970. That makes it impossible for {{PD-Lebanon}} to apply, as that only applies to things older than 50 years old, and these images are 43 to 45 years old. In this case, PUF is the wrong forum, these should have gone straight to FfD, pointing out the timing issue. I think it is important that people like you go through files and check them for licensing issues, but I'd urge you to take your time when you do it. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Initial query

Would a formalized request to modify procedures to allow clueful non-admins to decline {{unblock}} requests from IPs be a proposal with merit, or a complete non-starer? I would have been prepared to decline this request for example; almost choosing a bold approach—instead asking this question; here. Thank you for considering this query, and I thank in advance those who will move themselves to reply.—John Cline (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not likely going to gain traction. It unfortunately opens a somewhat slippery slope ES&L 11:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If we walk upon Teflon soles, we will slip irrespective of slope; as we too often do, in my opinion.—John Cline (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a shiny mop here ... (waves in John Cline's general direction). It's very pretty.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with George. The definition of "clueful" is the problem, since we currently have too many procedures, and adding another one (with attendant controversy) is not going to help, especially since the problem could be resolved by reducing the admin shortage. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

With very few exceptions, I do not think it is a good idea to grant the ability to say no to a user who is not able to respond with a yes. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Very good point. The broader issue (you should have the technical ability to reverse yourself) is the same reason for our decision to enable bureaucrats like Beeblebrox to remove people's admin rights when necessary, as well as granting those rights. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(actually my RFB failed, but I do have other superpowers)By the way though, in this specific type of case, any user is free to add {{ewblock}}, which explains to blocked users why edit warring is not tolerated and what to do instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird, I was sure you were a bureaucrat. Note that if you find a request with which you agree, you can add something like "Note to reviewing admin: I think this person should be unblocked", or you can ask the blocking admin for an unblock. For a good example of how to support an unblock request, see here: some months after I blocked Captain Assassin!, his conversations with Sportsguy17 convinced Sportsguy that an unblock was appropriate, so he notified me when Assassin had posted a request that looked appropriate. Unfortunately, I can't give you a parallel suggestion for when an unblock seems inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think in principle, this is a good idea, but I agree with EatsShootsAndLeaves that it does leave a slippery slope and also opens up the question of the definiteion of "clueful". Of course, you also have the issue of non-admins can't revoke talk page access in the event of frivolous unblock requests/talk page abuse. I personally think that non-admins can leave a note saying whether or not they support, but we need to make sure that it doesn't degenerate into an election/vote. It really should only occur in cases like that described above by Nyttend. So sadly, I really don't see it happening. Sportsguy17 (talk • contribs • sign) 23:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This should be listed on WP:PERENNIAL, I think this has been asked before, and turned down. --Rschen7754 03:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the insight in these thoughtful replies. The collective weight is powerful—I concede to its reason. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Block of 74.73.143.175

According to this IP's contributions log, 74.73.143.175 (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely by TigerShark. Now, as far as I know, IPs are almost never indeffed, and this user seems to have moved on to the address 68.174.175.172 (talk · contribs) in any event. (I still can't decide whether the user is a vandal or just very, very incompetent.) Someone may want to reduce the block duration for the 74. ... IP—though it may not be a good idea to unblock immediately, as the user still may have access to it. I'd have brought this up with TigerShark, but he's been inactive for over a week; I'll notify him of this thread, though. Deor (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

During his brief, but very intensive, reappearance on en-WP TigerShark blocked at least a couple of dozen IPs indefinitely, and refused to change the blocks in spite of several editors/admins telling him that it was against praxis to block IPs indefinitely (the discussions took place on several different talk pages, but one discussion can be found on TigerShark's own talk page). And AFAIK all of those indefinite blocks still remain in place. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Indef on a dynamic IP that only appeared a month ago is really weird. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Indef's on suddenly-appearing IP's that are not otherwise disallowed is poor form. That said, nobody is going to WP:IAR if I login to my admin account and modify the block length on those accordingly :-) ES&L 16:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Let us wait for a day, if there is no response here from TigerShark or other objections I will shorten the block to a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Will you shorten the other indef blocks of IPs that TigerShark made too? There are quite a few of them... Thomas.W^{talk to me} 22:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel this would be stalking, which I try to avoid.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not stalking: it's correcting a entire sequence of incorrect administrative actions that the admin themself is refusing to do. Same reason you're allowed to review someone's entire list of contributions and correct whatever is not policy-compliant ES&L 11:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have gone through and unblocked some of them that there was no obvious reason for the block. Will try to look at some of the others later. GB fan 13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann's right eye

See Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 40#File:McCann right eye.jpg

This is a request that an uninvolved editor or admin, and someone not normally involved in non-free content review, evaluate the disputed closure (linked above) of a discussion about File:McCann right eye.jpg. It would also help if the closer were someone familiar with the breadth of coverage the disappearance of Madeleine McCann attracted in the UK and Portugal.

The image is a close-up shot of the distinctive mark on Madeleine's right eye, used in this section of the article, which discusses her and the significance of the eye image. We already use a non-free image of Madeleine as the main image (there are no free images of her), but the mark on the eye is not easy to see, so someone uploaded the close-up shot of it in 2007 to use in the section that discusses the eye. It's something that's more appropriate to show than describe.

Werieth removed the image in October, arguing that it violated the non-free content guideline. I believe Werieth's argument is that, because we have an image of Madeleine at the top of the page, we don't need to reproduce a portion of that image to highlight the eye.

Whether the eye is discussed in the article speaks to whether the image is the subject of commentary (see section 4.1.3, point 9, of the guideline), and whether it might be said to have iconic status (4.1.3, point 8). It may also have a bearing on whether the non-free content policy (as opposed to guideline) is satisfied: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Werieth took the issue to non-free content review (permalink), where it seemed (to me) that there was no consensus to remove it. ТимофейЛееСуда has now closed it as consensus to remove. I asked him to reconsider here, but he stands by the closure, so I'm now requesting an independent review, if anyone's willing. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting here that I posted the above on WP:AN/RFC on 7 December, asking for the review of a closure. Armbrust moved my post here today without letting me know. It's not something I would have brought to WP:AN, particularly as the issue with this particular image was resolved last night with this edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Closer's Comment: As I have said many times, any uninvolved administrator is open to review my closure. An uninvolved editor is obviously not enough. One of the other members of the discussion went to SlimVirgin, stating that he did not agree with my closure. SlimVirgin came to my talk page asking for my reconsideration. I thoroughly explained my position and my closure, which obviously was not enough. I stated that any uninvolved administrator could come to me and I would reopen it, if they felt that my closure was done improperly. Diannaa, an uninvolved administrator, has already reviewed my closure on my talk page, something SlimVirgin seems to ignore. SlimVirgin does not agree with the outcome, and she will not listen to solutions that other editors have proposed and many that both sides agree upon. SlimVirgin, being too lazy to read what she requested of me, asked for a summary, but then 32 minutes later brought the discussion here. SlimVirgin requests an editor or administrator who is not familiar with WP:NFCR to review my closure, because she thinks will get what she wants from someone who is not active in dealing with non-free files. It smells like all of this nonsense with my closure on her part is because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I find it sad that an administrator I once looked up to has turned to this. My assumption is that unless an administrator states I have closed this improperly, then SlimVirgin will take the discussion elsewhere until she gets what she wants. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is a non-admin comment, and I became aware of this issue from seeing it posted previously at the noticeboard for closure requests, before it was correctly moved here. Although I'm a non-admin, I've spent a lot of time thinking about WP:NFCC (having written WP:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions), and, unlike some of the editors who are NFCC regulars, I tend to be sympathetic to content-centered concerns that images help our readers understand text. I've looked at all of the previous discussions.

It seems to me that Timothy and Diannaa are correct that NFCC 3a is, inescapably, the critical factor here. It does not change because most of the discussion was about other things, and there is no getting around it. No matter how you slice it, there is no policy basis for reversing Timothy's close.

But there are plenty of ways to fix the problem, depending on what editors at the page end up preferring. The only requirement is that the image (whether cropped or not) can be used only once on the page. One option is to leave the lead as it is, and use the "generic" image of coloboma, while also placing the external image link, with an explanation of the difference, in the image caption. Another option is to enlarge the image in question, in the lead, and move the time-advanced image of the subject elsewhere on the page. I've read the page and I'm satisfied that all the criteria except 3a are met, and I also think that our readers will understand quite well even after the 3a issue is fixed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin removed the image and replaced it with an external link to the image (there were already 7 other external links). I think over time those involved editors can find a workable solution where all policies are met and the article is kept in the best light. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't this a DRV issue? Regardless, NFCC#1 and NFCC#3a force any closing administrator's hands. None of the keep arguments surmount them.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason it's not a DRV is that the image file is not deleted, just removed from the page. In other words, the discussion that was closed was at WP:NFCR, not WP:FFD. On the other hand, the file is tagged for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

However, I am worried (given behavior of some involved) that as soon as the image is deleted for being an orphan, a DRV will be opened, regardless of the points made by ТимофейЛееСуда and Diannaa and the comments above. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a very reasonable next step if it gets deleted. That's what DRV is for. Hobit (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The closure has now been reviewed by at least 2 different admins as proper. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

DRV still remains the appropriate venue for deletion appeals. I suspect this wouldn't have a chance, but it's a reasonable step. Hobit (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I have assumed good faith and looked at this superficially and I'm ambivalent to either way. Looking strictly at our policies there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that prohibits us from claiming fair use in this case and use the image legally. However, you gotta ask yourself: is it extremely important that this image is shown? Then you see that an image of Madeleine is already shown at the very top where you can see her eye's mark. You should also notice that the matter here is NOT the image, but the fact that the image has been widely published. I strongly believe that what we should convey visually on the article is not the image per se, but the fact that the image has been widely distributed. So, instead of showing the image, take a picture of the image being hung around somewhere, upload it freely to Wikipedia, and place that photo on the article. Or, take a photo of a newspaper showing the picture and the article where such image is shown in order to demonstrate to our readers that the image has been widely distributed. I don't like the "external image" option and I tend to agree with using WP:FAIRUSE in this particular use as it's perfectly legal to do so, but I believe the solution I propose is much better. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a very workable solution, to show a photo of a hung flier (as to keep de minimus); I argued the same thing could be done for the second non-free image of Trayvon Martin which was claimed to be used for a lot of protest signs, and I was able to locate several free images of that photo on signs at protests, allowing a free image showing that photo to be used. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I also like that solution. Actually, my reading of the page is that what is most noteworthy is the way in which posters showing the girl's whole face (not just her eye) were so widely distributed, so an image illustrating the display of such a poster makes excellent sense on content grounds. By the way, the English Wikipedia does not accept "fair use", as legally defined, as a reason to use material here; we require a stricter standard than the law requires. (See: WP:ITSFAIRUSE.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(please assume good faith when reading this reply) I don't want this to be derailed into policy making, but WP:ITSFAIRUSE is an essay, not a policy. Furthermore, WP:FIVEPILLARS states very clearly that "Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first." This user has "strived to find free alternatives" but has not been able to find one. Therefore, in this particular case, WP:FAIRUSE is more than fine. You need to understand that per WP:IAR our policies are just that, policies. The only thing applicable in this case are our Terms of Use which state that "You do not violate copyright or other laws." In this particular case, per WP:IAR and our Terms of Use (1) this user is not violating any laws, (2) she has faithfully attempted to find a free version, (3) she has failed to find a free version, and (4) our policies are "preventing her from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Therefore, WP:FAIRUSE is justified both legally and through our own policies. However, as I have stated above I believe there is a better solution that would satisfy both sides. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, no worries. I do understand that you said all of this in good faith, and I think we agree about the content end product. I was just saying that because I thought you might not be familiar with those things about fair use. And I'm pretty sure that WP:ITSFAIRUSE and WP:FAIRUSE are saying the same thing here. (WP:FAIRUSE is a redirect to WP:NFCC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear to me this is a case IAR should apply to. But given the claims of those on the "non-free is to be avoided at all costs" side, I don't see how that could be workable. Did anyone ask for the picture of the eye to be released under a free license? Do we know who owns the copyright (I'm assuming the parents). Hobit (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • About "sides", I became interested in non-free content policy because I disagree with "non-free is to be avoided at all costs", but I've come to be convinced that NFCC is very important if we are sincere about being a "free encyclopedia". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Could you explain why that's important? We aren't an entirely free encyclopedia. Nor is there any significant advantage to much of anyone if we were as far as I can tell--and certainly not our readers. Could you explain why it's important to be "free as in freedom" rather than just "free as in beer"? I've only seen downsides to this--causing us to not cover material in the most complete way possible. Hobit (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Because that's the m:mission of the Foundation? To create free-as-in-speech material that can be used and reused by anyone in the world? "Free as in beer" only gets one so far. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
        • (I'd just been trying to remove my comment as off topic and move to TF's page). Sure, I agree it's the mission. But A) we aren't actually doing that and B) we are hurting our readers while only getting part way there (which serves no purpose). We are neither fish nor fowl. If we disallowed all non-free content I'd see your point. But picking a really narrow set of things we allow serves no real purpose. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
          • We aren't fish? Speak for yourself! What you ask is a perennial question, but the answer, to date, has always been that the consensus is for what NFCC says. And it isn't going to change here at AN (or at my talk). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(please assume good faith when reading this reply) I fear this will turn into a policy/interpretative debate but nowhere in the WMF's mission does it state we cannot use copyrighted material. It only states that the Foundation will "make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity." Using WP:FAIRUSE material does not hinder that mission since the content will be made available free of charge (since it's fairly used) and since it will be kept. Furthermore, the Foundation is very laisez-faire and its mission simply states that it shall "[provide] the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of [Wikipedia] which [serves its] mission." Once again, WP:FAIRUSE doesn't hinder that mission since the Foundation merely provides the infrastructure and human organization but maintains a very laisez faire approach with its projects. Let me give you an example from real life: this case has been brought in court many times due to universites: universities, "make and keep useful information (books)" free of charge at their own libraries. Students pick these books freely and photocopy them to use these photocopies for their studies. This is a typical WP:FAIRUSE case in court. I don't remember the exact case or law, but basically, as long as the inherit purpose of the university is not making these books freely available for the sole purpose of students photocopying them, the university is protected under fair use. In this case, the Foundation would not be making this picture "freely available for the purpose of people copying it", it will instead make the picture freely available (although it is copyrighted) so that it can "advance knowledge" and since such use is "socially useful". Fair use is very complicated and WP:IANAL but it's not prohibited on Wikipedia. However, like I said above, I think there is a better solution and we should avoid to derail this post into a WP:FAIRUSE discussion. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Without too far getting off track of the ANI issue, m:Resolution:Licensing policy is the Foundation's statement on non-free material, which at its core says: "Such EDPs must be minimal." (EDP = exception doctorine policy ==NFC for en.wiki). Using two images when one would do is the type of thing written into that policy. (And keep in mind: the end reuse may have issues with their country's restrictions on fair use, like in Germany, so if they wanted to reuse content they would have to scrub anything that wasn't from Commons, for example). --MASEM (t) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Broader issue

TFD backlog

It looks like nowadays only (or at least mostly) Plastikspork is closing WP:TFD discussions, but now, that he became inactive two weeks ago, a huge backlog is building up. Help from the bearers of the mop is needed there. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I am dead busy till Wednesday, but if there is no progress till then will try to help. For whatever reason TFD really generates the worst which Wikipedians have, for example last time I closed a TFD my closure was reverted by a non-admin within minutes because they did not like the outcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

Unexplained hike in article viewing statistics

Hello. Please see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/San_Francisco

Is this triple hike over and above the longstanding traditional baseline something Wikipedia would investigate as some sort of potential computer-generated phenomenon? There is no such hike in the San Francisco Bay Area article ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/San_Francisco_Bay_Area ). Please also peruse the long-term viewer stats before the past 90 days, about 8,000 per day on average. The current bump appears downright bizarre and implausible.

Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It is currently colder and snowier in SF than it is where I live in South-central Alaska. I suspect that is the source of the interest, although it is also worth noting that they are hosting the Super Bowl pretty soon as well. Looks like I was mistaken about that last bit, but the freakish weather seems like the most likely explanation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm neither a mediawiki expert nor a pageview one, but it seems likely that this is due to this bug (discussed on the Wikimedia-l mailing list recently). To quote the linked email: "Around August 2013 a site change caused internal housekeeping messages to be counted as page views by our webstatscollector software. As the patch was rolled out progressively, every month more bogus page views were added, up to several billion per month in November." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that bug didn't increase the pageview stats for any particular article, it's just that "views" for non-articles such as Special:CentralAutoLogin and the Autonym font were included in the total-site statistics. Anomie⚔ 22:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

So, is there is a possibility of a computer-generated phenomenon that you guys would look into? The trend is like nothing I've ever seen on any city article in Wikipedia - a brand new and unprecedented three-fold jump in views which is then sustained. Current events happen in cities all the time, but they don't profoundly alter the viewer statistics in this fashion. Castncoot (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the weather can't possibly account for the 90 day traffic growth. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. The cold snap is about a week old, and as for snow, Beeblebrox, there hasn't been a flake. Our "rainy season" has been unusually dry so far. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Image Status Review..

We need a non PUF/FFD process for image reviewing I think..

So that things like this one :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Greyhound_%281900%29_underway_at_Portland.jpg

can be looked at.

This is a PD-US-1923 abroad image.

It also likely (given the subject and sourcing) to have potentialy been taken officially (i.e PD BritishGov).

PUF or FFD seems like the wrong process, and {{Wrong-license}} is typically used for non-free content misifentified as free.

It would be appreciated if you the admins could draft a proposal for a 'License Status Review' process which could replace {{wrong-license}} but still allow for images like the above mentioned image (which no-one is saying is non-free for Wikipedia purposes) to be determined by collective expertise, instead of having to rely on someone pulling the file out of the dipsuted cateogry by chance. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these come up at WP:NFCR though normally when the question of non-free may really be free. Still, since that page deals with a lot of copyright issues, it makes sense to go there for such discussions. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This was more about images that were 'free' in the US (but possibly were not elsewhere), which means as such they aren't considered Non-free here. (No NFUR required).WP:NFCR I thought dealt with stuff that should have NFUR's or which was wrongly identified as having such.

The other concern was that currently the template I mention, just categorises meaning unless someone de-backlogs the category, stuff gets left for a while, which is not good practice.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe it would be better to reform PUF into a place where we discuss potentially wrong copyright tags? PUF already handles one case of potentially wrong copyright tags, and the other cases (listed as free but for the wrong reason, or free image listed as unfree) both need similar knowledge about copyright. I think that it becomes a bit messy at WP:NFCR when there are discussions about NFCC violatons mixed with "unfree image might be free" discussions, so I would prefer to move the latter ones somewhere else. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I do agree with revamping an existing board is better than a new one. And PUF does seem like a good place since we're not usually talking about (immediately) the deletion of an image but whether the license is correct. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal : Rename PUF to FFR (Media) File for review, and update the templates accordingly?

Something like this, the reworked templates allowing for additional reasoning.

• {{PUF}} -> "File for Review" with a reason code 1 "A contributor is challangeing the categorisation of the file as free"
• -> "File for review" with reason code 2 "A contributor is challangeing the categorisation of this image as non-free.
• {{NFUR not needed}} -> "File for review" with reason code 3 "A contributor is challangeing the need for an NFUR to be provided for this image. (Not for challangeing a Non-free categrorisation - See reason 1)
• {{Wrong License}} -> "File for review" with reason code 4 "A contributor is challangeing the license used on this image, but not nessacrily it free/unfree status."
• ? -> "File for review" with reason code 5 "A Contributer is requesting a license confirmation, or dating information."
• ? -> "File for review" with reason code 6 "A contributor is requesting clarification of FOP/derived work status for the file..

Any other common situations? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

{{NFUR not needed}} means that no FUR is needed. This doesn't need any discussion, just a conversion of the FUR into {{Information}}. Also, do not change the {{wrong license}} template into something else unless people actually list it for discussion. In some cases, it may be appropriate to keep {{wrong license}} for a long time until more information becomes available, but it is not a good idea to list those files for discussion whilst that information is unavailable.

Why is this discussion at WP:AN in the first place? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It was here because I felt Admins were the best people to ask about this gievn they'd had be handling the deletions needed if any. If this disscssion can transfer somewhere more appropriate feel free to move it. I've got no objection to retention of existing templates.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

(I hope I have the right place) - Recently, I found a page titled Multi-Role Support Vessel. This article discusses an acquisition program by the Indian Navy for a new type of Amphibious support vessel. This article is not about a specific type or class of vessel, such as the San Antonio class, or Joint High Speed Vessel, but rather, it is about a process by a specific navy to select a new vessel type to upgrade and expand their fleet (similar to, for example, the CG(X) program by the US Navy). The article has since been moved to Indian Navy Multi-Role Support Vessel programme. However, it is reasonable to anticipate that in the near future, there may be an article created for the "Multi-Role Support Vessel" (I may even do it myself). Can we free up this page from the redirect, for that use? Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 18:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You can free it up by simply editing the redirect and writing the article. Of course if you do that, you should look at 'what links here' so that the incoming links are directed to the correct article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 20:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You might want to make that page a disambiguation page, and then create your article at a more specific title to avoid confusion. Also, you might want to utilize hatnotes if approrpiate, also to avoid confusion. Rgrds. --64.85.214.91 (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Updating Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot

• The bot User:HBC AIV helperbot7 which updates Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot, has not run since 18:09, 22 September 2013. What has happened here? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that bot just removes blocked accounts; I think User:Legobot actually reports the names to UAA? Rgrds. --64.85.214.91 (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:Legobot has done nothing to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot since 22:38, 21 September 2013. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've pinged Lego to comment here. (On another note, how did nobody notice this for a month and a half?!) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why, my bot isn't responsible for that page. Legoktm (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I follow, up to September, User:Legobot was adding the bot-reported users to that page. Do you know why it stopped, and/or who is supposed to have taken over the task? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• The statement "up to September" isn't accurate, my bot posted names there for not even a day. It should be pretty obvious which bot is responsible for those pages. I tried re-working his code but gave up since it was a mess. Legoktm (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I stand very corrected; my apologies. User:DeltaQuad hasn't answered previous queries as to why this task was abandoned. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't had much time to fiddle back around with Labs, which I've had to transfer over to. I'll try and get it solved this weekend after my exams or sooner. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please help

User:Ahnoneemoos

WP:MILLION

I believe that I have 22 articles that should be listed at WP:MILLION that are not (Anthony Davis (basketball), Barry Bonds, Campbell's Soup Cans, Carly Foulkes, Cloud Gate, Denard Robinson, Evan Turner, First inauguration of Barack Obama, IJustine, Jabari Parker, Jack Kemp, Jake Long, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Jessica Gomes, Jon Corzine, Juwan Howard, Kinky Boots (musical), Royce White, Tim Hardaway, Jr., Tory Burch, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Victoria's Secret Fashion Show). I have been told that I am not suppose to nominate myself at that page due to an interaction ban with User:Khazar2. I have already calculated yearly totals at User:TonyTheTiger/QAviews#250.2C000.2B_yearly_views so you don't have to troll through the data for all of these. Whether or not there is an i-ban, my articles should be listed if eligible. Can an admin help me to nominate these articles or process their recognition.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have been told that. I think you have been told, by me and by others, that you are free to post there so long as you stay out of threads that involve the user that you have been banned from interacting with. Shouldn't be too hard to do, and certainly does not require an administrator to do it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I came here because Diannaa recently pinged my talk page about me accidentally signing up to review one of Khazar2's WP:GAN noms and my posting this request at WP:MILLION. She stated that "this edit at Talk:Wikipedia talk:Million Award was also in violation of your interaction ban". So I removed my post and posted here. Is there consensus that I should post this request there?--TonyTheTiger(T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Posting there won't get you the desired awards, as these were handed out exclusively by Khazar2, who has retired. It was his project; that's why I felt your posting there was in violation of your topic ban. The instructions say that the award can be self-awarded. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears on the talk page that Crisco 1492 is quite active at handing these out. I don't know if anyone else is, but he may try to keep this running.--TonyTheTiger(T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN much? You do not have any articles that should be listed - the community does. GiantSnowman 17:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand WP:MILLION. In this context, it is common to claim an article. Look at the talk pages over there. Everyone claims articles.--TonyTheTiger(T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned in our previous discussion that I question why you so crave an award issued by someone you obviously do not like or respect. You got those articles up to the highest levels of quality. That is a good thing and you are to be commended for it, but making a big deal about getting this user award cheapens your accomplishment and makes you look rather petty. Wouldn't it be simpler to just be satisfied with your accomplishments, which undeniably have improved the encyclopedia? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Um. No you didn't. Not in the 20:13, 8 December 2013 comment above. Either you or I misunderstands the word petty. I think it would be petty to decide whether or not you want an award based on who awards it or to base your decision who the award is granted to based on their user name. I also think it would be petty to quit WP when someone you dislike applies for your award like Khazar2 seems to have. Saying you want an award that recognizes the accomplishment that you actually made is not being petty.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this remark which you should probably review. Please do not comment on Khazar any further or you will leave no choice but to block you. This behavior reflects very poorly on you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I am going to put this list of nominees back up over there and wait for a response.--TonyTheTiger(T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Now unwatching here. Ping me with issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternate account of blocked editor needs block

Ansei (talk · contribs) is a confessed sockpuppet of the indeffed Enkyo2 (talk · contribs). He hasn't made any problematic edits, but both accounts should probably be blocked as a formality. I post this here now because I have a slight suspicion that he is the anonymous user responsible for the recent IP vandalism to Donald Keene. It therefore seemed problematic that the user currently has full access to at least one unblocked account. 182.249.240.6 (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocking the account of User:Ansei (inactive since May) wouldn't stop the IP edits to Donald Keene. If you think those IPs are being operated by an editor who is blocked under his main account, feel free to open a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Your own complaint here would be more credible if it came from someone with an account or a stable IP. I've semiprotected Donald Keene since none of the IPs there have been waiting for consensus on talk before reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Best practice for closing an AFD as MERGE

If after reviewing an AFD and deciding to close it as a MERGE, is the closing administrator expected to do the actual merging or simply tag it. I'm not having a problem with this but I want to avoid in problem in the future. JodyB _talk 19:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the closing admin has to do the merging. The way I see it, it's better if someone familiar with the two articles does it, since they will better be able to make an editorial decision about how to present the information/how much to merge. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I only merge myself when it is trivial, otherwise I tag it. If we require admins to merge articles, AfD discussions will be rarely closed as merge.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

See User:Mangojuice/Administrators are not slaves. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Also WP:Closing Administrator is not an Edit on Demand Service. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No... -- KTC (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, we have a whole set of tags like {{afd-merge from}} for marking the appropriate pages. I will sometimes do a "quick and dirty" merge by just pasting everything over and leave a note that I have done so on the talk page, or just redirect the to-be-merged page and note at the target page that content can be pulled from the history if desired, but nobody has to do any of that if they don't want to. Generally, admins should not act as content editors and administrators in the same place. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys. I thought that was the correct way to go but just wanted to make sure. JodyB _talk 05:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I recommend establishing the redirect to the appropriate section and allowing interested editors to actually copy the information from the history at their leisure. Most of the time that people argue for merge they are really saying "cover the material in the parent article" and the parent article already contains coverage of the topic. Placing the redirect is fast, easy, and generally most of what needs to be done.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree. Following a notability AFD which does not result in "keep" and where there is a suitable target, a "redirect" which invites editors to merge is a good idea. It prevents the article just hanging around and it may be preferable to a deletion when the "delete" voters are essentially saying that an article is not justified rather than that the material ought to be expunged. The redirect can be protected when necessary to prevent recreation whilst still allowing merging. Thincat (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that redirects have advantages that should be considered by both the participants and the closer, but I oppose a closer unilaterally pushing a delete consensus to redirect, as we discussed at User talk:Salvidrim!/Q4 2013 Archive#Silver Lake Village (Michigan), regarding WP:Articles for deletion/Silver Lake Village (Michigan) (2nd nomination). Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes.... that. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Zichyújfalu

Zichyújfalu (edit talk history links watch logs)
Please declared a protected Zichyújfalu articles. (Google translater, I can't speak english language.) --117.59.224.58 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And: Seregélyes --180.180.121.200 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

HELP!!! Szákszend! What is this? --180.180.121.200 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused; what's going on here? Erpert^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Those articles were vandalised (with the exception of Seregélyes, which was nominated for speedy deletion without a valid CSD criterion specified). Zichyújfalu was particularly bad, so I semi-protected it for three days and put it on pending changes for a month. Not sure if any of the IPs in question are the same person. — Mr. Stradivarius^{♪ talk ♪} 04:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, was s/he asking for page protection? I wasn't sure. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Chicago Style (without pants) "Edit Warring"

Chicago Style (without pants) (talk contribs) has been re-adding the POV template to Palestinian people repeatedly. He has been warned multiple times, but he continues anyways. Bojo1498 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You should have notified them of this discussion, and normally edit warring should be reported at WP:AN3 while any problematic editing in areas subject to ArbCom sanctions should be made at WP:AE. However I have blocked for two weeks since they have been blocked before for warring behavior at the same article and it is subject to WP:ARBPIA. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rough consensus fork at MfD

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rough consensus, we are discussing separating the rough consensus subsection in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators to its own guideline page without changing the text and transcluding it back into Deletion guidelines for administrators so that page remains unchanged. It is a deletion/move issue that came from my nominating the 29 August 2013‎ fork Wikipedia:Rough consensus for deletion. There appear to be at least two issues with the Deletion guidelines for administrators page: (1) deletion guidelines applying to more than just admins and (2) rough consensus not being limited to deletions. Separating the rough consensus guideline from deletion guidelines for administrators guideline will allow consensus to modify each guideline separately since they are different issues. SmokeyJoe seems to have a good point in our need to better recognize the contributions of non-admins to the close process and that rough consensus applies to more than deletion discussions. The MfD is limited to the second issue - that rough consensus applies to more than deletion discussions. Again, a proposed outcome of the MfD discussion would result in a structural change only and not change any guideline. Please consider posting your thoughts at the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rough consensus. The main MfD request, delete the current fork Wikipedia:Rough consensus is there as well, so feel free to comment on that. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor nitpick - I think you got that last piped link backwards; you probably meant MfD (that is, [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rough consensus MfD]]). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Sanctions at Political activities of the Koch brothers

I would like an uninvolved admin to evaluate whether the discretionary sanctions on climate change topics should be applied to a section of Political activities of the Koch brothers. This is a chronically-troubled article that is already subject to sanctions related to Tea Party controversy. Thanks in advance! Roccodrift (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes (but only limited to that section). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Should I place a Talk template and notify recently involved editors myself? Or is that a task to be performed by an admin? Roccodrift (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

MONGO did it for AE, and he's not an admin. MilesMoney (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help/Founder proposal

This was a proposal back in 2010 and I don't think it's relevant anymore. But I would like to know what template to use for this; do I mark the page as historical, the RFC as failed, or the RFC as stale? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• We can't really assess consensus from so far back so I have marked this as historical. YMMV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

Is badly backlogged, with some requests from early last month still unanswered. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Just did a bunch, but it is still pretty bad and I have work to do in real life. The main issue is that admins are issuing username soft-blocks and reviewing admins are not respecting that choice and adding additional conditions through the use of {{coiq}} when in fact the majority of these users have responded in good faith to the block notice as originally made. Comment on this practice is currently being sought at Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

UTRS is backlogged as well with 25+ requests outstanding. I'll start working through them now but would welcome a couple extra hands. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I am responsible for a Wikipedia educational assignment and one of my students Masumi Patzel has been denied editing access. She gets the following message: You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. Our campus administrator Biosthmors has suggested I post a request to unblock her access here. thanks Ituta (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ituta, I cannot find any autoblocks on the Masumi Patzel account. Could you please verify that she is still unable to edit, and if so provide the IP address that is noted in the block message? If you would like to keep the IP private you can email me the information.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ponyo (talk · contribs) I can give you the block ID- 4871313 and more info from the email she got: A user of this IP address was blocked by Orangemike for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. Ill now ask Masumi Patzel for her IP address. thanks Ituta (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Ponyo (talk · contribs) the account is no longer blocked. thanks again Ituta (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know and best of luck with the assignment. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

More Nyttend

Nyttend has speedily deleted the artilce on Swift-Kyle House. I am not an administrator so I can't see what was there, but I believe I created this article, included see alsos, and I don't think a National Register of Historic Places listed property should be deleted in this manner. Nyttend did not notify my of the deletion or make any comment to me about this proprty or communicate and concerns to me about the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And I see that he also deleted Sweetwater Inn. I was having trouble finding sources on this structure, but I don't think it should have been speedily deleted in this manner. I have never seen a National Register of Historic Places listed property deleted in a deletion discussion and I believe that Nyttend is again acting against community consensus and in a manner that is disruptive and antagonistic towards good faith contributors. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Both were deleted as A10 which should mean the articles already exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Despite extensive warnings, Candleabracadabra continues creating totally unreferenced substubs with absolutely no information other than what already appears on the National Register list from which these substubs are linked. Let me quote part of the criterion in question: "does not expand upon, detail, or improve information" on the topic in question. Look at one of these articles: the entire text was

'''Sweetwater Inn''' is a historic hotel in [[Thomson, Georgia]] in [[McDuffie County, Georgia]]. It was added to the [[National Register of Historic Places]] on May 2, 1985. It is located off GA 17 on Old Milledgeville Road.[line break][line break]The building's coordinates are 33°24′58″N 82°27′19″W / 33.416111°N 82.455278°W / 33.416111; -82.455278

All of this is already on the local list, National Register of Historic Places listings in McDuffie County, Georgia, which gives the place, its address, and its coordinates. Finally, note that the criterion prohibits the deletion of articles whose titles are useful redirects. Redirecting SUBJECT to a "list of SUBJECTs" page is never a good idea, so this too is not a problem. What we have is an editor who persists in creating bad pages and complains when he's show how our policies treat pages such as the ones he creates. Any reasonable administrator is going to see these pages as A10 candidates, and any reasonable administrator is also going to observe that Candleabracadabra's idea of reasonable page creation includes copyvios such as Carnegie Library of Albany, which took text from this page via a Waymarking page that I'm not providing on WP:COPYLINK grounds. Why do we tolerate such actions when they're badly at variance with all relevant consensus (as noted repeatedly at his talk page) as well as with several of our core policies, especially when his first action after a dispute is to run to AN instead of "expressing the concerns directly to the administrator responsible and trying to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner". We should be generous and assume good faith on the part of someone who isn't aware of our standards, but when someone is well aware of them and keeps on violating them, we have no reason to assume good faith. These actions need to be stopped now, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Even if separate articles are unwarrented, the correct response here wouldn't be to delete the articles, but to redirect them to the relevant lists. You shouldn't be using your admin tools to try and win a dispute about how to arrange content. WilyD 14:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• restore An A10 deletion is for an overlapping topic (not just a standalone article) and is also qualified as "does not expand upon, detail or improve information". However we also have WP:IMPERFECT. These articles seem to be standalone articles from redlinks in list articles. As they're listed buildings (or US equiv.), there is robust sourcing for each one. It is implausible that such an article would be deleted it it went through AfD: because whatever the state of the article, the topic is clearly notable and the rest is just the work of writing.

CSD is there to simplify deletion of articles that would be a "clear unambiguous and unanimous delete" at AfD. It is not there as a means of bypassing AfD for articles that instead would be an equally obvious keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Restore. This is BS, it was just covered at ANI. You (Nyttend) appear to have a case of "don't like it" and "don't hear it." I would advise you to reconsider these actions before the community reconsiders the trust that it placed in you. You are also involved and don't need to be using the mop here. GregJackP Boomer! 12:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with User:WilyD that admin tools seem to have been used during an editing dispute as a means "to arrange content". Reverse if possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least these are appropriate candidates for a redirect, and not A10 candidates (as the criterion is currently written) so I've restored their history and redirected them to the parent list article. However, I don't have a strong opinion on whether they should/could stand alone or not, so don't worry about checking with me or something before reverting back to the article, if that's what consensus decides. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I wanted to drop a note that I've done some work on expanding and improving Carnegie Library of Albany. Not done yet, but I think it can become a nice article. Chris857 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) PS. the one now at Carnegie Library of Albany (Albany, Missouri) Chris857 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Nyttend, seriously, you need to stop this, because your recent administrative actions are clearly annoying a LOT of people. If you carry this up, you'll end up being RFC/Ued, or hauled up in front of ArbCom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Candleabrabacadabra and copyvio

Related to the above: in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#User:Nyttend, near the bottom, there was an issue with Candleabracadabra getting messages from MadmanBot (bot checking for copyright violations in new articles), where Candleabracadabra got some sound advice from User:Flatscan.

Today, i.e. a week later, Candleabracadabra again gets a MadManBot warning, User talk:Candleabracadabra#Colored Memorial School and Risley High School, after which Candleabracadabra rewrites the article (OK), but with a rather alarming comment on the actual copyvio status: "Not sure that it realyl constituted a copyvio, but I am happy to play it safe and be conservative. "

Let's compare the source and the article line by line.

Source	Original version of article
"Brunswick's first public school for African Americans opened in 1870 as the Freedmen's School, later changed to Risley School to honor Captain Douglas Gilbert Risley, who raised funds for the school's construction. "	"Opened in 1870 as the Freedmen's School, the school was Brunswick's first public school for African Americans. The name was changed to Risley School in honor of Captain Douglas Gilbert Risley helped raise funds for the school's construction."
"In 1923 the adjacent building, Colored Memorial High School, was built and named to honor African-American veterans in World War I."	"In 1923 the Colored Memorial High School opened in an adjacent building. It was built and named to honor African-American veterans in World War I."
"In 1936 Risley High School was built on the site of the 1870 Freedmen'd School and remained in service until 1955 when a new Risley High School was constructed."	"Risley High School was constructed on the site of the 1870 Freedmen's School in 1936 and remained open until 1955 when a new Risley High School was constructed."

To create this kind of near-straight copy days after being warned about such copyright violations (in an AN discussion), and the lack of clue that this may have been a problematic creation, is worrying. And it isn't a new problem. Only looking at MadManBot warnings on his user talk page (which may or may not be correct), we have:

• 29 April 2012
• 25 June 2012
• 7 May 2013
• Another on the same day
• 10 May 2013
• 18 June 2013
• 5 August 2013
• 16 October 2013
• 13 November 2013
• 2 December 2013
• 3 December 2013
• 12 December 2013

So, if anything, it only seems to get worse, not better. Fram (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinitely block. Anyone who demonstrates such a lack of understanding of copyright opens us up to legal liabilities and should not be editing here. I shudder to think about the WP:CCI. --Rschen7754 11:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pulling this for now, awaiting further discussion. --Rschen7754 00:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed two of the items on the list. The first Manly N. Cutter was cleared after a review, but the most recent version was cleared, with a note that the problems had been "cleaned". To be sure they were cleaned by Candleabracadabra, however, the creation process in this article, and the other one I reviewed is not acceptable. It appears that the first version of the article (no longer viewable) was a lightly edited version of a copyrighted source, then edited to clean the problems. This is not a best practice, although it if done correctly, is not a prohibited practice. What is prohibited is doing that in article space, as the .history still contains the copyvios (which I have now removed). If one chooses to follow this undesirable approach, it must be done offline. Not until a clean version exists should it be moved to article space. In the case of Grooverville Methodist Church, the initial version was too close to a source, and that hasn't changed after ten days of editing, so I deleted it. I have only looked at two articles, but the general approach is troubling.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In the recent cases identified above, I believe the source of the alleged copyvio is a historical marker. As these historical markers were created before the 1970s and without any indication of an assertion of copyright, I don't think there is a copyright claim to be made. This is on top of the fact that there was some rewording and reworking. Historical markers are in fact posted to educate and proliferate information about a subject. There has been some discussion here and elsewhere on the issue. Furthermore I would dispute whether the type of statements noted above "XYZ was built on January 4, 1894" are copyrightable. These are basic facts. I'm not sure how much they can be rewritten or need to be rewritten, but if others have suggestions I am happy to discuss, learn and improve my work. It's also probably worth noting that the online sources cited DO in fact copy the historical markers word for word, something I didn't do. How exactly does someone repharase, reword, and rework "The John Doe building was constructed in 1894" sufficiently to pass muster?

I would appreciate some clarification on the matter, but if I'm to be drawn and quartered for creating copyvios I think the accusations need to have merit and to be discussed calmly and using reason. In the case of the historical markers, who exactly is the copyright holder? When was the assertion of copyright made?

I take these allegations seriously, but if in fact these are copyvios then we have a very large problem on our hands because we have LOTS of images of historical markers on commons. And the images often recreate not only the text, word for word in its entirety for many of these markers, but also logos and emblems.

I take this issue seriously and I am happy to dicuss the issues. I think this antagonistic approach is probably not the best way to go about it. In at least two of the other cases above the sources were from the State of Florida and I believe, again, that the content is by law public domain. Still, I make every effort to rectify and be conservative in any case that arise, even where I don't think the suspicion or allegation is warranted. And as was noted I above I did my best to remove any possiblity of a copyvio from article text. But I think we should be careful about making a slew of accusations that require calm consideration instead of finger pointing, smearing, and jumping to conclusions. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The historical marker for Brunswick was created in 2004[141], so all of your defense is wrong from the very start. I have no idea where you got the impression that "these historical markers were created before the 1970s". Fram (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a variety of issues that need response in your post above, but I'll just make a few points and hope someone takes the time to post more later. To be sure, it is assumed all creative works are under copyright unless stated otherwise and even if they are public domain sources, plagiarism is still frowned upon.

I'm not sure this is an "antagonistic" approach--this is a discussion noticeboard, with topics leaning toward admin attention (such as clearing copyvios from revision histories). Killiondude (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet Wikipedia holds photos like this found in the historical marker article itself, which clearly show a year 2000 date of inscription and with the copyright asserted to be the Wikipedia editor/photographer, and whose image pages even have a full-text transcription of the photographed text. It seems to me that hanging Candleabracadabra here is not the priority if Wikipedia holds numerous similar potential copyvios by others. Rather it looks like a policy discussion about [re-]publishing the text of historical markers is in order. Additionally, I agree with Candleabracadabra that copying the very short sentences of the type "<Building> was constructed on <date>" do not constitute a copyright violation (if that's all he copied); such short sentences by themselves do not pass the threshold of originality. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You raise a good point that we have some work to do to determine which of those historical markers are acceptable. However, as someone who just deleted an article, I assure you it was not deleted for having simply copied "<Building> was constructed on <date>".--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Someone not using his real name: Thanks for bringing that to our collective attention. I have listed that file at WP:PUF and I am looking through that article to see which ones need deletion too. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am currently tagging a bunch right now down at Commons. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm commenting because I saw the notification. I'm not a WP:Copyright problems regular – I just saw a good-faith offer to restore an article that likely contained problems. Considering the article count and the possibility of bad reviews and restorations, uniform processing at WP:Contributor copyright investigations might be warranted. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

ACE 2013

FYI ACE 2013's results are over. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

request for comment user mastcell. Baby sitting articles

Weird coded messages

125.67.151.34 (talk · contribs) and 58.48.243.131 (talk · contribs) have posted weird coded messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System. Since the two posts [146] [147] are very similar, and have the same sort of error in the header, I suspect this is the same person or group. That it is unreadable either gibberish or coded messages is concerning. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are hex color codes, not all that weird. Probably just a test edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

See also commons:COM:AN#bot attack? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

They're not hex colour codes - hexadecimal only goes up to F, but I see K and X in there. — Mr. Stradivarius^{♪ talk ♪} 22:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be an input method editor that isn't working so well. Both IPs geolocate to China, where typing multiple characters to get one Chinese character seems to be normal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In case you needed a chuckle

No doubt these fools are all in the process of being beaten vigorously with cluebats, but this demonstrates (a) a total misunderstandinf of Wikipedia policy and (b) a total misunderstanding of how policy is made: http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing

Of course the last thing they actually want is a true scientific discourse. "So, Mr. Woo, where is your empirical evidence of the existence of qi?"

Oh, a mate found the website of the organisers. The derp is strong in this one! http://energypsych.org/ Guy (Help!) 20:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can only support. There should be a button to explicitly oppose a petition (a counter-petition?). Chris857 (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Request block

I would like to request a block for user User:US1939. He or she is creating tons of one sentence stubs about moths and butterflies (articles I all expanded). He or she seems to think he owns the articles and keeps reverting changes I made. He is linking to disambiguation pages, as well as replacing specific stub types with a generic stub type. He is not responding to any comments made on his talk page and has now started edit-warring. Furthermore, I suspect he is using sock-puppets, since similar articles are being made by other users who appeared around the same time as US1939. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think User:I'm Shmacked is a sock-puppet account. This user is creating articles which are exactly the same in structure and both accounts are new. Furthermore, this user is also not responding to any comments on his talk page. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Doesn't this belong at WP:SPI? Erpert^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah sorry, this is the wrong page then? I'm an experienced wikipedia editor, but never requested admin intervention before, so please forgive me.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can't figure out the SPI interface, just list the suspect accounts in a message on my talk page. I'll look into this tomorrow if no one else has. Going to bed right now. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I'll first post this at ANI I think, since it is not just a sock-puppet issue. If I get stuck I will let you know...! Sleep well! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

US1939 blocked for 24 hours. Simply creating stubs like this isn't necessarily a problem; you need to show that the stubs are somehow problematic by themselves, e.g. they're unsourced, badly written, etc. However, the replacement of stub tags despite your warnings is sufficient for a block. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

WWE World Heavyweight Championship

This is a redirect which has been nominated for speedy deletion for uncontroversial reasons (making room for a page move) for over a day now. However, due to IP addresses continually trying to edit the article by doing copy and paste moves, the template keeps getting removed (I'm not sure if this sends it to the back of the queue). Is there an admin who can quickly delete this for me so that I can make the move? Thanks! — Richard BB 11:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

meh. I will do it as soon as it's important. Guy (Help!) 01:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

General note about closing AfD discussions

One of the scripts that several admins use to close AfD discussions is malfunctioning - for results of keep and no consensus, it will do everything required except remove the actual AfD tag from the article. While this isn't really a problem, it would be nice if any admins using scripts (and possibly even non-admin-closers; I haven't had the chance to test mine yet) could check when they do a close and see if the one they use is the culprit, and report it to the creators. Thanks, Ansh666 23:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)