위키백과:관리자 알림판/아카이브260

사용자에 의한 미개한 토론:숀.호일랜드

사용자:Sean.hoyland는 WIP:Civility를 위반하는 위키호킹으로 보인다.그는 분쟁 해결을 위한 정직한 노력을 방해함으로써 문제를 악화시켰다.그는 전쟁터 행동을 통제할 수 없는 것처럼 보인다.그의 발언은 명백한 예의에 위배되는 것으로, 즉 "스나이더 코멘트를 하고, 편집자에 대해 개인적인 발언을 하고, 공격적으로 행동한다"는 것이다.그는 최근 나를 "지능적 디자인, 홀로코스트 데니어, 그리고 "증거의 존재를 부정하는 다른 사람들의 파괴"와 같은 범주에 넣었다. (WP:NPA : "나치, 독재자, 또는 다른 악명 높은 사람들과 비교해서.[고드윈의 법칙도 참조하라.]" 나는 그런 공격을 받을 만한 일을 한 적이 없다.

• 보다시피, 나는 우려를 정중히 표명하고 Talk에서 토론에 참여하기 위해 정직한 노력을 해왔다.이스라엘 #팔레스타인 주(州) 그러나 그는 합리적인 의견 불일치의 분쟁 해결에 공격적으로 대응해 왔다.WP의 기미를 보이지 않는 솔직한 논의다.NOTADVMATION, 어떤 형태의 DR도 거절한 이유로 언급.
• 그는 나와 또 다른 편집자는 '기본적인 행동 속성'이 부족하다고 말했지만, 분쟁을 해결하지 않으려는 자신의 이유로 그가 의미하는 바를 결코 설명하지 않았다.[1][수정]
• 나는 지도를 찾기 위해, 분쟁 해결을 돕기 위해 기꺼이 자원하는 편집자들을 찾았다.나는 행정관을 찾아 정중하게 이 상황에 대한 조언을 구했다.사용자:Sean.hoyland는 분명히 위키호킹에 의해 내가 요청한 후 편집자 페이지에 공격적이고, 야만적이며 무례한 논평을 했다.

  나는 "어떤 형태의 분쟁 해결에도 협력"하는 것을 거절하지 않을 것이다.나는 당신과의 협력을 거부하고 있다. ...나 역시 인텔리전트 디자인 옹호자, 홀로코스트 데니어, 증거의 존재를 부정하는 다양한 편집자, 그것이 시간 낭비라는 이유로 협조하지 않는다.

나는 전문적이고 연대적으로 행동해 왔고 이러한 연마적인 논평들을 받을 만한 어떤 것도 하지 않았다.나는 우리의 의견 차이를 해결하려고 노력했지만, 이 사용자는 불가능하지 않다면 그것을 어렵게 만들고 있다.그는 그의 전쟁터 행동을 통제할 수 없으며, 내가 예의 바르게 있는 동안 그는 분쟁 해결에 관여하려고 노력하지 않고 있어 많은 사건들이 교착 상태에 빠져 있다.이것을 알려드리도록 하겠읍니다. --Precision123 (대화) 22:02, 2014년 2월 14일 (UTC)

• 의견 - 이 토론의 첫 20개 편집본을 읽어보는 시간을 가졌다.대화:이스라엘#팔레스타인 주Precision123은 Wikipedia:민간 POV는 웨스트뱅크와 가자지구가 팔레스타인(점령) 영토가 아니라 WP당 분쟁지역이라는 불명확한 사례를 다시 공개하도록 추진하고 있다.NPOV. 그가 받는 반응에도 불구하고 고집하는 방식이 화를 내고 많은 사람들이 화를 낼 수 있다는 것을 이해할 수 있다.명왕성 2012 (토크) 22:28, 2014년 2월 14일 (UTC)
  그리고 나는 시간을 잃었다.명왕성 2012 (토크) 22:33, 2014년 2월 14일 (UTC)

민병대가 밀고 있는 건 절대 아니야내가 밀어붙이거나 무게를 두는 이론은 없다.나는 팔레스타인 영토를 팔레스타인 영토라고 묘사하는 것을 전적으로 지지한다.나의 입장은 국경에서 "팔레스타인 국가"를 추진하는 POV에 반대한다.나는 팔레스타인 영토가 요르단강 서안과 가자지구라는 것을 전적으로 지지한다.그러나 믿을 만한 소식통들은 그 영토들을 팔레스타인 자치주라고 지칭하지 않는다. (대부분의 WP 기사와 동일하다.)그런 비난은 하지 마십시오. --Precision123 (대화) 22:36, 2014년 2월 14일 (UTC)

나는 명왕성2012가 왜 내가 그 이후로 더 이상 편집하지 않은 1년 전의 관련 없는 편집을 꺼내고 있는지 모르겠다.명왕성2012의 편집은 방금 다른 편집자에 의해 신속하게 삭제되었기 때문에 나는 그의 불만이 무엇인지 확신할 수 없다.나는 정당 기사(예: 하트누아, 메레츠, 리쿠드, 그린 무브먼트, 알레 야로크, 예스 아티드, 샤스 등)에 대해 많은 개선을 이루었고, 사실상 모두 논란의 여지가 없고 오늘날까지도 편집자들이 수용했다.보면 알 수 있다.이전에 POV가 밀어붙인 것에 대한 비난은 없었다.관련성이 없으므로 계속 주제에서 벗어나지 마십시오. --Precision123 (토크) 22:43, 2014년 2월 14일 (UTC)

@Pluoto2012: Precision123에서 추진하는 민사 POV를 보려면 여기를 보십시오.토크:하레츠.— alf laylah 와 laylah (대화) 00:24, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

• 코멘트 이것은 Precision123이 숀을 상대로 무익한 주장을 펴려고 하는 또 다른 경우다.호이랜드유용한 기여자가 되기 시작하면 반드시 더 나은 답변과 협력을 얻을 수 있을 것이다. --IRISZOOM (대화) 01:19, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

관리자가 직접 응답하고 읽을 수 있도록 허용하십시오.이 동맹의 편집자들은 아무런 설명도 없이 내 명예를 떨어뜨리려 하고 있다.그 차이점들은 그들 자신을 대변한다.예의와 협력하려는 노력의 부족은 명백하다.나는 항상 유용하고 전문적인 기고자였고 예의범절하였으니 인신공격은 자신에게 맡겨주십시오. --Precision123 (토크) 02:37, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

Precision123은 이 동맹 편집자들이 아무런 설명도 없이 내 신용을 떨어뜨리려 한다고 말한다.WP:WIAPA는 증거가 부족한 개인적 행동에 대해 비난한다고 말한다. 심각한 고발은 심각한 증거를 필요로 한다. 증거는 종종 위키에서 제시된 차이와 연결의 형태를 취한다.이 사진 왜 그래?— alf laylah 와 laylah (대화) 02:46, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

나는 너를 포함한 다른 편집자들의 논평과 달리, 특정한 사건을 지적하는 몇 가지 차이점을 사용했다.고발은 피하고 관리자들이 직접 보게 해달라.나는 전문적으로 행동했고, 내가 정중하게 분쟁 해결을 요청할 때 무례한 발언이나 홀로코스트 데니어와 공격적인 비교를 할 만한 어떤 것도 하지 않았다. --Precision123 (대화) 02:49, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

• Precision123은 좀 더 간결해질 필요가 있다—열린 단락은 관련 없는 링크로 채워져 있다(여기 사람들은 "지능형 디자인"이 무엇인지 알고 있고, 그러고 보니 Civil이 무엇인지 역시 알고 있다).나는 그 문제에 관한 것으로 보이는 첫 번째 링크를 살펴보았고, 션 호일랜드로부터 완벽하게 민간적이고 도움이 되는 코멘트를 발견했는데, 현재 여기에서 볼 수 있다.이 논평은 다소 무뚝뚝한 것으로 간주될 수 있지만 WP를 만난 모든 편집자들은 다음과 같이 말했다.CPUSH 기고자들은 조정은 특정한 경우에 시간 낭비라는 것을 알고 있다.내가 추천하는 바는 Precision123이 코멘트의 메시지를 검토하고 코멘트에 장점이 있는지 여부를 평가하는 것이다.위키피디아는 옹호할 수 없다.요누니크 (대화) 03:22, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

답장 고마워.나는 최대한 포용적이 되려고 노력했지만, 너의 충고를 받아들일게.내 우려는 거기서 볼 수 있는 것처럼 본질적으로 분쟁 해결에 걸림돌이 되는 편집자에 관한 것이다.나는 홀로코스트 데니어, 지적설계 옹호자 등과 같은 사람들과 함께 카테고리에 넣기 위해 어떤 것도 하지 않았다. 그들은 중재가 실제로 가치가 없을지도 모른다.오히려 분쟁해결을 추구하고 싶은데, 이 편집자는 나에게 거칠고 무례하게 반응할 뿐이다. --Precision123 (대화) 03:32, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

Precision123, 사람들이 당신의 발언에 대해 응답한 후에 당신은 당신의 논평 편집을 중지할 수 있는가?대화를 따르려고 하는 모든 사람들에게, 만약 누군가가 여전히 그렇다면, 그것은 극도로 혼란스럽다.— alf laylah 와 laylah (대화) 03:49, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

만약 그것이 너에게 혼란스러웠다면 미안해.나는 충고를 좀 더 간결하게 하기 위해 받아들였기 때문에 [redact]라고 쓰인 쪽지를 붙였다.나는 내 진술이 오해되는 것을 원하지 않는다.나는 결코 POV 푸시 같은 것을 하지 않을 것이며(민간적이든 그렇지 않든), 내가 가지고 있는 증거는 없다.분쟁 해결은 동의하지 않는 편집자 간이지, 그렇지 않은 편집자 간은 아니다.내가 바라는 것은 정직한 토론이며, 편집자는 예의 바르게 대답해야 한다.DR에 대한 정중한 요청에 이처럼 적극적으로 대응하는 것은 지장을 초래하고 부당하다. --Precision123 (대화) 03:52, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

• 관리 문제에 관여하지도 않고 심지어 내가 여기에 글을 올리기 위해 소리 높여 말하는지도 모른다.내가 사과하지 않는다면.션 호일랜드는 누군가의 엉덩이를 두들겨주고 좋은 밤에 그들의 엉덩이를 덮는 것은 아니지만 그는 거의 예의에 어긋나지 않는다.나는 이 논쟁에 연루되어 있거나 적어도 이스라엘과 관련된 분쟁에 연루되어 있다.숀은 아마도 분쟁 해결의 걸림돌일 것이다.그러나 사용된 모든 분쟁 해결 방법은 선택 사항이었다.나는 나쁜 믿음을 갖는 것은 싫지만, 그것은 여기서 추측할 수 있는 전부다.이게 숀을 일시적으로 벗어나게 하기 위한 노력인지, 합의를 강요할 수 있는 더 나은 기회를 가질 수 있도록 정밀하게 물어봐야겠어.여기에 올리지 말았어야 했는데 다시 한번 사과드립니다, 행정관님들.이 문제로 이어지는 분쟁에 당사자로서 나는 적절하다고 생각했다.필요한 게 있으면 반향해줘.직렬접속초(대화) 04:28, 2014년 2월 15일(UTC)

전혀 그렇지 않아, Serialjoepsycho.나는 그나 다른 편집자와 분쟁 해결에 협력하고 싶다.나는 그에게 차단을 요청한 적이 없다.보시다시피, 나는 그러한 연마적인 논평에 당연히 화가 난다; 나는 그것들을 받을 만한 것을 하지 않았고 그것은 분쟁 해결의 정직한 노력을 방해하고 있다.그러나 나는 그가 막히거나 금지되는 것을 원하지 않았다.우리는 관리자나 중재자에 의해 가장 잘 안내되는 합리적인 의견 불일치를 가지고 있다.나는 그가 논쟁 해결을 방해하지 않고 관여한다면 우리 모두에게 좋은 일이 될 것이라고 생각한다.그전에 명확하지 않았다면 미안해. --Precision123 (대화) 04:37, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

토크 페이지인 Precision123의 행동을 이곳과 다른 곳에서 검토해 본 결과, ARB를 부과했다.PIA 재량권 제재 1주일간 이스라엘 정밀123 편집 및 대화 페이지에 대한 기사 금지.그는 정중하고 행정적인 경로 안에서 행동하고 있지만, 마치 주변의 다른 사람들이 타당한 관점을 가질 수 없는 것처럼 행동하고 있는 끈질기게 파괴적인 태도로 행동하고 있다.이것은 연대가 아니다; 우리는 모든 사람이 Kumbaya를 부르고 실제 세계의 입장에 동의하도록 요구하지는 않는다. 그러나 우리는 당신이 다른 사람들이 다른 의견을 가질 수 있다는 것과 그것들이 타당하고 존중받을 필요가 있다는 것을 존중할 것을 요구한다.단지 다른 의견을 갖는다고 해서 행정상의 도전이나 파괴적인 행동이 매우 정중하게 행해진다고 해도 그 근거가 되는 것은 아니다.조지윌리엄허버트 (대화) 04:40, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

이전에 WP에 익숙하지 않은 경우:ARBPIA, 아니 내가 과거에 있었다면 그것을 잊어버린 것이다."표준 재량 제재" 섹션, 구제책 6)에 따라 이 일을 하고 있는가?도전적이지 않고, 단지 명확성을 추구하며, 특히 Arbcom이 원래 포함하지 않았던 다른 사항들을 제정할 뿐만 아니라 일부 발견과 조항들을 폐지했기 때문에 더욱 그렇다.Nyttend (대화) 04:59, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

그렇다, 모든 PIA 기사에 대한 표준 재량권 제재가 이제 가능해졌다.그들은 권한이 없는 모든 관리자가 현장에서 파괴적인 방식으로 편집하고 있다고 믿는 편집자에게 경고할 수 있도록 한다. 편집자는 올해 초 Precision123을 위해 두 차례 실시되었다.일단 경고하면, 권한이 없는 관리자는 기사나 주제 금지 등을 할 수 있다.중재 집행 DS 관리자 조치는 1-admin 번복의 대상이 아니라 적절한 게시판(AN, ANI 또는 AE)에 대한 합당한 합의에 따라 항소 또는 검토 및 번복될 수 있다.조지윌리엄허버트 (대화) 05:10, 2014년 2월 15일 (UTC)

• 부메랑.나는 그러한 차이점들을 보면서 숀 호일랜드는 전반적으로 건설적인 편집자일 뿐 아니라 냉철한 인물이라고 생각한다.반면에 Precision123은 POV 푸셔로 보이며, 나의 의견으로는 그의 지나친 행동은 어떤 종류의 주제 금지를 보증한다.메서드 토크 16:17, 2014년 2월 15일 통과(UTC)

• 코멘트 또 다른 편집자는 숀에게 예의 바르게 대하라고 요구하고 있다.

사용자 션.호일랜드는 이 페이지에서 더 이상의 편집을 하기 전에 먼저 욕설에 대해 사과하고 여기서 다시 한 번 사과할 수 있을 것이다.Tkuvho (대화) 08:28, 2014년 2월 14일 (UTC)

— Tkuvho, diff

그래, 그건 내가 할 수 있는 일이야.내가 할 수 있는 일은 매우 많지만, 그것은 내가 하지 않을 것 중 하나이다.이 내용은 이미 Talk에서 설명하셨습니다.SodaStream#Reducing_policy_compliance.내 토크 페이지에서 계속 물어봐도 되지만 시간 낭비만 하게 될 거야.Sean.hoyland - 대화 12:08, 2014년 2월 17일 (UTC)

• 누군가는 좀 진정할 필요가 있을까?AgadaUrbanit (대화) 02:40, 2014년 2월 17일 (UTC)

오늘은 시간이 제한되어 있으니 짧게 할께.Precision123은 AGK의 토크 페이지에서 상황을 잘못 전달하는 발언을 했다.나의 논평은 그 거짓들을 다루었다.편집자는 증거를 무시하고 그 증거가 없다고 전제된 거짓 진술을 둘 다 할 수 있는 능력을 보여주었다.RS에서의 정보의 존재와 그 정보에 기초하여 백과사전을 구축하고 내용 결정을 내리는 데 반드시 사용되어야 하는 방법을 기술하는 정책들은 편집자로서의 나의 존재나 어떤 것에 대한 나의 견해에 전혀 의존하지 않는다.Precision123은 편견 없이 모든 증거를 다루기 보다는 위키백과의 규칙을 준수하는 콘텐츠를 제작할 수 있는 방법을 사용하는 것이 아니라 메신저를 촬영하고 있다.분쟁을 해결하려면 위키피디아의 정책과 가이드라인을 이용해 이용 가능한 모든 정보에 근거한 콘텐츠 결정을 해야 하는데 Precision123은 그렇게 하지 않고 있다.내 참여에 의존하지 않는다.Sean.hoyland - 대화 04:40, 2014년 2월 17일(UTC)

내가 한 가지 언급하는 것을 잊은 것은 내 경험상, Precision123의 편집/계정 연령이 많은 ARBPIA 주제 영역의 편집자가 정보 제공에 대해 거짓 진술을 하는 동시에 올바른 말을 하고 광범위한 게시판을 이용하여 그들이 원하는 것을 얻으려고 노력하는 것이 보이는 것은 다소 이례적이라는 것이다.신뢰할 수 있게 소싱된 정보의 하위 집합에 대한 거부 및 무시 또는 증명.Precision123의 동작은 ARB에 있는 여러 요소를 통합한다.PIA는 편집자가 공개되지 않은 편집 이력이 있고, 블록이나 주제 금지를 피하고 있으며, 그들의 목적을 달성하기 위해 위키피디아를 더 효과적으로 이용하는 법을 배웠음을 나타낼 수 있다.나는 그것이 여기의 경우인지는 모르겠지만, 정밀123은 그들이 위키피디아를 편집하고 그 계정을 선언하는데 다른 계정을 사용했는지 말해주었으면 한다.예를 들어, Precision123은 무한정 차단된 사용자 Shamir1과 통계적으로 실현 가능성이 없는 많은 속성을 공유한다.Sean.hoyland - 대화 12:08, 2014년 2월 17일 (UTC)

션.호이랜드, 명왕성2012, 알프.라일라.와.라일라, 아이리스줌은 모두 이슬람/아랍 민족주의 편집자로, 위키피디아의 유일한 목적은 반이스라엘/친(反)팔레스타인(Palestinian) 의제 추진이다.— 5.190.113.226 (대화) 06:51, 2014년 2월 20일 (UTC)이(가) 추가된 이전 미서명 의견

고마워, 칭찬으로 받아들일게.내가 편집한 내용으로는 당신이 분명히 내가 종교의 자유조차 믿지 않는 근본주의 무신론자라고 합리적으로 묘사할 수 있는 존재라는 사실을 감지할 수 없다는 사실과 나는 거의 모든 종교와 팔레스타인의 민족주의, 그리고 내가 섭렵하는 모든 정체성 정치를 포함한 모든 형태의 민족주의에 대한 경멸밖에 가지고 있지 않다는 사실.d는 무의미한 분열적인 헛소리처럼, 좋은 것이다.위키피디아에서 내가 하는 거의 모든 편집은 적을 위해 쓰고 있다.꽤 쉽다.숀.호이랜드 -토크 07:33, 2014년 2월 20일 (UTC)

경외심, 나는 소외감을 느끼거나, 아니면 그는 마침내 내가 실제로 백인 불가지론자라는 것을 깨달았을지도 모른다.Sepsis II (대화) 20:23, 2014년 2월 20일 (UTC)

션.호이랜드와 셉시스 2세는 아랍의 거짓말을 끊임없이 선전하는 이슬람교도들이다.그들은 여기서조차 인정하듯이 유대인이 전 세계에 억압받는 노예로 흩어지도록 유대인 조국의 존재를 부정하려고 한다.— 110.4.24.173 (대화) 07:54, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC) 게다가, 션이라면, 서명되지 않은 이전의 논평.호이랜드는 "팔레스타인" 민족주의에 반대했다. 그러면 그는 "팔레스타인 국가"와 같은 것이 있다는 아랍 민족주의자들의 거짓말을 조장하지 않을 것이고, 그는 아랍인들이 22번째 국가를 가질 자격이 없다는 것에 동의할 것이다.— 110.4.24.173 (토크) 07:56, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)에 의해 추가된 이전의 부호 없는 의견

유대인들은 "전세계에서 억압받는 노예로 전락하고 있다"고 말했다.WTF에 대해 이야기 하고 있니?WP 참조:프린지. 당신의 정치적 견해는 당신의 반대자들의 견해들이 그들을 배제할 수 있는 것처럼, 이 사이트에서 당신을 제외시킬 수도 있다.아마도 2000년 전 파라오 밑에서 유대인들은 노예가 되었겠지. 지금?별로...Doc talk 08:10, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

Precision123과 같은 팔레스타인 국가 문제에 신뢰할 수 있는 출처의 내용을 반영하는 것을 싫어하는 사람들이 백과사전을 만들기 위해 이곳에 온 편집자들을 만날 때 어떻게 되는지 보라(User_talk:Sunray#Mediation).너는 너의 시간을 낭비하고 있다.숀.호이랜드 -토크 08:46, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

이제 좀 더 합리적인 문제로 돌아가서, 탈출을 막아라.나는 Precision123을 여기서 이전 계정을 신고하는 것에 대한 나의 질문에 대답할 기회를 주었지만 그들은 기회를 거절하고 메시지를 삭제했다.이것은 유감스러운 일이다. 왜냐하면 나는 그들이 개방적이고 정직한 대답을 제공할 수 있는 좋은 감각을 가지고 있기를 바랐기 때문이다. 왜냐하면 내 생각에 그들은 현재 샤미르1 계정에서 시행되고 있는 무기한 블록이 WP로 변경될 수 있도록 아마도 협상할 수 있는 더 나은 위치에 놓이게 될 것이다.ARBPIA 주제 금지, 내가 지지했을 위치.Precision123은 ARBPIA에서는 위키백과에 도움이 될 수 있지만 ARBPIA에서는 도움이 되지 않는 편집자다.이제 SPI 보고서를 제출하고 처리하는 데 자원이 낭비될 것이고, 정책을 따르는 데 어려움을 겪는 영역 밖에서 위키백과 내용을 개선할 수 있는 편집자가 아마도 차단될 것이다.숀.호이랜드 -토크 08:58, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

"아랍의 거짓말"은 IP가 여러 편집자들을 고발하고 있는 것이다.그것은 이 사용자와의 무지의 정도를 꽤 요약한 것이다.독톡 09:26, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

아마 그들의 잘못이 아닐 것이다.한 가족이 죽었을 때, 적어도 서류상으로는 가톨릭 신자인 누군가가 난동을 부렸다.젊은 시절에 공산주의자였다는 것이 신부에게 설명되었을 때, 신부님은 '우리 모두가 그렇지 않은가?'라고 말했다.호이랜드 - 토크 09:41, 2014년 2월 21일(UTC)

유대인들은 션과 같은 이슬람교도들에 의해 전세계적으로 억압받고 박해를 받는다.호이랜드유럽의 반유대주의를 보라.그들은 무슬림 이민자들을 피해 프랑스를 떠나 영국으로 향하고 있다.Doc9871, 나는 PrecisionNumber가 아니다.어쨌든, 하지만 숀을 믿지 않는구나.호일랜드는 아랍의 거짓말을 게시하고 있는가?이스라엘과 관련된 거의 모든 기사들은 이스라엘을 때리고 악마화하는 아랍의 선전과 유대인의 역사와 유대의 존재를 부정하는 것으로 가득 차 있다.아랍 세계의 반유대주의를 보라.아랍의 선전은 사악하고 맹렬하며 제거될 필요가 있다.— 110.4.24.173 (대화) 23:38, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC) 위키백과에 대한 이스라엘의 주제 영역은 위키백과에 대한 아랍 민족주의 선전을 홍보하기 위해 전자 인티파다가 후원하는 비밀 메일링 리스트를 사용하는 선별된 소수의 사람들에 의해 지배된다.

그리고 IP는 분명히 WP이다.인신공격 이외의 목적으로는 IP가 48시간 차단되었다. - 부시레인저 08:15, 2014년 2월 22일(UTC)

사용자 관련 문제:DRSjpdc의 언반 합의 위반 편집

2010년 1월, 적절한 NPOV를 유지하는 것이 아니라 지압에 관한 자신의 POV를 홍보하기 위한 일관된 기록을 증명했다는 이유로, Drsjpdc(토크 · 기여)는 위키백과에서 영구적으로 금지되었다.

이후 2010년 6월, 그는 지역사회에 자신의 금지를 요청하는 공개서한을 썼다.당시 그는 다음과 같이 진술했다.

위키 커뮤니티에 공개 서한

위키피디아의 일반적 지식기구에 건설적인 기여를 할 수 있도록 편집 특권의 금지를 종식시키기 위해 신청하고 싶다.

나는 내가 편집을 시작할 때 전형적인 새로운 실수를 저질렀다는 것을 확실히 인정한다. 그리고 그 오류들은 내가 건설적인 편집과 기사를 만들기 시작했을 때 조차 다시 발생하게 되었다.확실히, 나는 내가 처음 시작했을 때, 내 자신을 홍보하려고 했던 것처럼, 그리고, 내가 말했듯이, 그 인상 때문에 내 직업영역에서 편집하는 동안 내가 했던 다른 어떤 것이든 POV 당시의 다른 것으로 보여지는 것은 거의 불가능하다는 것을 알고 있다.그래서, 나는 나 자신 말고는 아무도 비난할 사람이 없고, 진심으로 미안해.

만약 금지가 해제된다면, 나는 지역사회가 나를 허용하기에 적합하다고 보아야 할 때까지, 지압이나 대체 건강과는 관련이 없는 영역에만 수정을 가할 것을 제안한다.

д-р 23 23п, )) 15:09, 2010년 6월 23일(UTC)

분명히 그는 짐보 웨일즈(말·공헌)와 교신하여 그의 사건을 변호했고, 짐보는 그의 금지 해제 요청을 승인했다.놀랍게도 공동체는 짐보의 말에 동의했고, DRSjpdc는 [아마도 지압술과 대체의학이라는 주제를 아예 피하겠다는 약속을 지키겠다는 이해와 함께 금지되지 않았을 것이다.Drsjpdc는 OurMed.org(현재 사이트가 없어져 초점을 평가할 수 없음)과 관련한 편집 내용을 할인하면서 약속을 어기기까지 정확히 31일이 걸렸다.물론, 그의 위반은 처음에는 경미했다: 조직의 회장을 갱신하고, 유명한 척추 지압사 명단에 이름을 추가하는 등.논란의 여지가 있다고 볼 수 있는 것은 아무것도 없었으나, 그럼에도 불구하고, 그의 금지 해제 근거였던 지압과 관련된 주제로부터 그가 스스로 강요한 망명 위반이었다.2011년 6월 세계지압연맹(World Ciropractic Alliance) 기사에 그가 참여했다는 것은 지압 영역에 대한 몇 가지 비종교적 변화의 시작을 나타내며, 그와 뚜렷한 차이가 있었던 이 조직에 대한 자신의 POV를 추가했다.

그의 이후의 편집 이력은 지압술과 스포츠 의학 분야에 점점 더 많은 관여를 보여준다.비록 스포츠 의학 분야에서 자신을 제거하겠다고 단언한 적은 없지만, 그는 항상 이 분야에서 확고한 POV와 자기 홍보 성향을 보여왔고, 이 분야에서 그의 활동을 감시하는 것은 오랫동안 다른 편집자들의 골칫거리였다.

2014년, 우리는 다시 지로프랙틱 서약, 지로프랙틱 전문 윤리학, 지로프랙틱 칼리지 협회 같은 기사로 그를 감시하고 있다.(그 마지막 것은 내가 직접 그것을 닦은 편집자로서 증명할 수 있듯이 두지였다.그는 기본적으로 "당신이 참석해야 하는 이유" 부분을 포함한 협회와 그 협회의 회의에 대한 광고를 썼다.)

그는 위키피디아에서 다음과 같이 썼다.프린지 이론/'...'나에 대한 공동체 금지를 얻으려는 움직임'의 희생자였다'는 의견과, 그 모든 일이 "너무 악랄하고 불공평해서, 지미 웨일즈 자신은 그 금지를 없애기 위해 중재하는 것이 적절하다고 느꼈다"는 의견의 게시판을 통해 밝혔다.나는 Drsjpdc와 Jimmy Wales 사이의 이메일 통신에 관여하지 않지만, 짐보가 금지를 해제해 달라는 그의 간청을 지지한 것에 근거하여, 나는 이것을 그의 입장에서 "간섭"이라고 부르기 힘들 것이다.짐보가 Arbcom에 가서 "닥터프레스(Dr Press)에 대한 금지를 없애야 한다"고 한 것도 아니다.Drsjpdc는 짐보에게 이메일을 보냈고, 짐보는 그의 호소를 지지했지만, 궁극적으로 그의 금지를 해제한 것은 공동체였다.

Drsjpdc는 WP와 같은 포스트에 다음과 같이 썼다.FTN,

그때 약속한 대로 4년 동안 이 분야에서 일하는 것을 자제해 왔다.오명은 얼마나 남았어?

당초 DRSjpdc의 탄원서에는 "지압이나 대체 건강과는 관련이 없는 부분만 편집해 공동체가 나를 허락할 수 있도록 적합하다고 볼 때까지"라는 약속이 포함돼 있었기 때문에, 나머지 공동체가 해제를 결정할 때까지 오명은 남아 있지만 그렇지 않았다.원래 공동체 금지는 일시적인 것이 아니라 영구적인 것이었다.이 금지조치는 DRSjpdc가 이러한 주제들에 대한 적절한 중립성을 유지할 수 없다는 것을 반복적으로 증명했기 때문에 이러한 주제들을 피하기로 약속했기 때문에 해제되었다.하지만 지금, 그는 다시 여기서 중립적이지 않은 방식으로 행동하고, 그의 고민에 대해 지역 사회의 나머지 사람들을 비난하고 있다.

나는 공동체가 DRSjpdc에 대한 금지(또는 최소한 주제 금지)를 다시 부과해야 한다고 생각한다.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 2014년 2월 19일(UTC)

'언반' 합의는 내가 이 편협한 집단으로부터 악랄한 공격을 받은 후 중재해야 했던 지미 웨일스와 맺어진 것이었다. 너희들을 구해주어라.나는 편집자직을 사임한다.난 가버렸다.네가 이겼어...행복한가?

그가 정말로 죽었는지 확인하기 위해 어떻게든 계정을 차단할 것을 제안한다.DavidLeighEllis (대화) 04:47, 2014년 2월 20일 (UTC)

비록 그들의 출발이 약간은 디바시시하고 확실히 유치하긴 하지만, @Drsjpdc는 제쳐두고서라도, 그 반환조건은 사실상 그 금지를 해제하기 위한 지역사회 검토의 요건에 의해 뒷받침된 지로프랙틱과 관련된 모든 기사의 자발적인 주제 금지라는 것을 상기했어야 했다.현재 상태로는, 공동체 검토 요청이 없었고, 따라서 그들의 자발적인 주제 금지는 여전히 시행되고 있었다.그들의 첫 번째 부정행위는 그 방어막이 그들에게 다시 떨어지는 것을 보았어야 했지만 2010년은 오늘날과 전혀 다른 문제였다.블랙매인 (대화) 10:33, 2014년 2월 20일 (UTC)

• 비록 사용자가 떠났다고 주장하지만, 나는 그들이 전혀 신뢰할 수 없다는 것을 보여주었기 때문에 방어막을 다시 적용하는 것은 좋은 생각이라고 생각한다.루케노94 (루크에게 여기서 나가라고 말함) 22:58, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

• 주제 금지 위반이 반복되고 뉘우침이 없어, 나는 표결에 관계없이 무기한 차단 조치를 내렸다.WP 여부:물론, CBAN은 지역사회에 달려있다. - 부시레인저 08:04, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)

• 지원 커뮤니티 주제 금지 나는 (내가 알고 있는 한) 지압 이외의 문제에 대한 증거가 없기 때문에 위키백과 전체에서 차단되는 것은 향후에 제거될 수 있는 것이라고 생각한다. 그러나 주제 금지는 확고하게 유지되어야 한다.나는 여기서 특별히 이 편집자와 약혼했다: [2] 그리고 히포크라테스 서약에 필적하는 지압 서약의 비교는 비논리적이고 명확하지 않게 POV 밀고 당기기/트롤링하는 것이었다.2차 정량화 (대화) 16:40, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)
• 지원 공동체 금지 - 나는 이것이 실질적인 금지라는 것을 의미한다고 생각한다; 하지만 그것은 2010년 1월의 상태로 돌아갈 필요가 있다.루케노94 (루크에게 여기서 나가라고 전함) 00:07, 2014년 2월 23일 (UTC)

210.55.212번 구역이요?

범위 블록을 적용할 줄 아는지는 모르겠지만 210.55.212부터 시작하는 여러 IP에 적합한 IP가 하나 있을 수 있다.현재 이 IP에서는 유사한 파괴 행위가 많이 발생하고 있다.예를 들어, 시카고, 오레곤, 살렘, 오하이오 콜럼버스를 보라.고마워—제레미 (대화) 01:29, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

뉴질랜드의 주요 통신사가 운영하는 /19 전화 접속(210.55.192.0/19)이다.내가 수집하고 기억하는 바로는 그것은 NZ에서 상당히 중요한 ISP이기 때문에 아마도 블록보다는 세 가지 기사를 반비례하는 것이 최선일 것이다.Callanec (대화 • 기여 • 로그) 03:23, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

내가 8개의 기사를 쓴 후, IP 몇 개에 짧은 블록을 두었는데, IP가 한 번 이상 중단되었다.나는 IP들 중 많은 것들이 몇 달 전에 비슷한 광범위한 공격에 사용되었다는 것을 알아차렸다.—제레미(대화) 03:36, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

공격이 진행 중인 동안 짧은 시간(예: 12시간) 동안 레인지 차단에 대한 문제가 너무 많아서는 안 된다.210.55.192.0/19를 IP 또는 사용자 이름 필드에 넣고 대화 페이지에 블록 알림을 남기지 않는다는 점을 제외하면 IP를 차단하는 것과 같다.Callanec (대화 • 기여 • 로그) 03:42, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

나는 이것들 중 몇 개를 보았지만 모두 /19가 아니라 /24 공간에 있어 210.55.212.0/24(<=차단할 때 사용되어야 하는 주소) 이외의 주소가 사용되지 않는 한 /24 서브넷의 253개 IP만 차단한다.이게 계속되면 ping해줘 그럼 내가 범위를 차단할게
— Berean Hunter(토크) 12:06, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

@Berean 헌터:ISP는 /19 범위를 가지므로 이론적으로 ISP의 다른 IP를 사용할 수 있다. Callanec(토크 • 기여 • 로그) 09:32, 2014년 2월 22일(UTC)

WP에서의 백로그:ANRFC

듀오릭레이트 페이지

User:Chund Bahana Jang sader 및 User:알타프나울은 복제됨--무사미 (대화) 08:09, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

위키백과:장기학대

이 특정 페이지 주변에 점원들에게 남아 있는 관리자가 있는가?이 페이지 상단에 너무 모호하게 연결되어 있기 때문에 약간의 정리 작업과 관련이 있을 것 같지만, 심각한 보고서와 관련된 작업은 2010년 8월경에 중단되었다.카테고리에는 다음과 같은 항목이 몇 개 더 있을 수 있다.장기간의 남용, 그러나 최근 ChangesLinked로 미루어 볼 때 신규 출품작에 대한 유지나 감시가 많지 않은 것 같다.나는 최근 활동에서 조반이 여전히 메인 페이지와 위키피디아에 있다는 것을 주목한다.장기학대 사라Thunter는 아마 제목이 잘못되었을 것이다.TeleComNasSprVen (대화 • 기여) 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

• WP:DENE는 요즘 점점 더 많은 효력을 발휘하기 때문에 LTA 사건은 정기적으로 거기에 나열되지 않는다.루케노94 (루크에게 여기서 나가라고 전함) 2014년 2월 21일 16시 12분 (UTC)

이동한 위키백과:장기학대 사라위키피디아로 이동:장기학대/사라Thunter(종래의 하위 페이지)2014년 2월 21일(UTC) 미니애폴리스 22시 42분

• CSD G10 아래에 있는 것을 태그했다. 왜냐하면 명명된 사용자가 차단된 적이 없기 때문에, 어떤 양말 조각이나 심지어 어떤 남용에 대한 어떠한 증거도 없다(장기적인 것은 말할 것도 없다.나는 또한 그것에 대해 파일링 편집자의 토크 페이지에 글을 올렸다.루케노94 (루크에게 여기서 나가라고 전함) 22:52, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

하지만 우리는 여전히 그 페이지 주변에 서기를 할 관리자나 체크 유저가 필요하다.위키백과의 개선과는 더 이상 관련이 없는 프로젝트로 결정되어 버려졌다면, 그때는 {{역사적}}으로 표기할 수 있을 것 같다.그리고 그것은 이 페이지의 맨 위에 있는 내비게이션 박스에 링크되어 있는데, 그것은 내가 처음에 어떻게 그것에 도달했는지 입니다. 만약 그것이 여전히 관리자 행동에 관심이 없다면, 나는 지금쯤 그것이 제거되었을 것이라고 생각한다.

@Administrators:아직도 그 페이지 주변에 서기를 하고 있는가, 아니면 그것을 카테고리에 넣어야 한다고 생각하는가?비활성 프로젝트 페이지?TeleComNasSprVen (대화 • 기여) 23:48, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

우리 중 몇몇 하위 페이지에 아직도 추가하는 비관리자들이 있으니, 나는 그것을 딥식스하는 것에 반대할 것이다.BMK (토크) 23:54, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

• 내가 보기에 새로운 LTA 페이지 작성은 WP가 더 많아지면서 한동안 감소 추세에 있는 것 같다.RBI 접근 방식이 보편화되고 있다.나는 그 추세를 지지하지만, 이 사람들 중 몇몇은 여전히 활동적이고, RBI가 충분한 치료법이 아닌 강박적인 타입의 새로운 참가의 가능성이 항상 있다.이런 경우라면 나는 이것을 역사적으로 표시하거나 아니면 "폐쇄"하는 것에 반대할 것이다.Beeblebrox (대화) 20:39, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)

• 나는 또한 장기간의 남용 사례를 문서화하는 사용자 공간에 적어도 2페이지가 있다는 것을 알고 있다. 그러나 LTA-space로 적절하게 옮겨진 적이 없다. 그래서 나는 그것이 독특한 발견이 아니며 그것이 그 하락을 설명해줄지도 모른다.☺ · 샐비드림! · ✉ 21:47, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)

마감재가 필요할 것이다.

이 논의(RfC가 아님)는 마무리자가 어느 정도 사전 검토와 토론을 할 가치가 있을 정도로 충분히 논쟁의 여지가 있을 수 있다.WP를 참조하십시오.VPR#A 클래스 사용 제한 및 WP:VPR#마감자를 구함.토론은 2월 13일 - Dank (Push to Talk) 18:15, 2014년 2월 21일 (UTC)

TFD 폐쇄

다른 관리자가 TFD에서 문을 닫을 수 있을까? TFD는 2주 동안 영업 중이어서 의견 일치가 있는 것 같다.현재 User talk에서 논의 중인 사항인 경우:칼라넥크/아카이브 10#Kwamikagami 나는 내가 직접 하는 것보다 다른 의견을 듣는 편이 낫다.감사합니다, Callanec (대화 • 기여 • 로그) 07:21, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)

완료. — Stradivarius 13:27, 2014년 2월 23일(UTC)

끔찍한 기사!

스콧 마틴

나는 스캇 마틴이 [3]와 같은 추가 논평을 하는 것을 허용하지 않는 상호작용을 금지하기 위해 관리자들의 도움을 요청하고 있다.나는 그것이 대화에 매우 지장을 주고 다소 괴롭다는 것을 알았다.서명 섹션이 정책이어야 하는지에 대한 논의/RfC는 편집자 수행에 대한 코멘트를 위한 적절한 장소가 아니었다.내가 정중하게 그에게 나와 내 행동에 대한 그의 인식에 대한 토론에서 손을 떼라고 부탁하고 내가 그 문제에 대해 나의 의견을 말해서는 안 된다고 말하자, 그는 나에게 이 주제에 대한 주제 금지가 없다는 것을 알고 있다는 것을 알고 있다는 것을 인정하고, 그리고 "이것은 최근 당신에게 특히 문제가 되는 영역이었다"는 것을 포함한다.그가 무엇을 '최근'이라고 생각하는지는 잘 모르겠지만, 6개월 동안 (29.5시간 블록 이후 10개월 반이나 지난) 이슈로 다시 부각되지 않은 것은 최근처럼 전혀 고려하지 않는다.

그렇다, 나는 이 논평이 Bugzilla:4676#c47의 치유에 관한 것이기 때문에 좌절한다. 이것은 그가 나에게 내가 무슨 말을 하는지 전혀 알지 못하기 때문에 내가 토론에 참여하고 기여하는 것이 허용되지 않는다고 말하는 또 다른 사례다.Bugzilla 티켓에서, 그것은 또한 이메일이 이 주제에 대해 참조된 모든 사람들에게 보내질 때 편집자의 행동을 논하는 부적절한 행동이다.그 후 그는 내가 기술적으로 옳다는 말을 듣고, 크리스 맥케나(그 중 나는 이 토론을 알릴 enwp 계정을 찾을 수 없는 것 같다)가 48번 코멘트에서 잠시 쉬어야 한다는 말을 들었다. 스콧은 (c49), 안드레(c50)가 버질라 티켓이 스콧에게 그 코멘트는 버질라 티켓이 그 자리에 있지 않다는 것을 스콧에게 설명해야 했다.친절한 물건

한편으로, 나는 몇 주 전 스콧이 내 토크 페이지에서 한 말을 고맙게 여겼다(그리고 나는 스콧이 이것에 대해 감사함을 받았다는 것을 확실히 했다).

요컨대, 내가 여기서 관리자들에 대해 하고 있는 실행 가능한 요청은 특히 중지 요청 시 사설 수행 논평이 RfC 토론에 속하지 않는다는 것을 Scott에게 알리고, 사용자의 토크 페이지나 여기, AN/I와 같은 보다 적절한 포럼 또는 그러한 토론이 필요한 다른 곳으로 가져가는 것이다.적절한 장소라면 내 행동에 대해 논의해도 상관없다.감사합니다.— {{U 기술 13} 21:22, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)

나는 스콧 마틴이 어떤 식으로든 하는 것을 허락하지 않기를 열망하고 있지만, 내가 그런 생각을 믿을 만한 방법으로 지지하기 전에 당신은 그것을 읽을 수 있는 것으로 압축할 필요가 있을 것이다. --Demiurge1000 (토크) 21:55, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)

• Demiurge1000은 미안하다. 나는 그것을 가능한 한 짧게 유지하고 그것을 읽기 쉽게 하기 위해 부분으로 나누려고 했다. 파괴적인 논평, 편집자 행위에 대한 논평 요청은 적절한 장소로 옮겨졌고, 그렇게 하는 것을 거절했다. 유사한 행동 - bugzilla.나는 이것을 요약해서 생각해.— {{U 기술 13}} 22:04, 2014년 2월 22일(UTC)

나는 그가 나쁜 사람이라고 생각하지만, 대부분의 사람들보다 덜 나쁘다고 생각한다.저와 함께 RFC/U 작업을 하시겠습니까?잘 끝날 것이라고 장담할 수 없다. --Demiurge1000 (대화) 22:08, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)

• 물론 Demiurge1000, RfC/U가 이 문제를 논의하기에 더 좋은 장소일 것이다. 나는 어떤 이유에서인지 게시판에 있는 모든 애너그램 스프가 있는 곳을 결코 기억할 수 없는 것 같다.내 토크 페이지나 IRC에서 자유롭게 연락해 토론해봐.— {{U 기술 13}} 22:35, 2014년 2월 22일(UTC)

• IRC에서? 아닌 것 같아.왜 이런 초대를 문제시하는지 아십니까? --Demiurge1000 (대화) 22:39, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)

• 내 말은 네가 좀 더 편하게 대해줄 수 있다는 거야 내 토크 페이지든 IRC든 상관없어...내 토크 페이지(또는 그 문제에 대한 너의)가 너에게 더 편하다면, 괜찮아.— {{U 기술 13}} 22:47, 2014년 2월 22일(UTC)

• 네가 처음 연결한 코멘트는 나에게 매우 합리적인 제안인 것 같아.사용자가 과거에 특정 주제(예: 서명)와 관련하여 차단을 유도하는 문제가 있었다면, 동일한 영역에 다시 관여하지 않는 것이 현명할 수 있다.나 또한 이상하다는 것을 발견한다. 위의 당신의 "불만"의 대부분이 마치 누군가 당신을 고용하도록 설득하려는 것처럼 실제로 당신과 당신의 일을 중심으로 돌아간다.당신의 거의 CVU 인증과 AfC 디벨로퍼는 당신이 하고자 하는 말이 다른 편집자의 잘못된 행동에 대한 논쟁을 촉발시키는 것이라면 전혀 상관이 없다.나는 또한 그가 관습적인 정의로는 "나쁜 남자"라고 생각하지 않으며, 내가 여동생이 있다면 내 여동생과 결혼하는 것을 기뻐할 것이다.아마도 T13과 Demiurge는 그들이 제안하는 대로 하고 만약 그들이 정말로 그것이 정당하다고 생각한다면 RFC/U로 가져가야 할 것이다. 왜냐하면, 솔직히 말해서, 이 AN은 쓸모없는 위키드라마 이외의 결과를 낳지 않을 것이기 때문이다.☺ · 샐비드림! · ✉ 22:16, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)

• Sal, 나는 당신의 평가에 동의하지 않지만, 블록이 거의 1년 전이었을 때, 그리고 그 이후 사용자들은 건설적인 방식으로 그 주제를 다루는 데 여러 번 기여했고, 특히 그 사용자들이 하는 것에 대해가 아닌 포럼에서 그러한 의견을 내지 말 것을 사용자에게 여러 번 요청했다.괴롭힘과 파괴적인 행동에 관한 것이다.나와 내 일에 관한 그 부분(내가 무너진)은 내가 '최근에' 문제나 혼란을 야기시켰다는 스콧의 주장에 대한 대답이었는데, 나는 (다른 모든 프로젝트들로 너무 바빴기 때문에 그럴 시간이 없었다.)나는 사실 여기서 그것을 꺼내는 것을 정말로 주저하고 있었는데, 동의하듯이, 여기서 토론의 결과는 종종 비생산적인 위키드라마인 경우가 많지만, 나는 그런 논평들이 (우리 모두가 알고 있는 이런 바보같은 작은 것들이 너무 자주 그리고 자주 그리고 자주) 주제에서 벗어나게 하고 싶지 않기 때문에, 나는 그것이 어딘가에서 제기될 필요가 있다고 느꼈다.너무 쉽게— {{U 기술 13}} 22:35, 2014년 2월 22일(UTC)

• 나는 이번 주에 On the Road를 읽기로 결정했어. 그래서 사람들을 "Sal"이라고 말하는 것은 혼란스러워! --Demiurge1000 (토크) 22:58, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)

• 나는 특히 "살브"라고 불리는 것에 동의해, 그게 너에게 더 좋다면.☺ · 샐비드림! · february 05:07, 2014년 2월 23일 (UTC)

• 나는 이 토론이 특별히 생산적이라고 생각하지 않는다. 그리고 나는 우리가 더 좋은 것을 찾을 것을 강력히 추천한다.그렇기는 하지만, 앞으로 버그질라 티켓의 모든 참가자들에게 mediawiki.org의 버그 매니지먼트/버질라 에티켓을 읽고 준수해 줄 것을 부탁한다.이건 특별히 누구에 대한 코멘트가 아니야...TeleComNasSprVen (대화 • 기여) 22:50, 2014년 2월 22일 (UTC)
• 나는 테크니컬 13의 대표작품을 가지고 있었던 그 이야기를 기억한다. 그리고 나는 그들이 그것에 대한 어떠한 언급도 묵살하기 위해 이와 같은 상당히 손쉬운 수단을 사용하고 있다는 것에 매우 실망한다.사설 수행 논평은 기사 영역 어디에서나 유효하다; 이 경우, 그것은 애초에 원작 드라마로 이어지는 T13의 서명에 관한 문제였기 때문에, 전적으로 타당하다. 그리고 어떤 종류의 이슈들이 바로 이 부분이 다루기 위해 고안된 것이다.나는 이 실이 철회되거나, 또는 무권력 편집자에 의해 폐쇄될 것을 제안한다.루케노94 (루크에게 여기서 나가라고 전함) 00:14, 2014년 2월 23일 (UTC)

• 아니, 그들은 아니다; 그것들은 WP에 의한 기사토크에 속하지 않는다.TPYES, 그것들은 WP에서 용인되지 않는다.DRN, 두 가지 예를 들어보자면 정책 토론 페이지에도 속하지 않는다.NE Ent 03:12, 2014년 2월 23일 (UTC)

• DRN, OK, 그러나 기사토크 페이지는 특정 유형의 토론/논의(COI 토론/공시)에 유효한 장소로서, 토론 중인 정책과 관련성이 있는 한 정책 토론 페이지에 가장 많이 속해 있다.루케노94 (루크에게 여기서 나가라고 전함) 2014년 2월 23일 (UTC) 10시 49분

차단 해제 요청:스위스 국립도서관

이란의 인권

이란 이슬람 공화국의 인권을 이동하기 위해 관리자가 일시적으로 이 페이지를 삭제한 후 삭제 해제할 수 있는가?Talk:에서 의견 일치를 보았다.이란 이슬람 공화국의 인권#폐쇄가 필요한 2014년 2월 조치 요구...TeleComNasSprVen (대화 및 기여) 2014년 2월 23일 (UTC)

현재 상태로는, 나는 그 움직임을 수행할 충분한 공감대가 없다고 본다.게다가, 그 논의는 여전히 진행 중에 있다; 나는 현 시점에서 "공식 전화"를 하는 것은 시기상조라고 생각한다. Mike V • Talk 19:47, 2014년 2월 24일 (UTC)

하베스트 문

안녕, 나는 비디오 게임의 현재 프로젝트 편집, 참조 및 이미징이야.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgementwolf/Harvest_Moon:_Connect_to_a_New_World 나는 그것을 쓰는 데 도움이 필요하지만 그것은 또한 공공 기물 파손을 막기 위해 리디렉션을 할 관리자가 필요하다고 말한다.시간 내 주셔서 감사합니다— 판단늑대(대화 • 기여) 01:35, 2014년 2월 24일(UTC)에 의해 추가된 이전의 서명되지 않은 논평

그 기사는 하베스트 달로 옮겨졌다: 살비드림이 신세계를 연결한다!닐 아인 (대화) 15:24, 2014년 2월 24일 (UTC)

사실, 아니에요.나는 심판울프/하버스트 문: 새로운 세계에 연결하여 달 추수: 새로운 세계에 연결하여 사용자 공간에서 이동할 때 발생하는 실수를 수정하십시오.그리고 나서 나는 하베스트 달: 새로운 세계에 연결하라: 하베스트 달: 새로운 세계를 연결하라, 그것은 같은 주제에 대한 기존의 기사였다.☺ · 샐비드림! · ✉ 2014년 2월 24일 18:23 (UTC)

혼동해서 미안한데, 오늘 일진이 안 좋은 것 같아.나는 편집 로그가 있는 것을 알아챘지만 별로 신경을 쓰지 않아서 무슨 일이 일어났는지 이해하지 못했다.닐 아인(토크) 01:23, 2014년 2월 25일 (UTC)

@살비드림 내 페이지를 연결해줘서 고마워.나는 내 첫 위키피디아 페이지를 도울 수 있어서 흥분된다.

AfD 디쿠션에 대한 관리자 입력?

관리자가 이 AfD 토론을 검토하고 종결할 수 있도록 할 수 있는가? [5]이 주제에 대한 이전의 AFD는 결론 없이 끝났고, 나는 우리가 어떻게든 마무리 지을 수 있기를 바라고 있었다.감사합니다.그리고 Adoil Howns (토크) 15:26, 2014년 2월 24일 (UTC)

금지 질문

기자 자신이 상호 작용 금지 위반으로 고발되지 않은 상태에서 상호 작용 금지를 보고할 수 있는 메커니즘이나 가시적인 장소가 있는가?아니면 그런 질문들이 반드시 이메일 같은 오프위키 통신에만 국한되어 있는 것일까?◆야구 벅스 당근→ 17:01, 2014년 2월 24일 (UTC)

통상적으로 금지 논의를 마무리한 AN/I나 관리자에게 맡기는 것이 일반적인 출발점이다.☺ · 샐비드림! · ✉ 2014년 2월 24일 18:25 (UTC)

WP:BANEX를 참조하십시오. Sandstein 20:00, 2014년 2월 24일(UTC)

사용자 47 이유 없이 페이지 이동

속커

나는 속커가 축구협회로 리디렉션되도록 요청하고 있다.속커(Sokker)는 아프리칸스어로 이름뿐만 아니라 발음상의 오식이다.Hoops gza (토크) 02:17, 2014년 2월 25일 (UTC

완료 — Stradivarius 03:13, 2014년 2월 25일(UTC)

토크:카슈미르 분쟁

경험이 풍부한 편집자가 Talk:Kashmirar Conflict에서 의견 일치를 평가하겠는가? 메흐라지미르 (토크) 17:04, 2014년 2월 25일 (UTC)

학교 IP 식별

우리가 사용하는 eDNS 링크는 이제 쓸모없지만 Geolocate는 실제로 학교 IP를 식별하는 데 서툴지 않다.그게 변화인지, 아니면 최근에 운이 좋았던 건지 모르겠어.나는 항상 IP주소를 확인해서 학교인지 확인하는데, 꽤 오랜 시간 동안 차단되어 있었지만 교육주소로 템플화되지 않은 몇몇 주소들을 찾아냈다.더그웰러(대화) 19:08, 2014년 2월 25일(UTC)

중재 요청/케빈 고만 동작 통과

2014년 2월 17일에 시작된 중재 요청에 대한 발의안이 통과되었다.그 움직임은 여기서 찾을 수 있다.다음은 운동의 본문이다.

• 위원회는 사용자가 다음과 같이 논쟁하지 않는다는 점에 주목한다.Kevin Gorman은 관리자들에 대한 기준과 양립할 수 없는 방식으로 진행되지 않은 행동을 했다.
• 위원회는 케빈 고먼이 자신의 실수를 통해 배웠으며 다시는 이런 실수를 반복하지 않을 것이라는 확신을 주목하고 받아들인다.
• 케빈 고만은 강하게 타이른다.
• 요청서는 "케빈 고만"으로 제출되어야 한다.
• 정식 건에 대한 요청은 거절되었다.

중재위원회의 경우 2014년 2월 26일 02:02, (토크)

이 문제에 대해 논의하십시오.

중복 페이지를 삭제하십시오.

사용자: 토마스 O페이지에 리자프렌 복제. 멜리아, 고마워--뮤사미스 (대화) 05:33, 2014년 2월 26일 (UTC)

사용자들은 그들의 사용자 공간에 중복된 페이지를 가질 수 있다.이 사용자가 드래프트로 사용했을 수도 있는 것 같아.Sometguy1221 (대화) 05:56, 2014년 2월 26일 (UTC)

지적해줘서 고마워.초안은 2010년부터이다.그것은 아마도 2014년에는 필요하지 않을 것이다.게다가 사용자 페이지는 가능한 WP에 대해 모니터링되지 않는다.BLP 위반으로, 그래서 조심해서 그 페이지를 비웠다.이것은 결코 리자프렌이 어떤 잘못을 저질렀다는 것을 의미하지 않는다.나의 행동은 가사에 불과하다.리자프렌이 앞으로 위키피디아 편집을 계획하고 있는지 아닌지 모르겠다.제호만 13:33, 2014년 2월 26일 (UTC)

089 baby에 의한 sockpuppetry 포함 범위 블록 요청(토크 · 기여)

나는 직렬 양말퍼피터 089baby(토크 · 기여)에 의해 남용되고 있는 [36.37.0.0/16] 범위의 전부 또는 일부에 대해 레인지 블록을 요청하고 싶다.작년도의 대부분을 반복적으로 새로운 계정을 만든 후(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_Investigations/089baby/Archive) 그는 이제 기사 작성을 위해 등록된 계정만 사용하는 것으로 넘어갔다.이것의 가장 명백하고 최근의 예는 36.37.197.36(토크 · 기여)으로, 089베이비의 가장 최근의 양말 네버케어12345(토크 · 기여)에 의해 만들어진 기사에 거의 모든 편집을 했다.나는 올해 캄보디아 축구 클럽이나 선수에 대한 기사를 편집한 이 범위의 모든 IP가 사실상 089 baby에 의해 운영되고 있다고 확신한다.10개월 전에 이 범위의 IP는 캄보디아 축구에 관한 기사만 3번 수정했다는 것을 알게 될 것이다.질문이 있으면 주저하지 말고 물어보십시오.진격해줘서 고마워.스푸트니크 경 (대화) 07:11, 2014년 2월 26일 (UTC)

Toddst1의 중재 요청에 관한 중재안

Toddst1의 중재 요청과 관련하여 제안된 다음 동의안이 통과되었다.

'Toddst1' 중재 요청은 받아들여지지만, Toddst1이 관리자로서의 현역으로 복귀하지 않는 한, 그리고 그 때까지 정식 소송은 열리지 않는다.만약 Toddst1이 그의 행정수단을 사임하거나 또는 활동하지 않아서 해고된다면, 그 사건은 더 이상의 조치 없이 종결될 것이다.Toddst1은 사건이 미결인 동안 어떤 식으로든 그의 관리 도구를 사용하지 말라는 지시를 받았다. 그렇게 하는 것은 요약 탈피에 대한 근거가 될 것이다.

중재위원회의 경우 Ks0stm^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:18, 2014년 2월 26일(UTC)

이 문제에 대해 논의하십시오.

[ANI로부터 이동] 상호 작용 금지 위반 가능성

감시자 혼란

위와 같은 혼란에 대해 사과하고 싶다.오래 전(내 생각엔) '가장 최근의 변화뿐만 아니라 모든 변화를 보여주기 위해 감시목록 확대' 옵션을 켰다.이것은 최근에 페이지를 편집했지만 여러 사용자가 있는 항목에 대해 롤백을 해제한 모든 사용자를 보여준다.더 최근에 나는 무언가를 할 때 내 감시 목록 옵션을 확인했고 이 행동이 기본이라는 인상을 받았다.불행히도 나는 옵션을 확인하는 것보다 위에 회신할 때 그 메모리에 의존해서 롤백이 '어떤 페이지든 편집자가 한 명뿐이라면'이라고 제안할 때 실수를 했다(기본 옵션이 아닌 나에겐 해당되지 않는다).

BTW, 명확성을 위해, 내 코멘트 "롤백은 그것이 존재할 때 있을 것이다"는 AFAIK, 항상 정확하다.특히 최근 편집이 아닌 경우 해당 편집을 롤백할 수 없는 경우 롤백이 표시되지 않으므로 롤백은 누군가의 기여 이력에 항상 나타나지 않는다.

하지만 나는 내 의견이 분명하다고 생각했고, 여전히 내가 TRM에 대한 롤백 옵션이 존재하지 않았다는 것을 어떤 식으로든 암시하지 않았다는 것이 분명하다고 느낀다.나는 단지 내가 정확하기를 선호하기 때문에 혼동을 피하고 피하는 것이 항상 존재하는 것은 아니라고 말했다.이런 경우에 내가 실제로 내 선택지를 확인하지 않은 어리석은 실수 때문에 일을 더 나쁘게 만들었다고 해도 말이다.그래서 나의 실수로 인한 불행한 혼란에도 불구하고 나는 적대감을 가질 이유가 없다고 본다.

나 또한 나머지 논평들 중 어느 것도 타당성을 이해하지 못한다.나는 TRM이 다른 8000 페이지 중 어떤 페이지도 TRM의 감시 목록에서 삭제하라고 제안하지 않았다. 단지 그들이 μμΔεςςςς, BB와 그들이 상호작용을 금지한 다른 페이지를 감시 목록에서 삭제하는 것(감시 목록에 8,000 페이지가 있더라도 AFAIK 버튼 한 번만 클릭하면 된다.)

다른 때 마다 이 사람들이 감시 목록에 나타나는 것은 다소 요점을 벗어난다.나는 그저 그들이 어쨌든 이 페이지들에 대해 아무것도 해서는 안 되기 때문에, 그들을 지켜보고 있다는 것은 좀 스토커적인(그리고 어쩌면 아이반의 한계를 밀어내는 것조차) 것이라고 제안하고 있었다.그들이 감시자 목록에 나타나기 위해 μδεες의 토크 페이지(그들의 설명에 근거하여 그들이 우연히 μςςςς talk의 토크 페이지에서 무언가를 롤백할 수 있었던 유일한 방법이라고 이해하고 여전히 이해하고 있다).TRM은 분명히 [6]에 동의하지 않는 것으로 보인다.

나는 롤백이 언제 나타났는지와 관련된 혼란에 대해 사과한다.나는 또한 이 실을 다시 연 것에 대해 사과한다. 나는 단지 내가 공손한 제안에 대해 다소 부당하게 모함을 당했다고 느끼고 μ μ μςςς의 명백한 혼란을 해소하는 데 도움을 주려 했다.그러나 나는 TRM이 그들이 iban을 가지고 있는 모든 이의 사용자 페이지와 사용자 대화 페이지를 감시목록에서 삭제하는 공명정대한 제안에 대해 사과하지 않을 것이다.

무슨 이유에서든 더 이상의 적개심이 있더라도 이 문제를 매듭짓고 싶지는 않다.

닐 아인(토크) 01:21, 2014년 2월 25일 (UTC)

나는 주제 금지의 짧은 목록을 가지고 있고, 모든 경우에 그것들은 내 감시 목록에서 제외된다.눈에서 멀어지면 마음도 멀어지고, 금지령을 위반할 가능성은 훨씬 적다.◆야구 벅스 당근→ 01:25, 2014년 2월 25일 (UTC)

기술 팁

태블릿 문제를 직접 사용하다가 실수로 롤백한 적이 있어.결국 나는 편집 특수:MyPage/common.css 및 삽입

@media(최대폭: 99999){
.mw-flash-link {display: none;}
}

모바일 디바이스에 롤백 옵션이 나타나지 않도록 제거하십시오.(999px 파트는 필요하지 않을 수도 있고, 다른 곳에서 붙여넣은 것만 복사한다(WP:VPT, 아마도?)NE Ent 11:45, 2014년 2월 25일(UTC)

나는 그것을 WP:롤백에 추가하자고 제안하려고 했는데, 그 페이지가 이미 위키피디아로 연결되는 것 같다.링크를 숨길 수 있는 약간 다른 방법을 제공하는 watchlists#rollback 사용자 정의.28바이트(대화) 15:17, 2014년 2월 25일(UTC)

User:Zvn/confirmwatchlistrollback.js를 사용하며, watchlist에서 롤백을 클릭하면 "확실하십니까?" 상자가 나타난다.하지만 연결이 느릴 경우 자바스크립트가 로드되지 않으면 작동하지 않으므로 주의하십시오.— 미스터 스트라디바리우스^{♪ talk ♪} 02:11, 2014년 2월 28일 (UTC)

• 작은 전화기/태블릿은 말할 것도 없고 적절한 데스크톱에서 롤백을 잘못 클릭할 수 있을 정도로 쉽다.루케노94 (루크에게 여기서 나가라고 전함) 15:51, 2014년 2월 28일 (UTC)

WP:RfPP 백로그

페이지 보호 백로그가 다소 길어지고 있는데, 만약 누군가 요청을 처리할 시간이 있다면 말이다.글로스 • 토크 02:56, 2014년 2월 26일 (UTC)

아직 밀린 일인데..33건의 요청이 응답하지 않았다.글로스 • 토크 17:49, 2014년 2월 26일 (UTC)

44까지.쿠키가 도움이 될까? --NeilN^{talk to me} 21:27, 2014년 2월 26일 (UTC)

• 그리고 씻을 수 있는 좋은 우유 한 잔은?:) — {{U 기술 13} 21:53, 2014년 2월 26일 (UTC)

31개 했는데 아직 25개 남았어.Moar mops plse, -- Diannaa (대화) 04:05, 2014년 2월 27일 (UTC)

-38°C(-36°F), 바람 18노트(33km/h; 21mph), 바람 한기가 -57°C(-71°F) (마침내 겨울이 왔음에 틀림없다)고 나머지를 치웠다.케임브리지베이날씨(토크) 11시 41분, 2014년 2월 27일 (UTC)

두 분 덕분입니다. --NeilN 02:14, 2014년 2월 28일 (UTC)

류룽 관련 중재 소송

중재 위원회는 발의로 다음과 같이 결의하였다.

동작 1

다음의 제재는 즉시 효력을 상실한다.

동작 2

원래의 경우에서 류룽은 치료법 3b에 부적절한 성격의 과도한 오프위키 요청에 대해 훈계를 받았는데, 이는 부분적으로 다음과 같다.

과거의 과도하고 부적절한 행위로 돌아가지 말라는 경고로 훈계는 그대로 두지만, "더 이상 발생하면 제재로 이어질 것"이라는 최종 문장은 밟아야 한다.

중재 위원회의 경우, Rschen7754 17:59, 2014년 2월 26일(UTC)

이 문제에 대해 논의하십시오.

큰 비율의 SPI 백로그

WP:SPI는 지금 극도로 백업되어 있다.어떤 관리들의 도움도 미소지을 것이다.NativeForeigner 18:10, 2014년 2월 26일 (UTC)

• 내가 도구를 가지고 있었다면 도움이 되었을 것이다. -The GeneralUser (대화) 17:44, 2014년 2월 27일 (UTC)

• 얼마 전부터 CU 점원을 신청할 생각이었는데...☺ · 샐비드림! · ✉ 21:59, 2014년 2월 27일 (UTC)

• 나는 알아차렸다.나는 "내가 하고 있는 일" 목록에 SPI를 추가할 거야.나 혼자서는 해결할 수 없겠지만, 적어도 내가 도울 수 있는지 알아보고, 물새와 발에 익숙한 다른 관리자들도 도움이 되었으면 좋겠다. -- 아타마시 23:25, 2014년 2월 27일 (UTC)
• 한숨… 6개 정도 닫혔지만, 그건 양동이의 한 방울에 불과해, 여전히 더 많은 도움이 필요할 수 있어. -- 아타마頭 19:13, 2014년 2월 28일 (UTC)

WP에서의 백로그:AN/RFC

위키백과:관리자의 게시판/폐쇄 요청은 현재 다소 밀리고 있다. --Guy Macon (대화) 09:53, 2014년 2월 28일 (UTC)

차단 문제

VP/T의 Block user 페이지에 변경사항이 있는 것 같다고 게시했어.그냥 나일 수도 있지만, 다른 관리자들이 거기서 보고 논평할 수도 있다.고마워요.페리돈 (대화) 2014년 2월 28일 12시 17분 (UTC)

WMF에 의해 정렬됨. 페리돈(토크) 14:30, 2014년 2월 28일(UTC)

RFP 백로그

WP는 다음을 수행할 수 있는가?RFP 백로그를 살펴보십시오.고마워, JMHAMO (토크) 23:17, 2014년 3월 1일 (UTC)

지금은 밀린 일이 별로 나쁘지 않아.12개 정도의 응답하지 않은 요청만 있을 뿐이다.글로스 • 토크 23:21, 2014년 3월 1일(UTC)

모두 의견의 문제야...JMHamo (대화) 23:23, 2014년 3월 1일 (UTC)

삭제 취소 요청

에브라힘 헤슈마트를 제거하십시오.확대해서 참고자료를 추가하겠다. --,dgdksvc;jknhg (대화) 23:15, 2014년 3월 1일 (UTC)

@Sicaspi:WP로 이동하십시오.AfD를 위한 DRV를 검토할 것.JMHamo (대화) 23:28, 2014년 3월 1일 (UTC)

시카시가 AFD를 닫은 관리자인 시르트에 먼저 접근했고, 시르트가 여기로 오자고 제안했다는 점에 주목한다.나이튼드 (대화) 13:20, 2014년 3월 2일 (UTC)

Sicaspi, s는 AfD에서 언급되었고, Heshmat Talkani에 그 글의 복사본이 있다.그저 출처를 추가하기만 하면 돼, 빨리.' 누군가 그것을 삭제하는 것도 기술적으로는 가능하겠지만, 만약 충분한 출처가 추가된다면 원래의 AfD 반대 의견을 충족시킬 것이고 그것을 유지하는 것은 논란의 여지가 없어야 할 것이다. DGG (토크 ) 16:39, 2014년 3월 2일 (UTC)

이상해, 그럼 콘텐트 포크가 있었어?두 제목 모두 동일한 내용이 동시에 존재하는 것처럼 보인다.Nyttend (대화) 16:42, 2014년 3월 2일 (UTC)

아, AFD를 제대로 읽지도 못했네. 이 사람은 대부분 에브라힘 헤쉬마트 탈카니로 알려져 있지.옮겨도 될까? (도와주셔서 감사합니다) --,djdksvc;jknhg (대화) 19:46, 2014년 3월 2일 (UTC)

논란이 많은 RM에 필요한 마감재

Talk:Kosovo#요청된 움직임은 길고 다른 문제들 사이에서 오프라인을 유세한다는 비난을 받고 있다.한 명 또는 더 많은 세 명의 권한이 없는 관리자가 조심스럽게 닫는 작업을 수행할 수 있는가?Timrollpickering (대화) 11:55, 2014년 3월 2일 (UTC)

참고: 2014년 2월 13일 이후 기사토크 페이지가 개설된 이후 31명의 사용자에 의해 94개의 개정판이 있었다. --Guy Macon (토크) 12:58, 2014년 3월 2일 (UTC)

• 외부 탐문수사에 가장 잘 대처하는 방법은?보브레이너(대화) 20:29, 2014년 3월 2일(UTC)

애당초 하지 않기 위해서.사실, 대부분의 "지지" 투표는 이 사용자가 표면적으로는 "결재"를 원하는 오프라인 캠페인에 의해 그 페이지에 초대된다.속지 마라! --200.54.92.187 (대화) 23:32, 2014년 3월 2일 (UTC)

200.54.92.92.92: 아마도 당신은 오픈 프록시를 사용하는 대신 당신의 계정에 다시 로그인할 수 있을 것이다.

다른 모든 사람:코소보 같은 기사에 대해 우리가 다뤄야 할 것은...Bobrayner (대화) 00:52, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

사이트 반 쿠미오코(및 IP)

콜튼 코스믹:자신의 블록에 대해 RFCU에 참여할 목적으로 차단 해제 요청

이름이 매우 유사한 새로운 좋은 페이티드 편집기

나는 방금 새로운 편집자가 피오트루스(talk · concernes)로 편집을 시작했다는 것을 알아차렸다.나는 우리가 잠재적인 혼란을 피하기 위해 매우 유사한 이름의 계정을 만드는 것을 막는 계정 이름 필터를 가지고 있다고 생각했다.내가 알기로는 이 편집자는 선의로 편집하고 있고, 방금 엔위키에서 시작했으며, 플리위키 계정이 없다. (no pl:위키피디아:피오트루스는 존재한다.계정 이름을 바꾸라고 해야 할지 제안이 있으십니까? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 09:26, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

그들이 피오트루스를 의도적으로 목표로 하고 조롱하고 있다는 증거가 없다면 그냥 내버려 두겠어.NE Ent 10:09, 2014년 3월 3일(UTC)

나는 방금 피오트루스에게 통보했는데, 피오트루스는 그들과 관련된 이 실이 시작되었다는 말을 듣지 못했다.닉-D (대화) 10:58, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

• (볼루션되지 않은 계정 생성자의 설명)사용자 이름이 mw를 트리거하지 않았을 경우:확장:AntiSpoof는 인간과 시각적으로 유사하지만 "기술적으로" 유사하지는 않기 때문이다.이를 포착하기 위한 것은 User:PL0tru5.AGF는 달리 믿을 이유가 주어질 때까지 이 사용자 이름에 적용된다(그리고 ACC 제작자는 AGF 때문에 AntiSpoof를 오버라이드할 수도 있다).— {{U 기술 13} 13:52, 2014년 3월 3일(UTC)

요청 편집

편집 요청을 처리하는 것은 내가 많이 한 일이 아니지만, 나는 밀린 일이 101개의 요청에 도달했다는 것을 방금 알아차렸다.나는 1월로 날짜가 된 두 개를 보았다.우리는 COI를 가진 편집자들이 COI를 편집하기 보다는 편집 요청을 사용하도록 장려하기 위해 노력하고 있으므로 이에 대한 대응을 해야 한다.나는 별로 기여하지 못한 사람으로서 이렇게 말하지만, 몇 개는 내가 처리하도록 노력할 테니, 다른 사람들도 참여했으면 좋겠어.범주:요청된 편집 --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 2014년 3월 3일(UTC)

그 중 어느 것도 관리자를 필요로 하지 않으며, 현재 보호되고 있는 것은 거의 없다.관련 프로젝트에 알리고 도움을 요청하는 것이 좋을 수 있다.예를 들어 인간 파필로마바이러스 추가요청에 대한 판단을 내리기 위해서는 전문가의 안목이 필요하다.Voceditenore (대화) 16:37, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

보호되지 않은 페이지에 대한 편집 요청은 추가 작업 없이 정기적으로 거부된다.나는 왜 이렇게 많은 요청이 보호되지 않는 페이지에 있는지 궁금하다.범상치 않은무슨 트롤링이라도 하는 거야?☺ · 샐비드림! · 〇 17:23, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

해당 범주 상단에 있는 차트의 COI 편집 요청은 트롤링이 아닌 특수한 경우다.요청을 하는 편집자들은 스스로 그것을 할 수 있지만 그들은 WP를 따르고 있다.대신 COI가 지도하고 대화 페이지의 편집을 요청한다.Voceditenore (대화) 17:30, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

실제로 지난해 10월, 아무런 회신 없이 3주 만에 휴먼 파필로마바이러스 COI 요청자가 직접 나서 자료를 추가했다.나는 토크 페이지에 그것을 메모하고, 템플릿을 고쳤다.필자는 이러한 많은 경우에서 편집이 이미 이루어졌거나 거부되었을 것이라고 추측하지만, 템플릿은 업데이트되지 않았고 토크 페이지는 카테고리에 남아 있다.Voceditenore (대화) 17:54, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

아아, 좋은 지적이야.SPP 페이지(ESP), FPP 페이지(EP) 및 COI(ECoI?)에 대한 편집 요청에 대해 다른 템플릿이 되어야 한다고 생각한다.당신은 이것이 어느 시점에서 논의되었는지 알고 있는가?☺ · 샐비드림! · 〇 18:14, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

아니오. 지금까지 COI 편집 요청 템플릿이 있는지 몰랐지만 템플릿 대화:편집 요청.그것들은 페이지가 보호되거나 반보호되었을 때 일반적으로 사용되는 것과 다른 것 같다.템플릿:편집 보호됨.Voceditenore (대화) 18:24, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

사용자:Voceditenore, 이러한 요청의 대부분이 보호되지 않은 페이지에 대한 것이라는 점은 감사하지만, COI 요청인 경우가 많다는 점을 감안할 때, 요청을 수행하는 편집자가 합리적으로 경험이 풍부한 편집자가 되기를 바란다.게다가 고양이가 {{Admin 대시보드}}에 나열되어 있기 때문에 여기에 올렸기 때문에 내 추측으로는 다른 사람보다 관리자들에게 행동이 더 잘 보일 것 같다.이 고양이는 다른 곳에는 없는가?편집자가 관리 대시보드를 통해서가 아닌 다른 방법으로 이 문제에 대해 알 수 있는가?이 논의를 위해 더 좋은 장소가 있는가(빌리지 펌프)기꺼이 그쪽으로 픽업해 주겠네.--S 필브릭(토크) 20:37, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

안녕 스필브릭.현재 일반 편집자들은 감시 목록에 페이지가 없는 한 편집 요청에 대해 알 방법이 없다.나는 관리자가 아니지만 페이지가 반보호된 경우에만 내 감시 목록에 팝업되는 {{EP} 요청을 처리한다.하지만, 나는 어제까지 COI 요청을 접해 본 적이 없다.위키프로젝트스에 연락하는 것에 대한 나의 제안은 주제와 출처에 정통한 경험 많은 편집자들을 얻을 가능성이 높기 때문이다.관리자가 된다는 것은 전문 과목에서 요청된 편집을 적절히 판단할 수 있다는 보장이 아니다.Category에 링크를 걸겠다.위키프로젝트 오페라에서 편집 요청.누가 알겠는가?우리는 언젠가 이런 것으로 기사를 작성하지 않는 윤리적인 홍보 요원을 얻을지도 모른다.다른 프로젝트들, 특히 위키프로젝트 컴퍼니들과 위키프로젝트 메디신들 또한 그렇게 하기를 원할 것이다.그것은 밀린 일을 합리적으로 억제하는 데 도움이 될 수 있다.아니면 누군가가 이것을 위해 기사 경고 봇 같은 것을 설치할 수도 있을 것이다.AA봇은 그들의 배너와 함께 기사에 대한 XfDs, PRODS, 동료 리뷰, FAS 등의 프로젝트에 통보한다.Voceditenore (대화) 08:07, 2014년 3월 4일 (UTC)

• (비관리자 의견)반보호된 밀린 업무량도 몇 주 전 한때 80명에 육박했다.나는 종종 풀(응답할 수 있다고 생각될 경우 보호를 요청하거나 도움이 될 것으로 생각될 경우 댓글을 다는 경우 보호 요청), 템플릿 및 반보호 대기열을 거친다.COI 대기열은 다 잊고 있었는데, 현재 잭맥바른의 대본은 (내가 아는 한) 그런 것에는 통하지 않는다.다음 날이나 이틀 안에 통나무를 좀 태워버릴 수 있는지 알아볼게.종종 그들은 RS가 부족하거나 불명확한 요청으로 거절될 수 있다.— {{U 기술 13}} 20:54, 2014년 3월 3일(UTC)

내 스크립트는 현재 COI 요청을 지원하지 않지만, 조만간 (아마 오늘이나 내일) 지원을 추가하겠다.Jackmcbarn (대화) 21:12, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

실제로 자세히 살펴보면 COI 템플릿은 다른 편집 요청 템플릿보다 훨씬 더 복잡하다.내 대본은 이것들에는 많은 복잡함 없이는 작동하지 않을 것이다.내가 코드를 좀 더 모듈화하면 아마 더 장기적인 프로젝트가 될 것이다.Jackmcbarn (대화) 21:21, 2014년 3월 3일 (UTC)

• 잭, COI 템플릿을 다른 편집 요청 템플릿에 통합하는 것이 다른 템플릿(어쨌든 다른 3개(글쎄, 기술적으로 1개)과 일치해야 하는 다른 템플릿을 수용하기 위해 스크립트를 대량으로 만드는 것보다 더 쉽지는 않을까?— {{U 기술 13}} 00:13, 2014년 3월 4일(UTC)

그것이 나의 원래 생각이었지만 스트라디바리우스사이드씨는 그것이 좋지 않은 생각일 것이다(그리고 그는 좋은 지적을 한다).잭mcbarn (대화) 02:33, 2014년 3월 4일 (UTC)

• 템플릿을 원래 탐지된 보호 수준으로 유지하는 것이 가장 좋으며, 보호 수준이 변경되더라도 요청이 타당하도록, 탐지된 수준과 수준을 변경하자는 것이 아니라 COI 요청일 경우 원래 보호되지 않은 것으로 탐지될 수 있음을 제안하는 것이다.COI 편집요청서는 대답을 듣지 않고 오래 머물러 있는 경향이 있는데, 특히 수동으로 하는 것(그래서 잭의 대본을 사용하여 정리하기 전에 반보호 대기열이 80을 맞았음)이 부분적으로는 대답하기 귀찮은 일이 될 수 있기 때문이라고 제안한다.또한 요청자는 (어떤 이유로든) 적절한 WP를 포함하지 않는 경우가 많기 때문에 요청된 변경을 위한 신뢰할 수 있는 출처를 마련하기 위해 좀 더 많은 연구가 필요하다.R.S.와 대부분의 경우 편집자는 템플릿의 페이지 이름을 입력하는 것을 잊어버리고, 이것은 Gerrit:116482가 Bugzilla:12853을 통해 해결("편집 요청 제출" 버튼이 클릭된 모든 페이지에서 페이지 이름을 자동으로 입력함)하는 것에 대한 하나의 사용 사례다.MediaWiki에서 "페이지" 매개 변수를 사용하기 위해 사전 로드 텍스트 코드를 업데이트하는 것 외에 우리가 할 수 있는 일이 있는지 확실하지 않은 경우, 이전 설명을 참조하십시오.나는 여기서 일을 간단하게 하는 것이 더 좋다. 응답한 모든 편집 요청에 동일한 코드를 사용하는 것은 어떨까? Stradivarius씨는 COI 요청 템플릿이 다른 모든 편집 요청과 병합되어야 한다는 것에 동의하지만, 내가 잘못 읽고 있는 것 같다.— {{U 기술 13}} 02:54, 2014년 3월 4일 (UTC)

COI 요청 템플릿을 모듈(Module)과 통합하는 데 반드시 반대하지는 않았다.보호된 편집 요청.나의 반대는 보호되지 않은 페이지를 가리키는 요청이 COI 편집 요청이라고 자동으로 가정해서는 안 된다는 것이었다. 잘못된 대기열에서 잊혀질 수 있는 잘못된 긍정을 얻을 위험이 있기 때문이다.{{요청된 편집}}}}을(를) {{편집 보호}}처럼 행동하게 하는 것은 패트롤러들이 학습할 수 있는 인터페이스가 한 개 줄었다는 뜻이고, 잘못된 페이지에 배치된 요청을 더 잘 확인하는 등의 오류 확인 등을 의미하기 때문에 내게는 좋은 생각인 것 같다.그러나 이 문제는 템플릿 토크에서 더 잘 논의될 수 있다.이 스레드는 주제에서 벗어나므로 편집 요청을 하십시오.— Mr. Stradivarius 04:16, 2014년 3월 4일 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn, 나는 Request Edit 템플릿을 더 복잡하게 만드는 책임이 크다. 주로 나 자신의 이기적인 이유들 때문이다(그래서 COI가 있는 곳에서 그것들을 사용할 수 있다).(비꼬지 말고, 진지하게) 내 모든 노고를 마음껏 날려주십시오.다른 "보호 수준"으로 취급하고 하위 템플릿이 없는 것이 훨씬 낫다.

내 '요청 편집'을 고려하기 위해서는 내가 아는 편집자에게 그 내용을 고려해 볼 것을 요청해야 하며, 이는 결국 나를 돕는 '버디'가 있다는 비난으로 이어지는 효과가 있다고 생각한다.만약 큐가 각 기사에 완전히 무작위 검토자를 끌어들이도록 실제로 처리되었다면, 그것은 매우 선호될 것이다.

사용자:에 동의하는지 알 수 없음:Spilbrick은 COI의 요청에 대해 특히 경험이 풍부한 편집자들이 대답해야 한다고 말했다.다른 편집자들처럼, COI들은 위키피디아의 결론과 아마추어리즘을 다루어야 할 것이다.AfC나 다른 어떤 대기열처럼, 어떤 검토자들은 다른 검토자들보다 나을 것이고 그들은 종종 잘못될 것이다.어떤 편집자라도 요청 편집을 수락/거부할 수 있어야 하며, 어떤 편집자도 그것이 올바른 결정인지에 대해 자유롭게 이의를 제기할 수 있어야 한다.OTOH, 편집자는 수용하기에 적합한 특정 기준/지침을 반영할 수 있어야 한다.기업M(토크) 21:28, 2014년 3월 4일(UTC)

비록 내가 내 조건을 좀 더 신중하게 생각한다면, 우리는 서로 가까운 사이라는 것을 알게 될지도 모르지만, 나는 정중하게 반대할 것이다.나는 편집자가 COI 편집 요청에 응답하기 위해 수만 번의 편집이 필요하다고 생각하지 않는다. 반면에, 나는 수십 명의 반달족을 되돌려 놓고 지금 다른 할 일을 찾고 있는 신입생이 COI 요청을 받아들여 그것을 이행하는 것을 원하지 않는다.COI 요청은 겉으로 보기에는 좋아 보일 가능성이 매우 높지만 무게, 즉 NPOV를 위반할 가능성이 있으며, 나는 평균적인 신입 사원이 충분히 교감할 것으로 예상하지 않는다.우리는 오토콘 확장과 관리자 사이의 경험의 등급이 많지 않다; 나는 오토콘 확증보다 더 많은 것을 원하지만, 관리자가 훨씬 부족한 것에 만족한다.어떻게 구현해야 할지 잘 모르겠지만 AfC 모델에 매력을 느낀다. --S 필브릭(Talk) 22:32, 2014년 3월 4일 (UTC)

지원되지 않는 관리자가 요청됨

Talk:2014 러시아군의 우크라이나#메르거 제안 중 필요 시 2014년 크림반란 사태와 함께 자진해서 종결할 수 있는 무능력한 행정관이 있는가?이 상황은 여전히 논란이 되고 있으며, 어떤 식으로든 강한 의견을 가진 편집자들이 있다. - Knowledkid87 (토크) 01:47, 2014년 3월 4일 (UTC)

왜 관리자인가? 88.104.30.86 (대화) 20:56, 2014년 3월 4일 (UTC)

관리자 또는 권한이 없는 편집자의 요점은 큰 논의라는 것이다. - Knowledkid87 (대화) 01:04, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

씨발

블록체크 부탁해

내가 자주 하는 일이 아니기 때문에, 내가 방금 하우스PRLDN과 사이버 마일즈로 만든 블록을 검토할 수 있는 관리자를 요청해도 될까?후자는 사이버마일 재단을 홍보하는 조직 계정으로 보이는데, 이 기사의 기사는 전자가 만든 것으로 홍보 기관으로 보인다.만약 내가 틀렸다면, 필요에 따라 차단을 풀어줘.— Scott • 대화 21:58, 2014년 3월 4일 (UTC)

판촉용 사용자 이름 및 판촉용 기사와 함께 귀하에게 승인해 주십시요.그것은 또한 부드러운 블록이기 때문에 그들은 최소한 사용자 이름을 바꾸거나 새로운 계정을 만들기만 하면 된다.별일 아니야.헬 인 A 버킷(토크) 22:07, 2014년 3월 4일 (UTC)

보기 좋네. 두 사용자 이름이 모두 WP를 위반하는 것 같네.U#Promotional 사용자 이름. 그러나 사용자 이름 변경에 대해 "계정 만들기 차단"을 선택 취소했다.모든 베스트, 2014년 3월 5일 미니애폴리스 00:07 (UTC)

향후 유사한 블록을 만들 때 계정 생성 설정에 대해 기억하겠다.둘 다 고마워! — Scott•talk 12:16, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

"소프트" 블록을 수행할 때는 계정 생성 허용(사용자 이름 때문에 해당 계정에서 편집하지 않고 새 계정을 만들 수 있는 경우) 그러나 "하드" 블록을 수행할 때는(누군가가 잘못된 사용자 이름을 가지고 있으며 스팸 발송, 공공 기물 파손 등) 계정이 생성되지 않도록 반드시 확인하십시오.ed(차단 회피에 해당됨)편집자에 대해 설치한 "스팸 사용자 이름" 블록과 사용자가 남긴 블록 템플릿은 블록이 사용자의 의도였든 아니든 "하드" 블록으로 의도되었음을 나타낸다.잘못된 사용자 이름으로 편집기를 차단할 때 블록이 사용자 이름 전용인지 아니면 다른 종류의 중단에 대한 것인지 명확히 하는 것이 중요하다. 다른 관리자가 새 계정을 만들 경우 편집자가 블록을 회피하고 있는지 여부를 판단하는 데 도움이 되기 때문이다.또한 차단된 편집자가 차단된 이유와 이에 대해 무엇을 해야 하는지 파악할 수 있도록 돕는다. -- 아타마 23:53, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

참을성 있는 눈초리.

토크에서 RfC를 풀려면:내가 두려워하는 오리 왕조는 현 시점에서 그것의 성격과 길이, 그리고 거기에 대한 담론의 길이와 성격을 고려할 때 실제로 새로운 눈을 얻을 가능성은 거의 없다.수집(대화) 22:21, 2014년 3월 4일(UTC)

이 RfC는 6일 내내 열려있었고, 당신은 담론의 주요 원인이었으며, 특히 사건의 오인, 그리고 수많은 혐의를 포함한 나의 관여가 있었으므로, 나는 이 게시물이 이상하다고 생각한다.그러나 만약 다른 사람들이 며칠 전 BLP 위반 문제가 기각된 BLP 게시판 스레드를 포함한 상황을 보게 된다면, 그들은 전기 기사에서 RfC에 대해 "RfC의 전반적인 입력 품질이 상당히 낮았고, 폐쇄가 매우 의심스러웠다"라는 유사한 내용을 언급했다.상황을 살펴보겠다.우리가 여기 왔으니까 이 삭제에 대한 의견을 제시할 수 있는 분들이 계실까?내용은 전적으로 스핀아웃을 목적으로 하는 덕 왕조 기사로 만들어졌지만 의견이 갈렸다.만약 그것이 존재하도록 허용된다면, 그것은 다른 두 기사의 논쟁에 대한 너무 많은 정보에 대한 대부분의 우려를 해결할 수 있을 것이다.Sportfan5000 (토크) 01:09, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

이것은 다양한 형태로 6일보다 훨씬 더 길었다.페이지에 언급된 바와 같이 지금 이 변경을 추진하는 유일한 편집자는 당신뿐입니다.헬 인 A 버킷(토크) 01:11, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

RfC는 2월 26일 늦게 시작되었다.2013년 12월 논란이 불거진 이후 기사에서 안정적이었던 내용이 덕 왕조 기사에서 논의된 것은 본질적으로 처음이다.나와 다른 사람들은 "흥미로운" 사건이 일어난 필 로버슨 기사를 포기했다.콜렉트가 독살됐다가 계속 교란된 현재 RfC는 잘 참석하지 않았지만 적어도 그들이 관여하지 않았을 때는 공손한 대화가 사태를 진전시키고 있었다.더 많은 투입은 확실히 환영한다.Sportfan5000 (토크) 01:21, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

마블 코믹스의 인용: "Nuff가 말했다."인신공격은 여기서 얼마나 점잖게 이루어지는지 주목하라.수집(토크) 01:36, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC) 토론과 직접 관련된 이전 RfC는 [11] 2월 16일에 닫혔으며, 이러한 의견은 포함해서는 안 된다는 명확한 합의가 있다. 포함을 지지하는 사용자들은 어떠한 근거도 제시하지 않았거나 단지 WP와 함께 손을 흔들었을 뿐이다.NPOV 정책.수집(대화) 01:42, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

UAA에서의 백로그

Q re WP:3RRNO, ARBPIA/1RR 및 삭스푸펫

나는 이 편집을 갈비뼈와 더 많은 갈비뼈(토크 · 기여)에 의해 곰곰이 생각하고 있다. (그들의 첫 번째 편집.편집 요약("클래식 오리지널 리서치")을 보면 이것이 새로운 사용자가 아님을 분명히 알 수 있다. 다시 말해서, 이것은 양말 퍼핏이다.이제, WP:3RRNO는 "차단/금지된 사용자의" 삭푸펫 편집을 다룰 때, 되돌리는 것은 3RR 당 계산되지 않는다고 말한다.해당 기사는 WP의 적용을 받기 때문에:ARBPIA, 또 다른 관련 지점이 있는데, 익명 IP 편집자가 편집한 내용을 되돌릴 때는 1RR 제한이 적용되지 않는다는 것이다.이 모든 것에 대해 나를 괴롭히는 것은 그것이 1RR 제한을 벗어나고 싶어하는 누군가에게 분명한 전략을 제안한다는 것이다. 즉, 필요에 따라 새로운 계정을 만들라는 것이다.여기서 SPI를 제대로 할 수 있는 방법은 없다(Rube씨를 조작하는 양말 마스터가 누구인지 안다는 의미에서), 여기서 차단/금지된 사용자를 상대하고 있는지 알 수 없다(WP:3RNO에 따름), 익명의 IP 편집기가 아니다(그래서 리턴은 어쨌든 1RR에서 면제되지 않는다).반보호를 보증할 만큼은 진행되지 않는다(기사의 이력을 보면 알 수 있겠지만, 립스 씨의 행동은 연속적으로 최근의 것일 뿐이다.이런 상황에서, 나는 그것을 만지지 않을 것이다. 만약 내가 1RR을 초과한다면 나는 차단될 수 있는 규칙에 의해.하지만 나는 이것이 우리가 원하는 방식인지 궁금하다.명목성(토크) 07:19, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

나는 그것에 대해 궁금해 했다.그것은 일회용 계정이다. 계정이 차단되어도 사용자에게는 문제가 없다. 그러나 그러한 POV 푸싱과 경쟁하기 위해 기성 편집자가 할 수 있는 일은 없다.그리고, 이제 곧 누군가가 완전히 핵심을 놓칠 것이고, 양말에게 알릴 필요가 있다고 말할 것이다.조누니크 (대화) 2014년 3월 5일 10:00 (UTC)

그렇다, 불행히도 그것은 ARBPIA 주제 영역에서 상당히 표준적인 운영 절차로, 블록/토픽 금지 탈피에 대한 일회성 계정을 만들고 규칙을 뒤집는다.ARBPIA의 민족주의자들을 회피하는 블록/토픽 금지 사이의 비범한 수준의 부정직함을 다루기 위한 정책은 실제로 고안된 것이 아닌 것 같다.얼마 전에 ARBPIA에서 편집하기 전에 편집자에게 500개 정도의 편집을 요구한다는 이야기가 있었지만, 아무 소용이 없었다.나는 일반적인 강박(예: 팔레스타인, 팔레스타인, 점령 등 특정 단어 지우기/변환, 예루살렘, 골란고원 등의 소유권 주장, 일상적으로 일어나는 파괴적인 허튼소리)과 많은 사람들이 보여주는 놀라운 윤리의 부족이 어떤 종류의 보호 중복된 프레스를 만들 것이라고 기대한다.재빠르게 굴다내가 자세히 살펴본 기사에 따르면, 500개 미만의 편집된 계정이 양말일 확률이 50%보다 높았던 ARBPIA에서는 새로운 계정에 대한 선의의 믿음이 확실히 잘못된 전략이라고 가정한다.해결책이 무엇인지 모르지만, 수년 동안 ARBPIA에서 편집한 대부분의 내용은 이런 종류의 편집자들이 존재하는 것의 영향을 지우기 위한 것이었고, 성공은 제한적이었다.ARB의 다른 편집자 몇 명이PIA는 이것을 다루는데 적어도 그들의 시간의 일부를 소비한다.Sean.hoyland - 대화 10:33, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

그리고 전략의 고용은 ARBPIA 주제 영역에만 국한되지 않는다.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:10, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

사실이지만, 1RR이 적용되는 영역에는 역설적인 부분이 있다. 기존 편집자는 "새로운" 편집자를 자주 되돌릴 수 없기 때문에 편집-경고의 범위가 (의도대로) 더 낮기 때문에 반-보호에 대한 필요성이 인식되지 않는다.요점은 이 세 가지 요소(1RR, 회수에 대한 배제 규칙이 금지/차단된 사용자의 양말에만 적용된다는 사실, 1RR에 대한 배제 규칙이 IP 편집자에게만 적용된다는 사실)를 조합하면 이스라엘/팔레스틴과 같은 영역에서 폐기물을 취급하는 데 특히 어려움이 생긴다는 것이다.반보호라 할지라도 그렇게 하지는 않을 것이다. 버림받는 것을 좋아하는 기성 사용자는 자동 확인 방법을 빨리 알 수 있을 것이다.명목성(토크) 11:33, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

• (비관리자 논평) PC 보호가 이 경우로 보이는 기사에 적용된다면?이는 IP가 1RR의 경우에 파괴되는 것을 허용하지 않을 것이며, 1RR이 적용되지 않는 다른 경우에는 사용자가 10번의 편집을 하고 4일을 기다려야 단일 POV를 되돌릴 수 있을 것이며, 이는 사용자에게 꽤 빨리 낡아질 것으로 보인다.또한 위에서 누군가가 준보호의 정당성을 보장할 수 있는 충분한 붕괴가 없다고 언급하는 것을 보았지만, PC1에는 충분히 그럴 것 같다.— {{U 기술 13}} 12:57, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

10번 수정하고 4일을 기다리는 것은 ARBPIA에서 효과적인 장벽이 아니다.카테고리를 살펴보십시오.위키백과_sockpuppets_of_예를 들면 안드레스헤루트자임이다.그것은 단지 한 사람일 뿐이다.많다.Sean.hoyland - 대화 16:48, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

또한 PC나 반보호와 같은 것들은 의도하지 않은 결과를 초래할 수 있다.예를 들어 내가 살펴본 기사 중 하나에서 분명히 새로운 비소크(< 500 편집)가 아닌 양말에 의해 편집되는 (확정된) 양말의 비율과 편집이 이루어질 확률은 실제로 반보호 중에 상승했다.나는 보호가 블록/배제 탈피 규칙을 어기는 것을 주저하지 않는 편집자들에게 진정으로 새로운 편집자에 대한 규모를 줄 수 있다고 생각한다.숀.호이랜드 -토크 17:35, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

비생산적인
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.
첫 편집이 잘 돼서 '누군가 양말 퍼핏이라고 말하는 사람' 같은 경우다.기억해라, 그들은 No Orgianal Research에 대한 모든 기사를 읽을 수 있었다."누군가가 그들의 숙련도에서 떨어져 있다면 베이스하지 말라. (또한 나는 이 코멘트로 가능한 한 재치 있게 행동하려고 노력했다.)Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (토크) 15:52, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC) 해피 어택 도그, 경험 부족이 여실히 드러난다.당신이 말하는 것은 확실히 가능하지만, 아주 가능성이 희박하다. 그리고 나는 당신이 이 장소의 상황을 더 잘 파악할 때까지 메인 스페이스 반달리즘을 다루는 것에 집중하고 게시판에 논평하는 것을 멈출 것이라고 생각했다.BMK (대화) 16:20, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC) 만약 누군가가 그들의 숙련도에서 벗어났다면 근거 없이 행동하라.— 도대체 그게 무슨 뜻인가?그것은 CIR이 모두 틀렸다는 것을 의미하는가?해피 어택 도그, 그 말도 안 되는 말 때문에 날 잃은 게 분명해...— {{U 기술 13}} 16:42, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC) ARBPIA에서는 감정에 근거하여 일을 처리하는 것은 유용한 접근법이 아니다.나는 갈비뼈와 더 많은 갈비뼈가 속편인지는 모르지만 그들은 통계적으로 편집자를 피하는 블록/토픽 금지일 가능성이 더 높다.그것은 단지 주제 영역에서의 방법이다.Sean.hoyland - 대화 16:48, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC) 그렇다면 사용자의 편집이 선의로 보였는가?그렇다면 차단된/금지된 사용자의 양말풀이 되는 이유는 무엇인가?그렇지 않다면, 그럴지도 모른다.해피_어택_도그 "최종 위키백과 경비견" (토크) 17:09, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC) 아니, 그렇지 않아. 그리고 네가 언급하는 것은 이 토론의 진행에 방해가 되는 것 같아.이 실의 첫 문장은 다음과 같다. (첫 번째 편집 작업).편집 요약("클래식 원본 연구")을 통해 새로운 사용자가 아님을 분명히 알 수 있다. 당신은 그 진술을 무시하고, 따라서 뒷걸음질을 쳐야 하며, 따라서 여기서 이루어지는 어떠한 진전도 저해한다. 당신이 한 진술은 내 평가에서 의심스러운 성질의 것이다.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:31, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC) 글쎄, 사용자 되기 전에 IP에서 편집했을 수도 있지 않았을까?이 사용자 이름은 문제가 되는 다른 사용자와 유사하십니까?Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (토크) 17:42, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

한 유명한 친이스라엘 편집자가 있는데, 고전 편집 요약본(반복할 때)에는 독창적인 연구를 주장하는 내용이 포함되어 있다.그들은 여전히 편집 중이지만, 갈등과 관련된 기사에서는 주제가 금지되어 있다.No 57 22:38, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

WP 중 하나에서:ARBAA2는 새로운 POV 푸싱 계정에 대해 보다 쉽게 조치를 취할 수 있도록 500 편집 규칙을 적용했다.IP 편집이 1RR 제한에 대해 계산하지 않고 되돌릴 수 있다는 것을 제공하는 기존의 1RR 규칙이 있었다.AE의 결정에 따라, 이것은 (나가르노-카라바흐 기사에 대해서만) 확대되어 편집자라면 누구나 편집이 500개 미만인 등록된 계정을 1RR을 위반하지 않고 되돌릴 수 있게 되었다.이 규칙은 단지 하나의 기사에만 부과되었고 이것을 더 널리 행하는 것에 대한 지지의 근거는 없었다.그 가정은 양말장사들이 10번 수정해서 확정될 정도의 인내심을 가지고 있지만 보통 500번 수정하기에는 충분한 인내심을 가지고 있지 않다는 것이다.에드존스턴 (대화) 02:21, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

"WP:"의 백로그ANRFC"

WP에는 상당한 밀도가 있다.ANRFC. --Jax 0677 (대화) 02:46, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

봇 오작동 가능성?

봇이 오작동하는 것인지 아니면 단지 일부 IP인지는 확실하지 않지만 10.4.0.34, 10.4.0.220은 편집 요약에서 봇이라는 단어를 사용하는 것 같다.Geolocate와 Traceroute를 사용해 보았지만 식별이 불가능한 개인 IP처럼 보인다. --////EuroCarGT 22:40, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

사용자 모양:HBC AIV 도우미봇5가 로그아웃되었다.@JamesR:좀 봐줄래?28바이트(대화) 22:45, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

사용자:레고봇도 로그아웃 편집 중임.그 IP가 레고봇인지 아닌지는 잘 모르겠지만, 오늘 초 레고봇의 편집본을 만드는 IP는 꼭 그렇게 보였다.글로스 • 토크 22:46, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot과 샌드박스를 지우는 봇도 마찬가지. ////EuroCarGT 22:47, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

(예) 10.4.1.102 - 이것은 레고봇이 편집하던 IP이다.봇 주인이 눈치채고 있는 것 같지만 현재로서는 문제를 해결할 수 없다.글로스 • 토크 22:48, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

이 경우 현재 이러한 봇을 호스팅하고 있는 툴서버 또는 랩스 결함일 수 있다.혹시 IRC(Irc)에 있는 누군가가 랩 채널에 ping을 할 수 있을까?28바이트(대화) 22:52, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

10.4.0.1987은 또 다른 것이다.AIV 봇인 것 같아. ////EuroCarGT 22:58, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

• Done [18:06] == Technical_13 [~T13@wikimedia/Technical-13]이 #wikimedia-labs에 가입했다.

[18:06] <기술_13> 여기 계신 모든 분들은 이미 알고 계실 테지만, 28바이트의 요청에 따라...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Possible_bot_malfunctioning.3F — {{U Technical 13} 23:07, 2014년 3월 5일(UTC)

Per https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62288 - 이것이 고정되어 있는지 확인해 주시겠습니까? - Damian Zaremba^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 2014년 3월 6일(UTC)

이 문제가 해결될 때까지 IP(익명 전용)를 차단할 수 있을까?최근 IP 변경 목록이 봇에 의해 범람하는 것은 최소한으로 말하면 주의를 산만하게 한다.DavidLeighEllis (대화) 02:15, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

최근 변경사항에는 봇 편집/표시 선택사항이 있는 것이 확실하다. -- œ^™ 02:18, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

있다.단, 해당 옵션은 봇 플래그 계정에 로그인한 상태에서 편집하고 봇이 편집 플래그를 지정하는 옵션을 사용하는 봇에만 유효하다.DavidLeighEllis (대화) 02:21, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

• 올잉글리쉬, 데이빗이 한 말은...로그인하지 않은 경우 "봇"으로 표시된 편집이 아닌 경우...— {{U 기술 13}} 02:25, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

• 내부 IP 주소는 XFF 블록의 방향이 잘못될 수 있으므로 차단하지 마십시오.Legoktm (대화) 03:03, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

• 로그아웃된 봇에 대한 통상적인 보호 조치를 구현할 수 없는 경우, 편집하기 전에 반드시 로그인 상태를 보장하는 코드를 Labs를 사용하는 봇 운영자가 작성해야 한다.나는 이 결핍이 해결될 때까지, 필요하다면 시스템 관리자에 의해 실험실의 영향을 받은 봇들을 폐쇄할 것을 제안한다.DavidLeighEllis (대화) 06:10, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

• 복수의 운용자(모두 같은 서버에 근거)에 의한 복수의 봇이 갑자기 동시에 로그아웃한 편집에 착수했을 때, 봇이나 봇 운용자의 문제는 아니다.서버의 문제인데, sysadmin은 유용하고 유용한 작업을 수행하는 봇을 종료하기보다는 이런 일이 반복되지 않도록 하는 데 시간을 할애할 필요가 있다.Nyttend (대화) 06:54, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

• 아마도 서버가 봇을 로그아웃시키는 책임을 져야 할 것이다.하지만, 나는 서버가 그들이 정말로 로그인했다는 것을 봇들에게 확신시키기 위해 API를 통해 가짜 정보를 제공하고 있다는 것을 믿을 수 없다.오히려 로그아웃할 때 봇이 자동으로 종료되지 않는 것처럼 보일 수 있다.이것은 우리가 감히 차단할 수 없는 IP, 아니온만 차단할 수 있는 서버에서 작동하는 봇의 심각한 설계 결함이다.봇 작업이 로그아웃된 상태에서 수행되기를 원할 정도로 유용하고 도움이 되는가?DavidLeighEllis (대화) 08:30, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

• 로그아웃된 봇이 아카이브에 해당 자료를 추가하지 않은 상태에서 페이지에서 자료를 삭제하는 것은 분명 용납되지 않지만, 여러 경우에서 그러한 일이 일어나고 있다.봇은 제대로 작동할 때까지 작동을 중지해야 한다. --David Biddulph (토크) 08:40, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

• David의 의견에 동의하오. 이 문제가 해결될 때까지 보관용 봇을 종료하십시오(그리고 로그아웃 시 편집한 모든 내용을 롤백하여 이러한 대화가 손실되지 않도록 하십시오).감사합니다.— {{U 기술 13}} 11:51, 2014년 3월 6일(UTC)

운 좋게도 이 편집은 사용자를 중지해야 한다.로그아웃된 경우에도 더 이상 토론을 보관하지 않는 소문자 sigmabot III.나는 잠자리에 들기 때문에 구르는 것을 다른 사람에게 맡길 것이다.— Mr. Stradivarius^{♪ talk ♪} 15:34, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

참고: 버그가 고쳐진 것 같아 지금 봇을 다시 작동시켰다.— Mr. Stradivarius 22:07, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

맞아. 이건 실험실에서 문제가 아니야. 사이버봇이 오작동하는 게 아니니까.또한, David의 말처럼, 봇은 로그아웃하면 간단히 편집하지 않도록 설계될 수 있다.나의 봇의 틀은 바로 그것을 하도록 설계되었다.—사이버 파워 15:41, 2014년 3월 6일(UTC)

• 며칠 전부터 몇 시간 후에 봇(및 사람)을 로그아웃시키는 세션이 필요한 만큼 오래 지속되지 않는 문제가 있는 것 같다.운영진은 이 문제를 인지하고 있다.

  즉, 로그아웃한 동안 편집하는 모든 봇은 버그(buggy)이며 봇 정책을 위반하는 것이다.로그인한 것이 확실하지 않는 한 편집을 수행해서는 안 된다(API 호출에 adcomment=bot을 사용하는 것이 가장 쉬운 방법이다).— MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 15:57, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

  • (Ah, 그리고 업데이트로서, 이 문제는 추적되어 T64288)도 스퀴즈 되었다.— MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 16:04, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

:베누고팔브크

삭제 후 다시 생성-뮤지스(토크) 10:10, 2014년 3월 6일(UTC)

...그리고 a) 어디서 먼저 그들과 이 문제를 논의했는지 지적해 줄 수 있는가, b) 여기서 WP에 보고했다고 조언했다.A가 필요한가?네, 삭제, 소금에 절이고 조언해 드렸지만, 그 중 일부는 DP 10:46, 2014년 3월 6일(UTC)에 오기 전과 후의 당신의 직업이다.

(충돌 편집)잘 처리해줘서 고마워, 민주당. 여기서 문제 제보를 했다고 해서 사람을 물지 말아줘, 비록 완벽하게 처리하지는 못했지만.그곳의 기후와 성질에 도움이 되지 않는다.비쇼넨 대담 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

사용자:에서 Sockpuppet에 의해 페이지가 다시 게시된 후 외설됨:Bkvenugopalbos.MER-C 13:23, 2014년 3월 6일(UTC)

例句:-수사 남남 -사찰대 중중

이봐, 행정관님
지난 2년간 이 범주에 들어와 조사를 기다리는 IP 사용자 계정이 약 24개에 이른다.남용 프로젝트 페이지는 현재 "비활성"으로 표시되어 있으므로 이 보고서를 삭제할지 보관할지 알고 싶다.그것들이 보관되려면 어디로 가야 하는지 나에게 알려줘.고마워요.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

내 생각엔, 그것들을 모두 퀴퀴한 것처럼 닫아버리는 게 좋을 것 같아.*흔들림*☺ ·살비드림! · 〇 17:59, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

기본적인 하우스키핑처럼 들리지만 내가 접근할 수 없는 관리 도구가 필요한 행동이다.누구라도 있나요?리즈^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

다른 사람이 먼저 다가오지 않으면 시간이 날 때 처리하겠다. -- 아타마頭 00:28, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

아까는 갔었는데 특별히 해야 할 일은 보이지 않았다.케케묵은 것처럼 닫는다는 게 무슨 뜻이야?또한 관리 도구가 필요한 것은?나는 어떤 보호된 페이지도 알아차리지 못했다.Nyttend (대화) 06:56, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

나는 페이지를 "닫는" 것과 무슨 관계가 있는지 모른다.나는 그것이 관리 도구가 필요하거나 남용 조사를 포함하기 때문에 관리자에 의해 수행되어야 한다고 생각했다.그것은 확실히 내가 경험하지 못한 위키피디아 영역이다.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 12:46, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

따라서, 이 문제를 밝히기 위해, "오용 대응" 범주는 WP에서 위키백과 주제의 일부분이다.남용, 이것은 비활동적인 프로젝트다.당신이 찾은 "수사를 기다리는 중" 페이지는 그것이 사라졌기 때문에 몇 년 동안 기다려왔다.향후 혼란을 해소하기 위해 과거 템플릿을 추가하고 백로그 템플릿을 제거했다.프로젝트 토크 페이지에 따르면 대부분의 남용 사례들은 WP로 넘어가야 한다.AIV 및 장기 남용은 WP에게 전달된다.LTA. -- Atama頭 16:43, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

고마워, 아타마.사실, 나는 가을에 A에 왔다. 왜냐하면 WP:ARSION은 페이지 주제의 공지사항 템플릿(지금은 장기 남용으로만 연결됨)에 여전히 나열되어 있으며, 이로 인해 그러한 비활성 지정이 초래되었다.나는 사실 그 프로젝트를 되살리고 싶었지만, 그 프로젝트의 유용성은 자원 봉사자들과 함께 오래 전에 지나갔다는 것이 일치했다.

나는 이 이상한 조사 페이지에 대해 가장 우려했다. 나는 단지 카테고리를 제거할 수 있었다.이 카테고리를 비활성 프로젝트에 남겨두고 남용 응답. 그러나 이 페이지들은 삭제되어야 할 것 같다.AfD에서 제안해야 할까, 아니면 관리자가 그냥 삭제해도 될까?도와줘서 고마워리즈^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

(충돌 편집)사건을 종결 처리하고, 상황을 바꾸고, 기록 보관소로 옮기라는 뜻이었어단지 그들을 현재의 "대기" 상태에서 벗어나게 하기 위해서입니다.이건 MfD · · Salvidrim이 필요 없을 거야! · 〇 17:05, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

아마도 평상시처럼 케이스를 "닫는" 것(어떻게 하는지에 대한 위키프로젝트 페이지에는 여전히 지시가 있다), 그 후에 카테고리를 비어 있는 것으로 삭제(프로젝트가 비활성화된 한 다시는 사용되지 않을 것이기 때문에)하는 것이 최선일 것이다.그것은 아마도 역사적으로 그리고 무시하는 것으로 표시하는 것보다 더 나을 것이다, 왜냐하면 그 범주에는 역사적 중요성이 있는 것이 없어야 하기 때문이다(그 범주에 속하는 개별적인 경우는 다른 문제임).최근 내가 일하고 있는 지역은 사정이 비교적 조용하기 때문에, 이미 관여했기 때문에, 스스로 이 일을 떠맡을 수 있다. -- 아타마 17:14, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

범주 삭제를 보류하고 있지만 '수사 대기', '열기' 또는 '대기 중'으로 표시된 사건은 모두 종결 처리하고 있다.나는 WP: 편집 요약을 통해 (상태는 닫힌 것으로 표시하고 표준 남용 아카이브 템플릿은 넣어야 함) 원래대로 닫힌 범주에 넣을 수 있도록 하고 있다.Atama頭 17:46, 2014년 3월 6일(UTC)

와, 정말 고마워, 아타마!너무 빨라!이 일을 맡아줘서 고마워.이런 느슨한 끝은 나를 미치게 한다.나는 이 요청에 대한 후속 조치에 감사한다.리즈 21:12, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

(iii) 모든 것이 이제 완료되었으며, 사례에 대해 유일하게 채워진 범주는 이제 "폐쇄", "보관" 또는 "거부"된다.위키백과에서 말하는 유일한 예외:아직도 '수사 대기' 범주에 속하는 반달리즘인데, 그 범주에서 어떻게 제거해야 할지 모르겠다.페이지 하단에 카테고리가 보이는데, 페이지를 편집할 때 안 보이니까, 내가 알 수 없는 왜곡이 있을 거야.

고정. 153.2.247.31 (대화) 20:02, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

이와 관련해 나는 반달리즘 정책 토크 페이지에서 학대 대응 사업의 현황을 묻는 토론과 우연히 마주쳤고, 정책의 가이드라인 섹션에 반달리즘을 신고하러 가는 장소로 여전히 등재돼 있다고 지적했다.나는 현재 공공 기물 파손을 신고하는 비활동적인 프로젝트를 위해 사람들이 더 이상 사용되지 않는 페이지로 가야 한다고 생각하도록 사람들을 현혹시키고 있기 때문에 정책에서 그것에 대한 어떠한 언급도 삭제해야 한다고 제안했다.아직 정책에서 직접 제거할 만큼 과감하게 할 준비가 되어 있지는 않았지만 유혹에 빠진다. -- 아타마18:33, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

위키백과의 권장 마감:의견/Arzel.2 요청

위키백과:의견/Arzel.2에 대한 요청은 종결되며, 다음은 요약이다.

WP에는 움직임이 없다.RFC/U. 마지막 편집은 2월 21일이었다.위의 요약은 WP의 논평에 대한 합리적인 표현이다.RFC/U. 위 요약본과 함께 닫을 것을 제안한다.캐스프링 (대화) 03:29, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

이것은 캐스프링스의 의견이며, 그 이상도 아니고 단일한 의견으로 보아야 한다.편집자가 왜 이걸 여기로 가져오는지조차 확실하지 않아.아르젤 (토크) 05:33, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

캐스프링스, 정리하자면, 당신은 기본적으로 가장 인기 있는 "pro-Arzel"의 일부와 가장 인기 있는 "반-Arzel" 섹션의 일부를 제안된 요약본에 압축해 놓았는가?이의를 제기하거나 그런 것이 아니라, 나는 단지 네가 어디에서 요약을 얻었는지 이해하려고 노력하는 것뿐이야.Nyttend (대화) 05:57, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

그래, 기본적으로.가능한 가장 짧은 중립 요약 정보를 제공하려고 시도했다.캐스프링 (대화) 06:33, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

아르젤은 동의하지 않지만, 나는 네가 잘했다고 생각해.우리는 기본적으로 아르젤을 지지하는 여러 개의 외부 시야 구간과 그에 반대하는 여러 외부 시야 구간을 가지고 있으며(더하기 1개, NE Ent 섹션, 둘 다 그렇지 않음) 두 가지 관점이 모두 상당한 지지를 얻었다.이 상황에서 어느 쪽이든 분명히 일치된 것은 없다.당신의 요약으로 내가 직접 그것을 닫겠지만, (1) 관리종목이 RFCU에 표준/정상/허용/불필요인지 확실하지 않으며, (2) 나는 그 직책 중 하나에 서명했다.Nyttend (대화) 06:54, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

위키피디아에 따르면, 이것은 정상이 아니다.requests_for_comment/User_conduct/closing.그러나, 이것은 분명히 비활동의 종말을 향해 가고 있다.나는 중립적인 짧은 요약을 하는 것이 더 나을 것 같아.캐스프링 (대화) 06:59, 2014년 3월 5일 (UTC)

나는 이 요약을 지지하며, 또한 니스텐드가 가지고 있는 첫 번째 우려(내가 참여하지 않은 이후 두 번째 우려는 아님)를 공유한다는 점을 제외하고는 이 요약을 종결할 것이다.이 요약본은 아즈렐에 대한 우려와 아즈렐에 반대하는 일부에 대한 우려를 모두 인정하면서 문제의 "측면"을 모두 다루고 있다고 생각한다. -- 아타마頭 00:26, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

UTC)

오히려 정상적인 정책이든 아니든 여기서 해야 할 일이다.미래에는, 참여하지 않은 사람들은 그것을 빨리 읽을 수 있고, 기본적으로 (아직도) 논쟁 중인 것을 이해할 수긍할 수 있다.분쟁을 정의하는 것은 해결과 불화의 핵심이라고 생각한다.합의로 닫을 수 없는 RFC/U에 대한 중립적인 요약을 제공하는 것이 정책이 아니라면, 그러한 종료는 최소한 선택 사항이라는 것이 정말 정책이어야 한다.캐스프링 (토크) 01:43, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

이 '요약'의 가장 큰 문제는 허위 요약이라는 점이다.나는 진보적인 원천의 균형을 맞추기 위해 보수적인 원천을 사용하는 것을 주장해 본 적이 없다.나는 특별히 나는 매우 당파적인 원천을 전혀 사용하지 않는다고 말했다.캐스프링스는 2012년 선거 당시 강간과 임신에 관한 기사 때문에 이미 나에게 적대감을 갖고 있어, 나는 그들의 요약을 거절한다.그 외에는 캐스프링스가 이 형편없이 짜여진 RfC의 당사자가 아니었고 나는 두 명의 개시자 중 한 명이 시작 전에는 나와 결코 선의로 함께 일하지 않았기 때문에 참여조차 하지 않았다.어서 그것을 닫아라, 시도하고 침묵하는 방법으로 제시되는 것은 무의미한 당파적 곱창이다.네가 정말로 내 입장을 요약하기를 원한다면 그것은 분명히 명시되어 있었다.당신은 MMfA와 데일리 코스 같은 매우 당파적인 출처에 의존하는 편집자들을 가지고 있고 그들을 신뢰할 수 있는 사람으로 취급하고 있다.만약 이 정보원이 말해야만 하는 것이 포함시킬 가치가 있다면, 덜 당파적인 정보원들도 그것들을 언급했을 것이다.그렇지 않으면 (FNC의 경우) MMfA 불만 사항의 책인 기사가 있을 수 있다.일부 포함 표준이 없다면 WP는 WP에 지나지 않는다.이 주제에 대한 공격, 이것이 이들 편집자들 중 다수가 하지 않을 것으로 보이는 것이다.아르젤 (토크) 15:52, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

RFCU(또는 다른 종류의 RfC)를 종료할 때 이해해야 할 것은 마감 시 마감 시 마무리자의 의견이 반영되지 않을 것이라는 점이다(확실히 그렇지 않아야 함). 이는 RfC에 기여하는 사람들의 의견을 반영하기 위한 것이다.만약 당신의 RFCU가 당신의 많은 반대자들을 끌어들인다면, 그 폐쇄는 불가피하게 당신에 대한 부정성을 포함할 것이다. -- Atama頭 16:26, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

아르젤, 요약을 다시 읽어줘.기본적으로 "일부 참가자는 이렇게 말하고, 다른 참가자는 그렇게 말한다"고 되어 있다.누가 옳고 그른지는 폐쇄와 관련이 없다: 폐쇄는 단순히 사람들이 동의하지 않고 당신이 잘못한 것인지 또는 당신이 피해자인지에 대한 합의에 이르지 못했다는 사실에 대해 말하는 것이다.마무리 요약은 당신에 대해 전혀 진술하지 않는다: 전체 진술은 다른 사람들이 말한 것에 대해 논한다.Nyttend (대화) 23:14, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

그건 나도 알지만 이 요약본의 일부가 현실에 근거하고 있지 않다는 것을 보는 것이 중요하다고 생각한다.그 편집자들은 내가 오렌지라고 생각할 수 있었다.그들이 RfC에서 어떤 것을 읽었는지에 대해 의문을 제기한다.아르젤 (토크) 14:21, 2014년 3월 7일 (UTC)

• 곁눈질로 정책 RFC를 시작해 정책을 변경했다.비활성화로 인해 RFC/U를 닫는 비사용 편집자는 중립적인 폐쇄를 제공하도록 권장해야 한다.RFC는 여기서 찾을 수 있다.Casprings (대화) 03:02, 2014년 3월 8일 (UTC)

사용자별 중단 편집:인디안판다

User:IndianPanda는 처음에 <redacted>라고 불리던 두 번째(승인되지 않은) 사용자 이름을 만든 후 User:아칼라마리의 WOWINDian.IndianPanda는 그들이 WOWINDian이라는 것을 인정한다: [12]

인도판다는 존재하지 않는 사용자들을 위해 십여 개의 USERTK 페이지를 만들었다; 그 대화 페이지는 환영 메시지로 구성되어 있다.그들이 만든 설명서는 여기서 볼 수 있다: [13]

이것은 인도판다가 WOWINDian을 위한 RfA를 만들려고 시도했기 때문에 주목을 받게 되었다. [14]

나는 이것이 모두 DP와 ESL로 여러 계정을 사용하는 관리자인 DangerousPanda에 대한 IndianPanda의 불평으로 거슬러 올라갈 수 있다고 생각한다.인디안판다는 찻집 위키피디아에 그들의 불만을 먼저 게재했다.찻집/질문#ANI 위키백과에서 서명 관련 질의:관리자 게시판/IncidentArchive831#Webedia에 대한 모노폴리.

나는 이것을 속편적인 시도라고 보도하는 것을 고려했지만, 나는 그것이 더 일반적으로 파괴적인 편집의 경우라고 생각한다.또한, 사용자 이름을 실제로 등록하지 않고 사용자 정의 페이지를 만드는 것이 양말 맞추기인지 아닌지 모르겠다.

ESL은 이미 인디안판다에 그들의 편집이 파괴되고 있다고 경고했다.[15] 인도판다는 여기서 그 경고를 인정했다.[16] --멜라니엔 (대화) 16:28, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

WOWINDian은 사실 2012년 1월에 만들어진 오래된 계정이다.나는 그 계정의 원래 이름을 다시 쓰는 것을 주저하지 않는다.Yngvadottir (대화) 16:40, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

• *sigh* 나는 이 현재 활동을 "파괴"라고 부르고 싶지 않다.진심으로 그들이 잘못 알고 있고 정책과 가이드라인에 대해 아주 희미하게 이해하고 있다고 믿지만, 그들은 완전히 붕괴되거나 100% 무능하지는 않다.나는 그들이 이론적으로 제공한 환영문에는 분명히 문제가 없다. 단 한 번의 편집도 하지 않은 환영문자들이다. 환영문본은 단순히 새로운 모든 계정을 환영하는 봇이 없다면, 일반적으로 그들의 첫 번째 편집문과 관련이 있을 것이다.RFA가 복수 시도였을 수도 있지만, 내가 진심으로 그들에게 손을 내밀자, 그들은 솔직하게 "이제 어떻게 해야 하지"라고 대답했다.두 계정이 WP를 어떻게 충족하는지 잘 모르겠다.아직까지는 SOCK#LEGIT.내 마음속의 무언가가 내가 전에 WOWINDian 계정을 본 적이 있다는 것을 말해준다...인도판다가 흉내를 내려고 한 것 같아 무섭긴 하지만...WOWIND 어카운트를 말하자면, ZERO는 WP였기 때문에 원래 어카운트 이름을 수정해야 할 필요가 있었다.WP:CLEINSTART가 아닌 UNC:CLEINSTART 및 이전 사용자 이름은 변경 로그에 분명히 표시되어 있다.멘토링이 필요한가?나도 몰라그들의 언어 구사력은 강하지 못하며(그들의 수많은 오해에 근거해), 성숙함이 궁금하다...하지만 그건 그저 경이로움일 뿐이야DP 16:51, 2014년 3월 6일(UTC)

나의 공헌을 고려해줘서 고맙다.위에서 언급했듯이 나는 찻집과 ANI 페이지에 나의 문제점에 대해 문제를 제기했는데, 이것은 내가 독점을 믿지 않기 때문에 다른 기여자들에 비추어 문제를 해결하려고 노력했다는 것을 의미한다.내 사용자 이름 두 개의 사용자 이름 페이지를 잊어버린 것 같은데, 내가 sockpuppet 차단 기준에 맞지 않는 대체 계정과 관련하여 사용자 상자를 배치한 경우.

나는 당신에게 얼마나 많은 편집에서 파괴적인 편집이 발견되었는지를 알고 싶다.

사용자:잉바도티르 사용자 이름 변경의 원인을 확인해 보십시오. 또한 위키백과의 정책을 읽어 보십시오.사용자 이름_정책 & 위키백과:Changeing_username_username #subscription•**• .dvswindia^talk 16:49, 2014년 3월 6일(UTC)

사용자:멜라니엔 기존 사용자의 토크 페이지를 만드는 것이 정책 위반이라는 위키피디아에 언급된 곳이 어디인지 알려주시겠습니까? (계정 작성 날짜에 대한 해당 사용자의 이력을 확인해주십시오.) ♪♫•*¨*¨*• .¸¸OWINdia^talk 16:54, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

인도판다/WOWINDian이 이제

두

계정을 인정한 것을 본다.

그리고 나는 토크 페이지가 "존재하지 않는" 사용자라고 오해했다; 그들은 아직 단 한 번의 편집이나 사용자 페이지를 만들지 않은 사용자들을 위한 것이었다.

그래서 나는 이 사용자가 파괴적이지 않다고 결론 내리고 나는 불평을 철회한다.

I trust IndianPanda/WOWIndian will listen to the good advice they have been given by multiple experienced editors and become a productive editor here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "IndianPanda then created a dozen usertalk pages for nonexistent users" - I checked every single one of those accounts that IndianPanda le

ft 오늘에 대한 환영 템플릿으로, 각각은 합법적인 계정이었다(각 사용자의 로그를 확인하고 오늘에 대한 계정 생성 로그를 보았다).

나는 새로운 편집자들을 위한 환영 템플릿을 남기는 데 방해가 될 것 같지 않다.

편집자가 실제로 아무런 기고도 하지 않았는데 편집자 기고문에 대한 감사를 담은 템플릿을 남기는 것은 좀 이상하다는 점은 인정하지만, 그 감정은 나쁘지 않다.

위키피디아의 정책, 가이드라인, 전반적인 문화를 잘 파악하지 못하는 편집자가 (그 사람들이 조언이나 도움을 받기 위해 IP로 가고 싶어할 수도 있기 때문에) 환영할 사람이 되는 것에 대해 100% 편하다고 말할 수는 없지만, 템플릿 자체는 대부분 새로운 편집자가 도움을 찾을 수 있는 유용한 분야로의 링크만 제공하고 p를

제공하지 않고 있다.

IP로부터의 개인적인 도움(사실, 그들은 템플릿에 서명조차 하지 않았다.)

따라서 IP에서 어떤 장애가 발생하든 환영 템플릿에서 발생하는 것은 아니다. -- Atama頭 17:26, 2014년 3월 6일 (UTC)

부끄러운 줄 알아라

User:Aheshaash

Duck, please. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Quack whacked. -- Atama頭 02:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:AGK

WP:RM backlogged too

As of right now there are 80 backlogged move requests at RMCD. A number of them are pretty straight forward (I'd do it myself but they either involve page moves I can't complete as a non-admin or discussions I've participated in). Hot Stop talk-contribs 07:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Scott

I've asked Scott to not interact with me in an aggressive personally attacking way. Due to the fact that He is unable/unwilling to do that, I'm requesting an interaction ban. He doesn't need to be posting any more "advice" on my talk page or exhibiting an inability to remain CALM and discuss things. As for the discussion on WT:Redirect, while I understand that it is annoying to have the page reload to take you to a different section of the page when viewing from a mobile device (I do a lot of viewing and editing from mobile in desktop view), it is exactly this reloading that encourages people to expand the section and create the WP:SPINOUT, so that it is no longer a redirect to a different section of the page, but instead an entirely new page full of content. — {{U Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be an improvement if you didn't template him for "refactoring your talk: comments", when what he'd actually done was to hat a section on that talk: page. You might not like such a snub, but it ain't refactoring or against WP:TPO in the way you seem to think. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• In an attempt to hide my comments effectively deleting them from view, against the talk page guidelines, simply because he did not like my comments. That's not acceptable. — {{U Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not against talkpage guidelines. But, you certainly cannot tell him to leave you alone when you're going to wrongly template them. It's, as you say, "not acceptable" DP 18:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Collapse top may be relevant, though. "These templates should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing" (my emphasis). The last part implies the use of that template openly accused Technical13 of being disruptive by disagreeing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Okay. So, quick note: if you want to stop interacting with Scott, maybe you should just, y'know, stop interacting with Scott. You were the one who jumped into that thread; if you didn't want to interact with Scott, you shouldn't have chosen to participate in a thread that Scott had started. It certainly looks like a good idea for the two of you to stop interacting with each other, but rather than dealing with the inevitable messiness of a formal interaction ban, just deciding to stay away from each other is probably worth a shot. I doubt Scott would be opposed to it; his actions here today were all reactions to yours; if you hadn't made yours, he wouldn't have made his. Not assigning fault at all, just noting that you're the initiator of the contact here. More later. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I made a comment on the thread... None of what I said/asked in that post was personal towards Scott at all, and once everything cooled off, and Scott looked it over again and dug into the history of the policy, he understood what I was saying that it was a reasonable sentence in regards to the paragraph it was located in and made an agreeable change to disambiguate the wording that may not have been clear to everyone, of which I thanked him for both privately and publicly. Why all the shouting and name calling and dehumanizing was necessary to get there, I'm still unsure and am fairly thick skinned, so I'll just let it go in hopes that Scott will be more willing to calmly discuss future issues, should they arise, and dig in to figure out the differences together. — {{U Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support 2-way interaction ban, but in the hope that a full-blown formal !vote will not be necessary as both participants will voluntarily agree to the interaction ban (one already has) to avoid further disruption and shouty shouty behaviour. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Scott does have some history in making general policy discussions personal with regards to T13: see [20]; it was suggested he moved his personal comments of a policy talk page but choose not to so. NE Ent 15:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• If he could get past thinking everything is personal, I think that him and I could collaborate in a productive manner just fine. I've never met him, don't expect to ever meet him, and nothing I say in a discussion is intended to be personal towards him. If I have ever said anything that sounded personal, I apologize and I'm fairly certain it wasn't meant in a personal way (although I do say stuff that comes out wrong when I'm frustrated and having difficulties in assuming good faith because I'm receiving uncivil, harassing, personal attacks. As hard as I have been working on improving myself there, I will try a little bit harder in Scott's case, because I understand there is tension. — {{U Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• One of the editors here is Randy in Boise. Of course, as that essay suggests, they may not realize that. Another editor here knows who I'm talking about, but could learn how to better deal with such editors, as they are not rarely found editing Wikipedia. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin noticeboard stalker)

WP:AFD backlog

I've just cleared out all the days from 22-25 February (probably the ones that no-one else wanted to close, so will probably find myself at DRV soon), but there are still 153 AFDs outstanding from 26 Feb to date. It's time for sleep here though, so some more eyes would be good. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned out several dozen today, but around 100 remain. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Two uasers with same page

User:Shahzab Jamal and User:Shahzaib Jamal seemd to create same page--Musamies (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently there are two users who each have posted similar material (see user page of first user):

• Shahzab Jamal (talk · contribs)
• Shahzaib Jamal (talk · contribs)
• Shahzaib Jamal (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)

Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's evidently the same guy, only here to write about himself. I have explained NOTFACEBOOK and NOTWEBHOST and asked him to pick one account and use only that one. I will keep an eye on him. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

On checking further, I find that the first account, Shahzaib Jamal, had its user page salted for repeated self-promotion and its uploads mass-deleted from Commons. The second account, Shahzab Jamal, is evidently an attempt to evade those restrictions, and I have blocked it as a sock. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Clarification request: BLP special enforcement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

Discuss this

For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Password posting

What are we supposed to do when a (already blocked) vandal posts on his talk page, "My SUL login is xxxxx"? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ask for revdel? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The account gets locked by a steward, usually. → Call meHahc21 05:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if there's substantial crosswiki edits, that is. Password should be oversighted though. That being said User:Jpgordon if it is who I think it is... --Rschen7754 05:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than I could take care of this for me please? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Rschen7754 This is a long term abuse case. I don't remember who it is but an account with the same password was attacking ArbCom pages, posted the password and was globally locked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Thecodingproject and his edit warring.

Look that the contribs of User:Thecodingproject , this fruitloop edit wars and causes problems for the rest of us decent folk. --Sammen Salmonord (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Comment please note [21] and [22]. The OP seems to erroneously regard any disagreement with them or reversion of their edits as edit warring. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a WP:BOOMERANG!

Special:Contributions/Sammen Salmonord is a strange read. Equal parts naivety and that just-too-already-WP-familiar scent of old socks. None of it is edifying. We really do not need a schism into the "frootloops" and the "decent folI". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there's any connection with User:Hoppingalten (sic) [23] [24] who evidentally per their user page, wrote the "runaway success of the 'How to Loose Weight' Trilogy". Nil Einne (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User thecodingproject has removed a reasonable comment that I put in the talk page of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. This is just one example of the headaches that this user is causing. Since it is disruptive, the user should be blocked for 72 hours or a week which will give the news time to learn of the probable crash. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that was on purpose. If you look at their edit, your comment was removed while they were fixing their own previous comments. It may have been an honest mistake. Even I accidentally removed another editor's comment on a talk page a couple of days ago, and I'm a relatively experienced editor. -- Atama頭 13:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible range block

Any chance of a range block for the following? This has been ongoing since January. I've been blocking the IPs over the last few days, one at a time, but it needs either a range block or a lot of semi-protected articles. Most of the BLP articles had unsourced birth dates to begin with but I have taken some of them out and some others have since been sourced. However, the IPs don't always like the source and removes it. I've listed them in a rough chronological order and some differences to show what they are up to. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• 41.69.71.76 (contribs · talk · block log) unsourced day and month, year does have a source in the external links
• 197.132.158.7 (contribs · talk · block log), same as above, inflates the number of aircraft
• 197.132.59.245 (contribs · talk · block log), Judy Gingell again
• 197.132.255.201 (contribs · talk · block log), only made one edit
• 196.221.144.242 (contribs · talk · block log), only made one edit
• 197.135.98.102 (contribs · talk · block log), only made two edits
• 197.132.239.60 (contribs · talk · block log), only made three edits
• 197.132.236.186 (contribs · talk · block log), only made four edits
• 197.132.248.164 (contribs · talk · block log), adds unsourced day and month, also place of birth, changes two good references to dead ones and changes the date in the body of the articles, changes correctly sourced date to something else, same as previous but different person, same as before, more of the same, changing the dates so the new premier starts the day after the old one terminates but not shown in source, adds unsourced date of birth
• 197.132.166.54 (contribs · block log), adds day, month and birthplace
• 197.132.251.162 (contribs · talk · block log)}, only made one edit

Around here I started removing the unsourced birth dates.

• 41.69.40.77 (contribs · talk · block log), some of the unsourced birth dates have been removed but they get added back, and again, changes a direct link to a redirect, unsourced birth date, unsourced birth date
• 41.69.79.70 (contribs · talk · block log), unsourced birth date
• 41.69.0.50 (contribs · talk · block log), unsourced birth date
• Moatassemakmal (contribs · talk · block log), creates an account but continues on in the same mannar, removes source that gives year and adds unsourced day and month, day and month not in source and neither is the place of birth
• 41.69.78.154 (contribs · block log)
• 41.69.44.243 (contribs · block log), great edit summary removes the source and adds unsourced
• 41.69.56.31 (contribs · block log), usual unsourced
• 41.69.16.32 (contribs · block log), removes sourced and adds unsourced
• 41.69.19.76 (contribs · block log), unsourced birth date
• 41.69.109.172 (contribs · block log), removes sourced and adds unsourced
• 41.69.28.18 (contribs · block log), removes sourced and adds unsourced

This looks like a person who has both mobile and internet with Vodaphone and is taking advantage of the very dynamic IPs assigned to them. And by the look of them they are data routers not the actual IP the person is using (ie they use an IP and vodaphone assigns the traffic any any of the IPs we've seen so far). I've anonblocked 41.69.0.0/17 for a few days which will hopefully give us some relief and an idea of how much control they have over the IP which exits to Wikipedia.

Thanks User:Callanecc. I looked at the rangeblock helper but it said I would be blocking 4,000,000,000 IPs which seemed a little excessive. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries. If your interested try putting them in smaller groups into the rangeblock helper (eg all of the 41.69... ones then all of the 197.132 ones). That lets you target the different ranges better. The other thing you need to do is do a WHOIS of the different IPs (generally only need to do it down to the number after the second dot. That'll show you the ranges that each of the IPs is registered in. With the /17 block I've actually blocked a few different data routes which are all owned (along with many more) by Vodaphone in Egypt. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad internet, help

HELP! One of your administrators has been sending me dirty and threatening emails

Request to you adminstarator

Redirect from alternative language

I need an admin's help to create the following page (I guess you'll have to copy and paste it): ฮอโลคอสต์. This is a redirect from an alternative language. This is the name for The Holocaust in Thai. I cannot create the page because it says that it has been blacklisted. Please make it a redirect to The Holocaust. Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

But why? Do people actually search for non-English script terms on the English Wikipedia? DP 17:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they do, for this.Hoops gza (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Google translate says it should be ความหายนะ and that ฮอโลคอสต์ is "Hollywood Holocaust". Can we get someone who knows Thai to clarify (because I don't trust Google). — {{U Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Very good, T-13. You beat me to the answer. (Edit conflict)

Google translates that to Hollywood holocaust

• ฮอ could mean hall, horse or hop—or Hollywood
• Why not just โลคอสต์?

But the Thai Wikipedia does use that for the title: See th:ฮอโลคอสต์, so it does seem to be an issue with Google's translation.

You can find foreign language articles using the languages drop-down menu in the left margin of all Wikipedia articles. Couldn't a Thai speaking reader link here by clicking the inter-language link in the Thai Wikipedia? I'm not aware of any guideline regarding this, but imagine how many redirects we would have if all titles had foreign-language redirects for dozens of languages. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"ฮอโลคอสต์" is simply a transliteration of "Holocaust" (ฮอ = ho, โล = lo, คอส - cos/cot, ต์ = silent t)

"โลคอสต์" would say "low cost" Thrub (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason "ความหายนะ" is wrong is that's the translation of the ordinary noun "holocaust" and does not have the same connotations with Nazi Germany. Thrub (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But I think that this one warrants having the foreign languages, for some reason.Hoops gza (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at the documentation for Template:R from alternative language: "It is not a license to create redirects for arbitrary terms in any language; generally, foreign-language redirects are considered appropriate only when there is a strong connection between the language and the topic." See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages. "For some reason" isn't good enough for me, sorry. Can you give me a well-grounded rationale? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[ec with Wbm1058] This really shouldn't be created. In most cases, foreign language redirects are appropriate only when the term is related to that language. For example, 天皇 is a redirect to Emperor of Japan, because it's the original Japanese name for the concept, and people might search for the title. We routinely include foreign-language original names in our texts, so someone might see the text and search for it in hopes that it would be mentioned in the article. However, just as we don't mention third-party languages in articles, we generally don't have third-party redirects, so there's no need for Император Японии to be a redirect to the emperor article, because the Emperor of Japan is thoroughly unrelated to the Russian language. Likewise, the Holocaust is unrelated to Thai, so we shouldn't have a Thai-language redirect for this. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

When I pointed out on his Talk page that this activity was unconstructive and contrary to policy, his response was "Yes, I know. The Holocaust is not a standard subject." Which is not his only current problematic editing. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Just want to point out that "ฮอโลคอสต์" is Hollywood Holocaust but "อโลคอสต์" (without the ฮ) is The Holocaust.--Auric talk 20:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Information page or essay?

An uninvolved closer is needed at Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 2#RfC: Is this an information page or is it an essay? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Outside comment: Whilst a gross oversimplification, it's a necessary Lie-to-children and should be a clear single-page with no headings at all; no need to call it an 'essay' or 'guide' or anything else. It's the single best piece of advice that can be given to new users, and avoids months of futile bureaucratic bullshit.

Per IAR, it should have no headings at all. Just a footnote saying something like "This is a simplified guide; for full details see blah blah blah...

80% of spammers won't actually read more than a couple of lines. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see someone with more experience close, Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi you've only made a handful of edits. A "necessary Lie-to-children" isn't a good rationale for removing the headers. -- GreenC 22:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've made over 100,000 edits and written 3 FAs. What happened to AGF? Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't close it. Just added my own view, is all. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's why I said, "Outside comment" see? Er. A comment, from outside. Not 'closing', nothing. Just sayin' - in my oh-so-humble opinion. "anyone can edit", kinda thing. Is 'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk • contribs) 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I made one single edit to the page. Is that disruptive? Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You did this[25] with the comment "Per ANI" which looks like an attempt to force the issue the way you wanted. If you are such an experienced editor, why are you are participating in the RfC using a SPA account newly created today? That's typical sock puppet behavior. Have you ever !voted in the RfC under a different account? -- GreenC 23:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And now you're edit warring. I'm going to step away from this and let an administrator look into this. This needs admin intervention on a number of levels. -- GreenC 23:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it should have no headers whatsoever. Also, GreenC's bad-faith characterization of another editor, who may be far more experienced than GreenC or most admins, is way out of line. While I don't have a clean-start account, I sometimes do edit while logged off and experience similar disrespect from others.

This endless debate also deserves a mention over at WP:LAME although it isn't really an "edit war" per se.

I'd close it myself, but I've already made a comment or two on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Whoever the new red-linked user is, their comments are precisely correct—the page is the single best piece of advice that can be given to new users, and an argument over whether it accurately sums up thousands of words of policy is a worthy WP:LAME candidate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: AGF or not, I'm pretty sure a clean-starting 100k-edit/multipe-FA editor would have trouble nominating an article at AfD (and with the rationale of just not notable, no less), and with such a name; nor would they edit-war to maintain a non-consensus outcome to a still-open RfC. I'm pretty sure that, whoever they may be, they're trying to avoid scrutiny of some sort. ₆an⁶sh₆ 23:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck right off with your pathetic accusations.

"Is it information or an essay"? Who cares. It's useful.

It helps new users build the encyc.

Is all. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ansh666, what is wrong with AfD'ing something as not meeting GNG? Haven't you done the same? Do we need more reasons than 'not GNG'? Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Fuck off"? Who are you, what is your real account? Why are you hiding behind a fake account and telling people they are "children" and to "fuck off"? Now you are edit warring over something as simple as notification of an RfC. Why are you removing this RfC notification? -- GreenC

This is a "real account". It's a real person, with real opinions, and real ideas. I mentioned the applicable concept of Lie-to-children. I did say, "Fuck right off with your pathetic accusations" - and stand by it; if you are offended by such language I humbly suggest you may have chosen the wrong internet; I believe you can obtain plug-ins to block all viewings of naked ankles or images of Muhammed or profanity, if that's your thing. I hope we can just have a mature discussion on the best way to work together. Thx. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah so you need to stop harassing my talk page. -- GreenC 00:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, every time I bring up the question "Should this page be tagged as an information page, essay, something else, or not marked at all?" there are multiple replies along the lines of "the article is great" or "the article is bad". The quality and usefulness of the page is an interesting question, but why am I seeing answers to it instead of to the actual question I asked? Was I not clear? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• With seven new !votes since I requested a closer, we might want to keep it open for a while. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong To use language like that is inexcusable! Talk about Uncivility! I have met no one else insult someone else , Ever! Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That editor was blocked by CheckUser indefinitely for sockpuppetry, so just ignore it, no more disruption will be forthcoming. -- Atama頭 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting closure on indecisive Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) merge discussion

A discussion has been taking place as to whether the contents of Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) should be merged into Grand Theft Auto V. The discussion has remained open since January 25 with no absolute consensus yet reached. It is currently at 8 votes to merge and 6 votes to keep. As I have nominated the Grand Theft Auto V article as a Featured Article Candidate I would like closure on the discussion as soon as possible. CR4ZE (t) 13:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• CR4ZE, one option, if it is no consensus, is for you to just close it yourself as withdrawn. Can't be closed any faster than that. — {{U Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Withdrawing a proposal only ends a discussion if the proposal hasn't earned any good-faith support. That's at least how the deletion process works, and I imagine it's the same with other proposals (such as merges and moves). That's so that the nominator's withdrawal doesn't suddenly invalidate all of the other arguments in favor of the proposal. -- Atama頭 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Closed — {{U Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparent circular reason for a block

Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aalaan and the associated block log, am I missing something?

The account was apparently blocked for block evasion... but I only see one block. Which block was being evaded? A block on a different account? I can see no reference to any other account.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Everything I'm reading seems to suggest that Aalaan was blocked for sockpuppetry (cf. User:Luthador), not for block evasion. Where are you seeing that the block is for block evasion? Writ Keeper⚇♔ 17:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah ha! That's in the archive! I was looking at the non-archived stuff. Now I get it. Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I have to hop off the keyboard IRL - a few to do. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this was swiftly dealt with by a few enterprising administrators, at this moment every request has been answered. -- Atama頭 19:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Complaint re administrator Giant Snowman

RFC Announcement (Biographies)

A RFC has been opened at WT:BLP regarding adding maintenance categories to mainspace articles based on missing data. Please feel free to review and comment on the proposal. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

African Union Methodist Protestant Church/A.U.M.P. Church

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union_Methodist_Protestant_Church and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.U.M.P._Church both refer to the same entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randymanme (talk • contribs) 16:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed with a redirect: African Union Methodist Protestant Church. Thanks for pointing it out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Site Ban Request

Request for technical move

Will some administrator be so kind to rename Kosovo independence precedent to Kosovo precedent as per WP:COMMONNAME explained in this section of the talkpage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) That appears to be disputed. — Scott•talk 19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Another editor used that section to emphasize that they believe that "the actual problem with the article... is that it's a POV fork."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) ...which isn't resolved by moving the article and may result in a deletion. Thought that was what I read in there... I suggest addressing the fact that it should probably be discussed at AfD due to the lack of consensus and the "next step" in such discussions before you worry about moving the article. It should be stable before it is moved. — {{U Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've been doing some editing on that page today, and I noticed this issue, so I looked into the matter more closely. The current opposition is from User:Bobrayner, who did a rather disruptive blank-redirect of the page in December 2013, despite that there has been a previous decision to keep the page. In other issues related to the region, he has acted like he has an axe to grind, a good example can be seen here: Talk:Kosovo. I think that this opposition is nothing else than an attempt to stall and cause annoyance, and it's quite safe to assume that the article can be moved. - Anonimski (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see any reason why you can't just open an WP:RM. Particularly since the there's no guarantee other talk page watchers share your view of Bobrayner's comments and so they could have easily considered the existance of the opposition as sufficient to require an RM so didn't see the need the comment further until and unless one was opened. Either consensus exists or it does not, establishing it does via an RM is unlikely to cause harm when there is doubt. I mean the original suggestion was back in December and even this request is now over 2 days old so it doesn't seem time is an issue. Nil Einne (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I did what you suggested. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI/Check User assistance

Discretionary sanctions review. Comments welcome on Draft v3

The Arbitration Committee has recently been conducting a review of the discretionary sanctions system. You may wish to comment on the newest (third) draft update to the system, which has just been posted to the review page. Comments are welcome on the review talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 00:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

RPP backlog

Can some admins take care of the backlog at WP:RPP? The list itself isn't terribly long, but some pages have been on it for over 24 hours, and obviously vandalism continues while we all wait. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Cleared for now. AlexiusHoratius 15:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

With deep regret.

User:GS221

I would like to notify all administrators of the actions of User:GS221, whose edits to the following articles, in my opinion, amount to vandalism:

• Kira Jääskeläinen
• Jyrki Niskanen

This person appears to be a new user, or then is sock-puppeting. The latter might be closer to the truth, since he seems to know his way around.

Yours sincerely, Apanuggpak (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Apanuggpak, I just want to remind you that GS221 Reverted his edits to that page. Also, just a note, don't base if someone is a sockpuppet off of their understanding of how to use wikipedia. With the best of luck, Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not sockpuppeting: evidently I am Fi:User:GS in Finnish wikipedia, but adopted here GS221 since User:GS is preoccupied in English wikipedia. My edits to the mentioned articles are good-faith, in both cases condensing and pruning of biographical articles from unnecessary detail, to a more encyclopedic form; and that was stated (though concisely) in the edit summaries. Specifically, the single-film director Kira J has herself requested removing irrelevant personal detail, picked up from a radio interview [e.g. as about a relative's death] from the corresponding Finnish article (on the article talk-page). I've made similar edits to the Finnish articles. GS221 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not vandalism, for sure, and not unhelpful, either. The huge section of rôles played by Niskanen is unneeded and unhelpful, and we don't need a long list of conductors or "other music pieces". Meanwhile, the Jääskeläinen article has rather much detail on the film, in particular; the stuff about her doing her studies in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug seems relevant and properly sourced, but either GS removed it by accident, or we simply disagree about what's essential. Please don't make accusations of vandalism so readily. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal or Medical advice

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Legal or Medical advice that may be of interest.

It concerns requests for legal or medical advice posted to one of the reference desks.

I am posting this here because there have been several ANI threads concerning editing others' comments on the reference desks. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Football records in Spain

Please intervene in Football records in Spain, There is one peron Walter Görlitz who usurp the right to decide to removing lots of issue. He removed 40000 words of statts and even reverting this he make it again and again. His arguments are he thinks most of them are trivial, (althought never explains what does it mean) and there is no ref. The problem of the second one is, there is no ref. because that is stats of metches ang every week they are new and needs to be updated. Lots of people work on updating, but Walter from last weekend decide to be alone judge who destroy most of page. Edamian (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion was made on the article's talk page that unreferenced material should be removed. It's been six months and no references were added. Material was removed. Not entirely sure what is so difficult to understand about that. I have restored a section where a ref that meets WP:V but not WP:RS was supplied, but the rest is unreferenced.

In the football project discussion on the subject, I also mentioned that there's trivial material and Edamian had latched onto that idea and was arguing that the material is not trivial despite other national record articles not including similar statistics although that's a separate discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You cannot compare Footbsll records in spain to other record articles. It couldn't be an argument because you dont explain why one is better or worse than other one. You cannot explain logically your point of view. Moreover, you point out that articles, althougt there are the same problem like in all pages with statt - there are also no references.

Walter start his removing activity explaining that hat trick are trivial and removed that stat, after undid his removing then he decide to remove everything what unreverted is. When he noticed that hat tricks stat is rev now, he leaves it out and remove the rest. It shows only his ambitional brain game.

You ought not to decide alone to remove all statistics. Better idea would be to signalize no reference, no citation et cetera.

Walter ruins this page and even doesnt look at consequences. After what did he make, after his activity there remain a big mess.

As I said, the problem of this issue is that Walter usurps for himself to big jurisdiction. He couldnt decide to remove 40000 words, especially that these word were big work of lots of people, and only Walter wants to remove it.Edamian (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course you can compare records in Spain to other record articles. I have as have others. The point is that the material is not sourced and that's the key. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're both pretty close (if not already) at WP:3RR and would advise you to both stop. I agree with the principal of removing any unsourced material, but you should discuss this on the talkpage and notify the Football Project for more input. Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is already ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Football records in Spain, this might be a case for WP:DR. GiantSnowman 20:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I am at 3 while Edamian is at 4 assuming that the anon restore was not Edamian.

The discussion at the Footy project was just Edamian and me the last I checked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You might want to seek a third opinion then. -- Atama頭 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Beware: possibly definitely fake e-mail supposedly from Newyorkbrad

I just got an e-mail from Newyorkbrad's address (yes, it is his address) that I don't like the look of. There are several curious things about it. It reads:

Hello,

Attached is the important business Docs file [View Docs Here] with secure e-mail.

Thank you!

I can see where the "View Docs Here" link goes to, but I don't like to reproduce it here lest I trick somebody into absentmindedly clicking on malware. There's a warning at the top of the message: "Be careful with this message. It contains content that's typically used to steal personal information." Followed by a choice of links: "Ignore", "I trust this message" and "Learn more". (I went to click on "Learn more", then realized that if the message was altogether a trap, that would be a bad idea.)

What I don't like, apart from the warning and the alarm-bell "docs" is the style, of course. I've corresponded with Brad, and he doesn't talk like that. And even more worrying, it was sent to "undisclosed recipients" and Bcc'd to me. And perhaps to you, dear reader? Don't click on the links! I think somebody may have hacked Brad's address and his address book. Bishonen talk 10:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

Those warnings are probably a security feature of your mail client (or webmail provider, if you were using a browser at the time), triggered by the detection of a deceptive link or header, or possibly the message content; the “Learn more“ link probably leads to a FAQ or help page about phishing & the like. As for the bcc, that’s a common method of mass-mailing without revealing all the recipients to each other, so not inherently suspicious—although IIANM the courteous thing to do when using the technique is to make oneself (or the organization one represents, if any) a ‘disclosed recipient’.—Odysseus1479 00:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. There is a good possibility that all the addresses to which these messages were sent have been “harvested“ for a black-market list somewhere, so I’d advise everyone concerned to make sure their junk-filters are in order. 01:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Some malware is known to read your address book and then send spam to everyone in it using your name. Sometimes the emails are attempts to infect more computers, but more often they are the usual spam advertising the usual spammy products and services. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• We are learning who is part of the in-crowd at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Access, and now here. Also see NYB's comment (via a meatpuppet!) at the bottom of his talk. Oh, the pain. Good thinking on the links: don't click! Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think this was something worse than spam. Anyway, I'll relay Brad's message below. (John, I'd have seen that ages ago, if it hadn't had the nonsense section title "access", which kept turning up on my watchlist and sounded far too boring to click on.) Bishonentalk 11:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

This is Newyorkbrad. My thanks to everyone who alerted me to the problem with my Gmail account and took precautionary action, and my apologies to anyone inconvenienced.

I had a strong password on the Gmail account, and haven't used it from any insecure places, so I don't know how some spambot may have gained access to it. I've changed the password. It was, and still is, a different password from the ones I use on my Wikipedia account and my other Wikimedia-related and non-wiki accounts, but I am changing those as well.

I need to be offline for several hours this morning for RL work appointments, and will follow up about regaining my wiki access after that.

Regards to all. -Newyorkbrad

It is possible that the email was sent from a different account, but with a Newyorkbrad email address "display name" or "reply to". Then, on most email client displays it would (only) look like it came from your email. To see where it really came from you have to use a view that shows the "code". ( A simpler (not as foolproof) way would be to look at your gmail account and see if "you" sent anything that you didn't send.) If possible you might have someone who received one of these look into that code and see where it really came from. If it didn't come from your email address, you might even find out who the real culprit is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Forged mail headers would have been my guess except that the sender appears to have access to his address book. Newyorkbrad, what does https://security.google.com/ say about recent account activity? Feezo (send a signal watch the sky) 19:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not forged headers, FWIW. If you look at the source it's pinged around by an internal Google IP address, and passes all the SPF/DKIM checks for Gmail. So it was sent with Gmail, almost certainly from the web client. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm back. My apologies to everyone who were inconvenienced by this situation and my thanks to those who brought it to my attention.

Feezo, please feel free to contact me offline if you have specific suggestions for me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Brad (your talkpage is semi'd), if you think you might have been targeted or if you use gmail for anything sensitive (including using it as the "password reset" address for other accounts you might have), and if you use a smartphone, please consider enabling Google Authenticator on your gmail account. You can do that through gmail's account settings screen. It is a smartphone app for two-factor authentication: basically it displays a 6-digit number that changes once a minute or so, and you enter the number (along with your password) when you login to gmail. That means someone trying to hijack your account needs to get your phone or its contents, and not just your password. It's not ideal but it's a big improvement on relying solely on a password. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Added: Brad, unless you know that your gmail password had a chance to leak somehow, you also have to consider that your computer might be pwned, in which case merely changing passwords won't help. WP:RDC is a decent place to ask for advice regarding dealing with this possibility, if you need it. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Heh, I forgot all about that email message until I noticed the subsection here. I received one myself, and the link apparently leads to some sort of phishing scam (or so my security settings warned). I responded by asking if he'd sent it to the wrong address. Apparently I'm not the only one who got that email, but now that things seem like they're under control, all is well. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 05:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• One more suggestion: maybe ask Google Security if they can figure out the originating IP of the outgoing bogus messages. If it's one of your own addresses (checkuser yourself to see what addresses you were on around that time if necessary), that suggests you have a local exploit (probably a computer virus) instead of just a cracked password being used remotely. In that case you have to get rid of it somehow. I tend to advise a scorched earth approach (buy a new hard drive, remove old drive, install OS and all software on new drive from scratch, and restore user files from backup or carefully migrate from old drive) instead of relying on unreliable anti-virus tools, but I'm a bit hardcore about this stuff. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

AfD question

The Republic of Crimea AfD was snow closed this morning as a "keep". Fourteen hours later a second AfD was started.

The second AfD was obviously started in good faith, but it seems to me that a new AfD should not be running so soon after a snow close. Is it in order to close it, and what rationale should be given? Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a moot point, as it has now been closed, but I would always cite WP:DISRUPTIVE and close it with that. I believe there's a guideline of not nominating the same article in less than a 3 month timespan, although I could be wrong. Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The policy states: "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." What a "reasonable amount of time" would be is subjective, but it should be longer than 14 hours. Three months sounds fairly reasonable, though some people may consider that too short a period. Consider a situation where an article is taken to AfD 4 times a year. -- Atama頭 20:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would suggest a rule of thumb of "No-consensus: 2*length of previous nom. Marginal Keep: max 4* length of previous nom or 2 months. Snow Keep: max of 6 * length of nom or 4 months." as the soonest I'd entertain a new nomination. Obviously IAR if there is a novel argument for the deletion, but in cases of "breaking" topics I'm inclined to suggest a moratorium on deletion/merge/etc discussions without a initial consensus that we should start the process again on the article's talk page. Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Hasteur#HasteurBot being naughty?

Factual World

Has anyone tried to contact the Factual World website that they appear to be taking content almost blatantly from Wikipedia without an attribution notice? They may be running afoul of the CC-BY-SA guidelines. What sort of actions are normally taken? (BTW, for context I had earlier this month emailed LCA about these sites and they could only give me a "general opinion".) TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process 88.104.22.149 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Large influx of editors from "Immersive Education"

There seems to have been a large amount of editors coming onto Wikipedia, and vandalizing articles, whose names start with "Immersiveed" or a variant. Some example are ImmersiveEducationBrendan and ImmersiveEdKevinP. 123chess456 (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Go to Special:Listusers and tell it to return usernames beginning with "Immersive", and you'll be given 26 usernames: Immersive, Immersive360, ImmersiveCom, ImmersiveECC, ImmersiveED Nejat, ImmersiveEdKaryn, ImmersiveEducationKaren, ImmersiveIEDMatt, ImmersiveReality, ImmersiveState, Immersiveadrian, Immersivebrian, Immersivecaitlin, Immersivechris, Immersivedan, Immersivedev, ImmersiveedDean, ImmersiveedKevinP, Immersiveedal, Immersiveedivan, Immersiveeducationbrendan, Immersivejenarrow, Immersivekevin, Immersiveme, Immersivemurray, Immersivepreview. Immersiveeducationbrendan and ImmersiveedKevinP are indeed new, but all of the others are at least nine months old, and one of them (the blocked Immersive360) was registered in 2007. Let's just check Brendan and Kevin without worrying about the rest. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like well-meaning, if a bit uninformed, editing; not vandalism. Don't think there's anything to be done here, though WP:Education noticeboard/Incidents might like to hear about it. ₆an⁶sh₆ 05:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

rule interpretation please

TL;DR: Are edits like these acceptable?

User:Pigsonthewing and I have a disagreement and I would like some input. It’s quite a complex issue and close to WP:OUTING, so I thought I’d start here (some aspects perhaps should be taken to other noticeboards such as WP:RS/N once OUTING issues are resolved).

ORCID is an identifier for researchers, based on International Standard Name Identifier, an identifier for authors and other creators. Using Template:Authority control en.wikipedia identifies >200,000 people (both the subjects of articles and editors themselves) as having an ORCID, an ISNI and/or other similar identifiers. Template:Authority control on en.wiki and Vorlage:Normdaten on de.wiki are key identifiers for authors and other creators in WikiData (See here for others).

User:Pigsonthewing apparently based the linking of my user page to ORCID entirely on the link from ORCID to wikipedia and a linkedin profile. These ORCID pages are entirely user-generated, they’re WP:SELFPUBLISH, with no apparent attempt to establish that people are who they claim they are. LinkedIn pages are also entirely user-generated with no real identity checks. User:Pigsonthewing reports having investigated the links in ways that sound like original research to me. I have not investigated the half-dozen or so apparently similar edits I see in his contribution log. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is it appropriate for editors to add these kinds of identifiers to other editors user pages?
• Are they required to rely on reliable sources as per WP:BLP when doing that?
• Is WP:Original research and/or it’s close relation "opposition research" permitted in determining these links?

I believe this falls in under WP:OUTING. They've all apparently given their full name themselves, but linking to external sites based on a name (and possible other bits of info) looks like OR to me. I don't think the links should be added, simply because it should be left to the users themselves to decide if they want to make a connection between their life on Wikipedia and their life outside. Bjelleklang - talk 09:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks completely unacceptable to me. Apart from the potential outing issue, we don't edit other people's userpages at all, except to remove seriously inappropriate material; I've never heard of a "courtesy addition" of stuff to a person's userpage, as POW's edit summary says. In this community culture, it has long been reckoned discourteous to edit others' userpages other than for really good reasons. It's not supposed to be done in the service of busybodying. I'm sure it's well-meant (well, reading POW's confrontational reply to Stuart's objection makes me a little less sure), and the edit summary does go on "revert if not wanted". But just think how much better it would be if the user added it if it was wanted. How do you know the user will even be around to revert it, Andy? Bishonen talk 10:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

• I love POW's reply on his talk—self-confidence is such an admirable trait. Should an editor post links to external sites that provide personal information on a user which that user has not revealed on Wikipedia? Normally, no, because that's WP:OUTING. However, it's ok if you are full of confidence and use a nice edit summary (I suggest "if you are unhappy that I have OUTed you, feel free to revert this and ask for oversight before anyone sees it"). Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody should be linking to personal off-wiki information about other people on their own user pages! Thrub (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree completely with Thrub. What's the point of doing anyone this "favor", without his or her prior input? And as Bish points out, why is this user taking it upon himself to edit other people's user pages at all? The "revert if not wanted" disclaimer is ludicrous as well. Would it be acceptable to post someone's home address and phone number on their own Facebook wall, and then add, "You're free to take this down if you don't want it here"? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with Thrub, Bishonen, et al. Note that this "courtesy" was added to nine user pages—not just the ones Stuart mentioned and those editors have not edited on Wikipedia in days and one case months. They should all be reverted. Voceditenore (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not revert the addition of the ORCID template to my user page. The ORCID link does not reveal any information that is not already public: it connects one public profile containing my real name to another. The template is a useful thing to have there- in fact I was under the mistaken impression that I'd already added it myself. If I didn't want the template, I would have reverted the edit.

I was under the impression that WP:Original research was a policy applying to article content. If it applies to user pages as well, then perhaps the policy needs to be clarified and new users warned. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've reverted all the others except for MartinPoulter - only the 'owner' of a user page should be adding their own personal info and links, whether it's already public knowledge or not. Thrub (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• All of these links definitely violate the WP:OUTING policy if they are applied by another user. They should all be reverted and oversighted. If the users want the links on their user page, then they can add them back themselves. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • They're all reverted and oversighted now, except Martin Poulter's in accordance with his comments above. PhilKnight (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I wasnt sure if it was OS material but my mail and this Oversighting confirms the same. The matter looks closed now, and I'll just leave this reminder to User:Pigsonthewing again to never WP:OUT anyone. Also, since it looks like the general consensus, please don't edit others' User pages without permission.

Regards,

Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 19:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese characters and WP:NOCONSENSUS

Can an impartial administrator please take a look at the move discussion at Chinese characters and determine if WP:NOCONSENSUS applies to whether the article should be moved back to Chinese character or not? Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Will check, give me half an hour. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Checked, found nothing overturnable in the way the debate was closed. I have advised Curly Turkey of the possibility of WP:Move review, but would recommend against it, to avoid the appearance of "beating a dead horse". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite Blocks

An editor who has been indefinitely blocked removes any mention of his block using anon IPs, (after hurling abuse that is). Are they allowed to do that and if a user has been indef blocked, isn't there a notice that is supposed to stay on their user and user talk page and should not be removed? 137.191.232.115 (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to edit war with them to keep the indef block notice. Anyone editing their talk page will see that they are blocked anyway. –xeno^talk 13:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but an editor who is indefinitely blocked and removing a template for an active sanction (which technically should stay according to our guideline) and is doing so with personal attacks included should have their user talk page access revoked. Who is the editor doing this? -- Atama頭 19:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. That guideline has been inappropriately made dependent on an essay here because of this. I'm reverting that change because a guideline shouldn't be dependent on an essay. It is arguable whether a block should be considered a "sanction", and there is a long history of allowing users to remove their block notifications. –xeno^talk 19:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This, at least, is the consensus I remember. There have, over the years, been pushes to force users to keep block notices on their page. The most recent RFC on it doesn't seem to have been closed: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 106#RFC on WP:BLANKING and I don't think the guideline/long-standing practice should be changed via a link to an essay with ~2 authors being inserted. –xeno^talk 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In the abstract, I would tend to assume that a block is a form of sanction. I would recommend linking sanction is some manner to a clear definition, ideally one that makes it clear that a block is not considered a sanction. DonIago (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree. But not to an essay written by only two principal authors (both non-administrators). –xeno^talk 20:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree. :) DonIago (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Policies/guidelines should not be dependent on essays" - Which, ahem, policy or guideline says this? Or where was it decided? As for block notices active block notices should not be allowed to be removed, period, IMHO; expired ones can absolutely go bye-bye. - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 23:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#­Content: "avoid overlinking. Links to policies, guidelines, essays, and articles should be used only when clarification or context is needed. Links to other advice pages may inadvertently or intentionally defer authority to them. Make it clear when links defer, and when they do not." –xeno^talk 02:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've been looking into this further and it appears the words "any other notice regarding an active sanction" (unlinked at the time) were inserted by user:Monty845[32] based on a somewhat dubious close of this muddy RFC by User:Sandstein: Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 10#May sanctions that are actively in effect be removed from a user talk page . I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem like a strong consensus to change the long-standing status quo regarding removing block notices. Most of the users in that 2012 RFC were talking about different things from one another! For years, consensus has existed that block notices should not be "scarlet letters" kept in place by force to humiliate the blocked user - if a user wants to blank them and leave the project (or sit out their block, etc.). No, I think a much more clear, well-structured, -trafficked, and -advertised discussion should be held (and closed by a more neutral party) if we are going to ask administrators to enforce keeping scarlet letters on user talk pages via the user page guideline. –xeno^talk 03:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  Accordingly, I've undone that change. A new RFC should be held with wider participation, taking into account the problrms with the 2013 RFC from the village pump, and then actually closed this time. –xeno^talk 03:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • That's a load of bull, Xeno: regardless of your feelings about how justified Monty845's insertion of the text was, that was almost 2 years ago, and the time to challenge Monty845's addition was then. Now, after almost 2 years, you can't just remove that text without obtaining explicit consensus to do so. I will revert you momentarily. Nsk92 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • A mistaken edit is a mistaken edit no matter how long ago it was made. Could you point me to a strong consensus that shows wide community acceptance for the belief that users must be forced to keep scarlet letters on their talk pages if they wish to depart from the project? Yes, those words have stood for a while, but they are ambiguous, based on a dubious read of a lightly-trafficked and muddied RFC closed by a user who is deeply involved in enforcement, and the status quo stood for much longer. –xeno^talk 03:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Your opinion about the edit being "mistaken" and about the merits of an RFC as being dubious is a personal and subjective one. Who exactly are you to say that? Does being a bureaucrat make you untouchable and your opinion inviolate? The fact is that the phrase in question stood unchallenged for more than 1.5 years. That fact alone makes it a part of established consensus now. If you'd reverted Monty845's addition within a few days or at least a few weeks of the time it was made, you would have been perfectly within your rights to do that. But now, for a removal that is not uncontroversial, a new explicit consensus for doing so needs to be established first. Nsk92 (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I've reviewed many of the recent discussions today on the subject and disagree that there was a strong community consensus 1.5 years ago to change the 10-year status quo based on that muddied RFC closed by Sandstein. See most recently Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 12#WP:BLANKING, again and the village pump RFC linked above. I'm off for the evening, but tomorrow I will craft a very narrow RFC on the subject that should hopefully generate a stronger read of current feelings on this matter. –xeno^talk 04:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
          • A new RfC will be a perfectly fine way to go. My point is that even if you feel that that there was not a strong community consensus 1.5 years ago to make the addition that Monty845 made, the basic tenet of WP:EDITCONSENSUS still applies in this case: Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Maybe Monty845 misapplied the results of the RfC you mention or maybe he was just being WP:BOLD, who is to say. The mere fact that his edit stood unchallenged for over 1.5 years makes it a part of established consensus now, and, given the apparently controversial nature of the topic, the edit cannot be simply reversed without establishing new consensus first. Nsk92 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
            • Not unchallenged. I'll try to put something together tomorrow or over the weekend. –xeno^talk 04:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

information pages?

Related question: everyone seems to agree that policies should not be dependent on essays. Should information pages also not be dependent on essays? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Which information page did you have in mind? (Keeping in mind that {{information page}} explicitly defers back to a guideline or policy.) –xeno^talk 22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything cites two guidelines Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), one policy (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), and one essay (Wikipedia:Independent sources). An information page normally has a notice saying

"This is an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one."

so it seems odd that it references an essay. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

42--Mark Miller (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I showed on the talk page that everything in WP:42 is drawn directly from WP:N and WP:V. So It doesn't actually need to reference an essay. I'll go ahead and make the appropriate change now. Reyk_YO! 03:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Indian general election: spam and POV warring

There are national elections in India this year and we're starting to see a lot of problems regarding POV edits to both BLPs and articles about the political parties. The issue has been raised at WT:INB but, frankly, the more eyes on this, the better. One particularly obvious trait has been attempts by new contributors to create articles about non-notable candidates for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), often including the usual copyright violations of both text and images and almost invariably very badly written. Several of these have recently been deleted via AfD and doubtless more will have to head that way as the AAP continue their piecemeal release of candidate lists. Category:Aam Aadmi Party politicians exists and I rather suspect that this is an organised effort to harness Wikipedia as part of the campaign, although it may be plain naivety. So, yes, eyes please. Ta muchly. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Insisting to include large direct quotes

This is an incident. Please see WP:ANI, same section name. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Crimea (country) Speedy Close?

Seeing the last AfD ended just 4 days ago and that an RfC started before the AfD is going on at the same time is there a way to speedy close this AfD? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Three AfDs in less than a week is against policy. I have closed the discussion as a speedy keep, just as the last one was closed, and directed people to the RfC if they want to weigh in on the fate of the article. This is a no-brainer, both from a policy standpoint and a common sense standpoint. -- Atama頭 18:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, could you add links to the previous AfDs? I can find only one of them (under a different title, where confusingly there is now yet another forked-off article). It's all very confusing. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed this is all very confusing. Having three different articles about Crimea with overlapping information is a headache. → Call meHahc21 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I added them to the top of the recently-closed AfD. The RfC is the place to hash all of this out. I agree that all of this can get confusing and you're not alone in the headache. I'm wondering if A10 could be used for any other forks that pop up (knock on wood that it doesn't happen). -- Atama頭 19:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My goal in this, by the way, has been to reduce the confusion by centralizing the discussion in two places. What if the AfD closed as delete before the RfC finished? What if the AfD closed as "merge" as many people suggested, but the consensus at the RfC leaning toward not merging? -- Atama頭 19:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be a case of IAR and undo any result of the AFD (if this was the case) in favor of the RFC to resolve the issue of how to handle this article in light of many other details. That's one reason to remember that we are not a bureaucracy, we don't have to hold ourselves to process if it harms proper discussion towards article improvement. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal needing input

User:AnomieBOT III will currently convert attempted interwiki redirects into soft redirects. It has been proposed that the bot also apply {{prod}} to such redirects in article space, as WP:Soft redirect discourages these. Please comment at WP:VPR#Proposal to automatically ProD redirects to other language versions of wikipedia, instead of turhing them into soft redirects. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 13:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

RFP backlog

Could someone please deal with the increasing WP:RFP backlog. Thanks. JMHamo (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit notice

Could someone please create this page containing this template {{British-English-editnotice}}? Alex ^{discussion ★} 21:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Relisted as an edit request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Verbalisation. Anon126(talk - contribs) 22:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Azerbaijan in 1918 in the Template:Country data Azerbaijan

File needs deleting

Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files

There is backlog over at Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files if an admin has a half hour to spare. LGA _talk^edits 20:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

There is a present move request at the Crimea article, which would move that to Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the former Ukrainian administrative unit, whereas Republic of Crimea would deal with the present unrecognised Russian territory. This has seen a significant amount, near unanimous support for this move, though not for a secondary proposed move regarding a different article. Having that article, with deals with only the Autonomous Republic, being titled "Crimea" is causing editing problems, as people are confused as to which Crimea it refers to. I suggest an administrator look into the move request, and perhaps consider moving Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea early, so as to prevent these issues. RGloucester — ☎ 23:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has opened a new thread at WP:ANI on this regard. RGloucester — ☎ 01:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing here as I've said on ANI: We've had move-warring on these articles. The last thing we need now is hastily implemented further moves triggered by discussions on admin noticeboards, without secure consensus, side-stepping the normal processes. There is a requested move, which was only opened two days ago and is still drawing a lot of participation. Let it play out normally. There is no need to "fast-track" anything. We can wait a few days more until the consensus there is clear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a slow-moving freighter, rather than a speed boat, no? What's wrong with patience? Howunusual (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would agree with Fut.Perf. On hot topic articles, slowing things down is usually better than speeding them up. The regular process is the best course to take. Dennis Brown 2¢ WER 00:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• In that case, our Crimea article will remain fully protected, outdated, and violate NPOV, along with terribly confusing readers as to what the article is about. I understand where you guys are coming from, but this really feels like an exception. Try reading the lead of the article, as it stands. It just doesn't make sense, in context. Meanwhile, we have people establishing forks like Republic of Crimea (country) because no one knows which article refers to what. RGloucester — ☎ 01:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • At the very least, the article should have a notice saying that a discussion to move the page is in progress. That way people will know that something is being done about it, and maybe they won't make more irrelevant requests. It might also encourage them to participate. CodeCat (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • We have templates for notifying readers that an article may be affected by current events. I really wish people would relax and move away from the mindset that the instant anything happens it must be described in full on Wikipedia right now this very second oh my gosh I can't believe no one has updated the page yet! The project needs to care more about quality and less about up-to-the-second news. After all, that's what Wikinews is supposedly for, not that anyone acts like it exists. --108.38.196.65 (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• • A fully protected article can be edited by an admin, if the admin is inserting text that has a clear consensus on the talk page. Get a consensus, ask an uninvolved admin for any changes that would make it make more sense after developing the consensus. The purpose of the full protect isn't really to prevent any editing, it is to prevent any editing that doesn't have a clear and obvious consensus. Dennis Brown 2¢ WER 12:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem. We can't edit it until the requested move is complete, as the scope of the article is dependent on that RM. That's why we had requested the fast track, however, I suppose I understand what you are saying. If there is nothing we can do, there is nothing we can do. RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has now been 6 days, and there hasn't been anything new for the last 2 or so. The consensus is still clearly in favour of the move. Could an administrator please make the changes? CodeCat (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point I would agree that a closure would be quite legitimate. The distribution of opinions appears quite clear and stable now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, I would agree with you. The key was to slow it down enough to get all the opinions and to insure it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, but it has served its purpose so an admin can probably go ahead and close it. Dennis Brown2¢WER 15:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Want to do the honours? You didn't participate in the poll, did you? (I did, so I obviously can't close it.) Fut.Perf.☼ 15:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look and close, although I may leave the splitting and merging part to the people who are actually editing the article and know the material better, such as yourself. Dennis Brown2¢WER 17:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't close lots of these, I handle more personality disputes than content disputes. It didn't take but about 10 seconds to get a complaint on my talk page, which I expected once I started wading through the discussion. Lots of passion there, understandably. Dennis Brown2¢WER 18:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you closed... well, the "wrong" discussion I suppose. The one I was referring to is on Talk:Crimea, concerning a move of that article to Autonomous Republic of Crimea and of Crimean peninsula to Crimea. CodeCat (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I closed one that was an RFC and mentioned at the top of this discussion. I would request a different admin close the discussion you are referring to, it isn't good to have the same admin close two very similar discussions in the same day. Dennis Brown2¢WER 19:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

And it seems Dbachmann went ahead and implemented one half of the proposal already, by moving Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and somebody else then half-implemented the other part, not by moving but by redirecting the Crimea title to the existing Crimean Peninsula, but nobody has so far made a formal closure. It would still be good if we could have one, to provide lasting documentation of the state of consensus with respect to that second part (the first being quite obvious). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple of people are rather vocally against the close, including one who is really losing their cool. I suggest just letting him run out of steam, I'm not bothered personally, I expected as much considering the count. I will probably just sit back and let it be reviewed. It was an easy or obvious close, but I trust the community to review it. Dennis Brown 2¢ WER 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We still need somebody to close the main discussion, now at Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea, with respect to the second part of the proposal: whether there is consensus to move the geographical Crimean peninsula to the Crimea main title. Unfortunately, several people have taken it upon themselves to implement all sorts of things without waiting for that closure (somebody unilaterally moved yet another page, the disambiguation page, over the main Crimea title, which is certainly not what the consensus in the existing debate supports; yet other people have been opening yet more duplicated move requests elsewhere. Can somebody please step in and just wind up the thing that was already open? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Lyndsey Turner

So I just tried to create a subpage to see if this person was notable enough for an article but am not allowed to create said subpage? Would someone be so kind as to create it for me? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume by subpage you mean an article. Lyndsey Turner was deleted several times and protected from recreation by JzG. If you believe it deserves an article and you can make one which doesn't fall foul of the reasons the previous ones were deleted, I'd suggest you contact JzG directly and ask for the protection to be lifted.

I'm a little confused though by your saying you tried to create a page to 'see if this person was notable enough'. How would creating the page tell you that? Wouldn't it make more sense to work out if she's notable, and only create the page if you decide she is? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Subpages in article space are generally frowned upon. Maybe a Draft: or AfC page would help more. ansh666 16:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

An article by an editor in good standing should be allowed, as this person appears to be at least marginally notable. The previous issues appeared to be mainly that the article was created by a banned sockpuppet. Another version was deleted due to "legal issues" via OTRS, though I can't see anything obviously problematic in that version (though I can't see the ticket). I'd note that a further version was deleted as G4 (previously deleted in a deletion discussion) although there has never been an AfD for this article as far as I can see. Pinging @JzG:. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• How singular that two people have been motivated to do the same thing just after Fairyspit's latest sockfarming attempt was stopped - I wonder if this has cropped up in conversation somewhere? So, we have a real-life problem which is not unrelated to the obsession of user:Fairyspit with creating this article at any title he can get away with, which has led to a strongly expressed preference from the subject not to have an article at this time. If an article is created then everybody involved will have to spend a lot of time dealing with the endless socks of Fairyspit, who is obsesed with Ms. Turner and Benedict Cumberbatch. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• From Guy's comment I can't see how we can protect any article from unwelcome socking and the subject feeling harrassed is to write something brief and full protect it indefinitely. I'm not sure that BLP really covers the concept of articles being created as part of an online campaign by an obsessed person but this surely needs to be considered against the maxim of do no harm. If someone seriously wants to put an article up, I suggest you prepare a decent draft and put it up at DRV for discussion but I can't see how we can entertain any unprotected or semied article at this time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

• This is .. tricky. I'd agree that if notability is marginal, the subject's wishes should be taken into account. On the other hand, she has won awards (she is, bar one from 28 years ago, the only director at Critics'_Circle_Theatre_Award#Best_Director without an article), and at least one of her plays has an article itself. There are a lot of sources out there. Legal issues and sockpuppetry can be dealt with through our normal procedures. (Incidentally, I don't see that the article can go through DRV as it's never had an AfD). Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Any deletion can be looked at by DRV so having this discussion there is fine. I suggest we close this one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Guys, I was trying to create a subpage in userspace, not mainspace. Permission error is what I am getting. So will an admin kindly create that subpage for me, or shall I just create a new sandbox? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is a DRV going on at WP:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 22#Lyndsey Turner (stage director)Thincat (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • DS, I suggest you wait for the result of that discussion before considering any draft. If DRV agrees that we should write something new we can look at then at that time. In the meantime, I'd close this request and move all the discussion to DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I will start in a sandbox then. The deleted version will not be restored as it was deleted for legal reasons going by what I see written over there. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Admins with access, please check Ticket:2014012210016753. This is still an ongoing real-world problem. I have asked for something I can post openly, please bear with me. Guy(Help!) 22:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

From the subject, with permission:

Whilst I understand and support completely the project of Wikipedia, I am currently in the middle of an attempt to stem a small but significant tide of harassment which has recently become a police matter. As the case is still active, I feel that it would be damaging to the protocol of the investigation to allow a page to be created, knowing that it might well become a focus for further intimidation. I do hope you can understand my concern in this matter.

Let's not be evil. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@JzG: that's helpful, and it must be very difficult to know how to handle these things. Thincat (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Guy has always been one of our very best OTRS agents and deals with these things with an aplomb I can only envy. Spartaz^Humbug! 14:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Kind of you to say so, I do try to do the decent thing wherever possible. I agree this one is hard to call: Fairyspit may just be a troll, but it may be more sinister. As a former victim of internet harassment that crossed into RL, I obviously lean towards a more cautious approach. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fairyspit

Move image to Commons

I uploaded commons:File:Banana boat.jpg to use in Banana boat, but it appears there's already an orphaned File:Banana boat.jpg that was intended for Banana Boat, and now the names conflict. Would someone mind moving File:Banana boat.jpg to the Commons? hinnk (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi hinnk. I have moved the local file to File:Banana Boat (band).jpg so the Commons file is no longer shadowed. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! hinnk (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential software problem

When dealing with a user with an obnoxious obfuscated username, I came across what appears to be an error in normalizing strings for display in edit summaries. I've tested it with an edit to my own user page here, where the same text was cut-and-pasted into both the edit window and edit comment. Yet one displays as (what looks like) "Butt", and the other as (what looks like) "Bumm". Can anyone else reproduce this? -- The Anome (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

On further investigation: this appears to be a display issue on my brower, appearing in some fonts, but not in others. Perhaps this is an artifact of the typography refresh beta, which I have opted into? -- The Anome (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not seeing this when logged out: this suggests the problem is likely to be related to the typography refresh. Moreover, the correct character seems to be in the HTML page source, even when I'm logged in. -- The Anome (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

See Serbian cyrillic#Differences from other Cyrillic alphabets, particularly the image (not directly related, but you get an idea what's going on). Not sure what exactly you saw, but there is a typographic difference in normal vs. italic Cyrillic glyphs. No such user (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And at least in Russian, it's used formally; see how ПОЧТА СССР ("Postage USSR") displays at 1 and 2 stamps. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly what I'm seeing. The interesting question is why it's different in different fonts -- presumably some support proper Cyrillic italic forms, and others just faux-italicise the Cyrillic letters? -- The Anome (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas

Can some uninvolved editors (admins and non-admins alike) go to Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas and either give their opinion, to help the rather deadlocked discussion forward, or close the discussion which ever way they see fit? The thing is rather contentious, opinions are divided, and no progress is being made (rather the opposite) after more than a month. On the plus side, most of the discussion was civil and no obvious socks have been spotted! Fram (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hint: start at the bottom. The question is: may a hook (ALT8) say on the Main page that a politian's father-in-law termed him a "disgrace" in his will (if this is the topic of news, and the politician sued a Greek Wikipedian)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

...Or just read the whole thing, and make up your own mind. The intention was to get uninvolved editors, by giving a neutral invitation. No idea why you felt the need to add your rather non-neutral hint here. Fram (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

ALT7, Gerda, was that fact hook. ALT8 was the milquetoast "observation" hook brought up from one editor's insistence on Wikipedia's self-censorship.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed my mistake and came to correct, ALT7 is the one ;) - "Read the whole thing" - you are asking people to waste their time. - I was not involved in the creation of the article, only said a few times (2?) that I think the hook (ALT7!) is ok. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War/General sanctions

If I wish to file an enforcement request under these sanctions, do I do it at AE or here? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Policy change on WP:BAN needs your input

Feel free to stop over to this proposal on banning specifically related to proxying, and give your input! KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC closure review

Please review the RFC discussion closure on the question of "Is information about the actions of Christie administration officials appropriate for the article?" The closing statement was worded in a way that was non-responsive to the central question of the discussion, which as indicated by the title of the RFC, the description of the question in the RFC opening statement, and the instruction to the participants for how to respond (namely, "Please begin your comment with Support or Oppose [meaning whether you support or oppose including information about Christie administration officials in the article], followed by your reasoning") was whether the article should include or exclude information about actions taken by associates of the subject of the article. I have discussed the matter with the closer here and here. Dezastru (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is disagreement from other editors with Dezastru's efforts to re-litigate this discussion (Talk discussion), as well as his attempts to insert inflammatory content in this BLP.CFredkin (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with an unconstructive/test edit done by a grieving friend or family member with a good intention

This I discovered today when I was checking the edit history of my high school's Wikipedia article. Although this IP address user seemed to have a good intention, it did not belong on Wikipedia. Who knows? This person did not seem to mean to vandalize Wikipedia and he/she must have been at the grief state. I actually knew Madison Holleran personally so quite frankly I was touched by that edit. I dropped a note to that IP talk page to let him/her know that the edit did not belong to Wikipedia but I did not sound deterring at all. Is there something I could have done when dealing with that type of vandalism? Maybe suggesting something? NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, since as you say they didn't mean any harm to Wikipedia, it wasn't actually vandalism (though still not right to be in the article, of course). Vandalism is defined as an edit made with the deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia; edits like this, misguided though they are, aren't malicious, so it's not vandalism. Thus, you could've avoided calling it vandalism in your message, but other than that, I don't think there was much else for you to do; letting them know why their edit was reverted in a thoughtful way was the right thing to do. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate what Writ Keeper just said, because it is very important. The concepts of "vandalism" and "good intention" are absolutely, 100% mutually exclusive. Any action taken by someone with good intentions cannot ever be called vandalism. Full stop. Only those actions where the person is actually trying to make a Wikipedia article worse can be called "vandalism". Bad edits which the writer believes are making Wikipedia better in some way (even if they are mistaken) are never vandalism; so you should not use that word when discussing the edit with the person who made it. What you should do is to remove the edit, and then politely start a discussion (avoiding accusations of bad faith or vandalism) and try to inform the person who made the mistake why it wasn't a great thing to do. --Jayron32 01:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

To clear this up, I actually knew that that "vandalism" wasn't real vandalism. And I changed the title of this discussion. Yes, it is an edit that does not belong there, but I know that the person was just making that edit to remember Madison Holleran, someone I actually knew in real life (the word of mouth about her death is in the national level; you can Google her name). Like I said, I did not leave any vandalism warnings on that IP talk page. I just have a habit of thinking that unconstructive edits that deserve to get reverted, are vandalism but there are times when actual vandalism can be unintentional (such as blanking the page with an intention of a test edit). NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 04:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Add: I can take a look at this page. It's just that it is easy to mistake certain unconstructive edits (including good intention edits that don't belong on actual articles) as vandalism. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 04:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help needed

Hi, guys.

It's past time for my periodic appeal for copyright help. :)

Some of you may be aware that we very nearly lost User:Wizardman, who has been pulling a lot of weight in copyright cleanup. He threw his hands up in disgust over the apathy towards this problem here and the next day decided to leave altogether. I've very happy that he has decided to come back to some extent, but he's letting copyright work go for now. I support that. Never mind that he deserves to take pleasure in the work here, his loss to the project would be immense for other reasons than copyright. :)

But we nearly lost him because this work isn't getting done, and we need more help. Most of the time, this isn't difficult - it just takes a few simple steps. (Admin tools sometimes required; sometimes not.)

At WP:CP, you compare a flagged article to the source; check copied content for "backwards copying"; check for rewrite; remove copied content (if not compatibly licensed) or replace it with rewritten content, if proposed; check to make sure the user has proper notice and (if repeat offender) is blocked or strongly cautioned if appropriate.

WP:SCV is even simpler. These are new articles, and backwards copying is less of an issue. (When it is, it usually means copying & pasting within Wikipedia; check for attribution.) Removing copied content doesn't generally involve taking away anybody else's work other than the person who did the copy-paste. Quite often, this is WP:CSD#G12 territory.

At WP:CCI, you check the links to see if there's signs of copying. If a CCI subject seems to have introduced substantial copied content, you remove it or you flag the article with {{copyvio}} and list it at WP:CP for handling.

(More detailed directions are available at all three pages if you want them.)

Please, even if you give just like 30 minutes a week or so, we could make this a manageable task, if multiple people do. You don't need to bend to it until you burn out (a condition I've had to manage multiple times over the years). Just chip away a bit now and then. Even if you just take the easy pickings and leave the hard stuff for somebody else, you'll be easing the burden considerably. We have a few good people who toil away in that area, but the work is substantial, and we can't afford to burn out anybody else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is an underlying problem that keeps the copyvio treadmill going at the speed it does. Far too often I come across editors who add multiple copyvios over an extended period of time, somehow escape community scrutiny and only manage to find their talk pages after I block them. In fact, I indeffed no less than four such editors during the weekend Wizardman left (in fact, this is likely the reason he left). Please pay attention when you are handing out copyvio warnings -- non-communicative copyvio editors should be blocked, not warned. MER-C 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

How do they escape scrutiny? What can be done about that? Don't feel you have to answer both questions at once, but it seems this could use some extended discussion. Maybe @Wizardman: also has ideas? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My hypotheses are (1) drive-by warnings -- this is more noticeable with image copyvios -- and (2) editors who remove copyvios not checking who added them and taking the appropriate action. MER-C 13:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm involved in a number of places on Wikipedia... Helping out WP:ANI (and trying if possible to reduce the drama), helping at WP:COIN and WP:SPI, reviewing and taking action on WP:PROD and WP:CSD, as well as some specific articles I work on somewhat long-term (both as an editor and as an admin). But Moonriddengirl is someone who has been awesome in the past helping me and many others, and if I can help her a little I will, so I'm going to try to devote at least a little time each week to this, despite my fairly limited background with copyright-related issues. I'm saying all of this because if I can help out, I'm sure others can too. -- Atama頭 16:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so how do we help ourselves out? When I come across a copyvio image I tag and remove it, check for other contribs, and warn the user accordingly. What I don't do is go back and check the user's future contribs because there's no easy way to "watchlist" them and having a "problematic contributor" list in talk space is frowned upon. So, can we come up with an easier way to monitor contribs of potentially problematic editors? --NeilN^{talk to me} 18:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Check the user's talk page too. Twinkle automatically notifies the user without you even seeing his/her talk page. If they have a history of doing the same (two copyvio warnings is enough) then report them at ANI or AIV. MER-C 09:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I do check the talk page and report if necessary. What I would like is some kind of Wikipedia feature that would remind me to check the future contribs of editors who don't warrant a report. Mr. Stradivarius has some good ideas below. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, you check back in 1 or 2 or 3 months, depending of frequency of edit. We could use an effective automated way of reminding us. Not necessarily everyone the first time, because there are just too many, but certainly after the second. After the second, and certainly after the third, it's a non routine matter and some personal warning outside the notices can get attention--with just the notice people think its like a automatically generated bill, and you can wait till they really start bothering you. Even following up on 1 person is a significant help, if enough of us do it. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Google has a calendar feature that's handy for this kind of task. You can ask it to send you an email on the day you want to follow up. Microsoft Outlook has a good calendar feature as well -- Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be best if the information found by one editor could be shared between all copyright patrollers. Perhaps we could have a new tool on Labs that creates a queue of users to check. It could schedule checks depending on the frequency and severity of the copyrights that patrollers found. Or perhaps we could integrate this functionality into one or more of the existing recent-changes-patrolling tools like Huggle or STiki. Or we could make it a MediaWiki extension. I'd be interested to hear from West.andrew.g about this, as he is the developer of STiki and I remember that he was doing research about copyvio on Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius^{♪ talk ♪} 02:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

YES. Not just on copyright. In addition to our watchlists, many of us have our own lists of people to check back on for various specific problems, and it would be nice to have a way of sharing it. (at present mine are kept as lists of Safari bookmarks) DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Quiddity (WMF): Is WP:Flow going to have an automatic following-up/reminder system? I want one. Having a note magically reappear in front of me a month after explaining copyright issues to someone would be very handy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, ditto. "Reminders" is on the list of requested features, but not currently prioritized. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the original topic: please don't issue temporary blocks for copyvios. Understanding the copyright policy is a prerequisite for making long term constructive contributions and persistent copyright violators need to show this before being allowed to edit again. A temporary block defeats this purpose and often doesn't work, adding to the workload. MER-C 12:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Just asking - Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Could an Admin review the recent edits of the unregistered editor User:Phecda109 as seen in response to my post seen here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#South_Indian_Current and especially in the one above I listed, where the editor says, "Go to Wikinews if you want to prove you have a fast cock." If I am wrong, likewise, please tell me. I assume good faith generally, but this stretches credulity. Please review. Thank you. Juneau Mike (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-Admin response) I just checked, and I don't see the edit you're describing. I do see Phecda109 advising you not to attempt to use OR in this artiole, and yes, he gets a bit emotional and pushes civility with the comment

Then please stop offering speculative research areas for this missing vessel, in an encylopedia. I don't say this lightly, Are You Stupid?Phecda109 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That said, I also see other users in agreement with that. Other than the above comment, I see no other problems with his claim that you were attempting to put OR into the article, but that yeah, that above comment from him should have been worded nicer. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 10:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer of that page, it seems to me that the vast majority of editors are behaving constructively to develop the page according to policy and guidelines. User:Phecda109, a new single purpose account, is the exception, and is causing a lot of unnecessary aggravation which is distracting from the proper discussion of a very important developing and sensitive article. Can the context of their involvement be taken into account in deciding on any action to be taken? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Backlog over at Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files

Can an admin please take half an hour to review the following, over a month has passed since they were due to be reviewed :

• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 15 January 2014‎ has 4 images
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 28 January 2014‎ has a image
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 8 February 2014‎‎ has 4 images
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 9 February 2014‎‎ has 2 images
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 10 February 2014‎‎ has a image
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 12 February 2014‎‎ has 4 images
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 13 February 2014‎‎ has 6 images
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 14 February 2014‎‎ has a image
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 15 February 2014‎‎ has 5 images

Thanks LGA _talk^edits 20:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Advice needed on a possible filter

I posted this at ANI a few days ago: We have had problems in the past with editors promoting concepts and terms from Europa Universalis - creating categories, renaming articles, changes of government types within articles, etc. Several socks were blocked last September over this and copyvio issues- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis/Archive. Yesterday I discovered some page moves relating to this and today I have found a number of IPs doing similar edits, all geo-locating to Rio de Janeiro. Two IPs in the same range were involved last year. Recently - that is from January until yesterday, other IPs have been making the same type of edits. Most recent ones are 187.15.70.13 (talk · contribs), 187.14.224.110 (talk · contribs) and 187.15.48.73 (talk · contribs). Others include 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.53.42 (talk · contribs) 187.15.54.135 (talk · contribs), 187.15.38.249 (talk · contribs), 187.15.8.12 (talk · contribs), 187.14.230.20 (talk · contribs), 187.15.71.7 (talk · contribs), and 187.15.73.173 (talk · contribs). I'm still searching for recent additions of "Noble republic", Administrative republic, Republican Dictatorship, Revolutionary empire, Administrative monarchy, all of which can be found at the game's wiki[33] and were part of a now deleted template here which Admins can view.[34]. Part of the tactic is to add sourced text to force the phrase into an article, eg [35]. Note this is copyvio from [36]. Some edits have misrepresented sources, eg [37]. These are all throwaway IP addresses.

I spent some "lovely" hours (and ended up buying Charles Esdaile's Peninsular War, Kindle edition), when I found more copy from the same 187.15 and 187.14 ranges - the same problems we faced before with Turgeis (talk · contribs) and his socks. See my edits at Mutiny of Aranjuez (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). I've ended up giving these long term semi-protection, but that won't work with the Europa Universalis vandals.

I've been told there would be too much collateral damage so I'm wondering if a filter would be the answer, but I don't understand filters well enough. Would it be possible to create one to catch the addition of certain words and phrase so that I would be notified when that occurred? This is an ongoing problem with edits as recently as 2 days ago. What I've realised since I posted to ANI is that some of the Europa Universalis edits add copyvio material unrelated to Esdaile (as well as misrepresent other sources). Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be fairly simple to use a filter to prevent non-logged-in users from 187.15.0.0/16 from adding any of those phrases to articles. -- The Anome (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Now created. For those with the appropriate permissions, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/609 -- The Anome (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Could an admin fix a "Cut and Paste" article move.

An editor appears to have wanted to "rename" Ballast Point Light to Ballast Point Lighthouse, but instead of simply moving the page, the editor created the new article and cut and pasted the information over to the new article. Could an admin fix this so that the articles "edit history" can also be moved with it please? I'm not contesting the move, just the manner in which it was "moved" so to speak.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Done — Scott • talk 22:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Backlog

There's loads of pages waiting to be patrolled at New Pages Feed. Lot of pages are waiting unreviewed. I'm helping clean them up but additional help would be good. Thanks. Ethically^Yours! 09:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Block review request

Back in September 2013, an SPA did a massive resume/unsourced name drop into the article for Stratos Tzortzoglou. The article was protected for awhile as the SPA was clearly there to promote the actor. Today, I noticed a new SPA account belonging to a PR agency, Kcbny (talk · contribs) (see earliest revision of their user page), returned to the article and dumped a similar list into the article, this time with a ton of external links. A few days ago, they attempted to add back in all of the name dropping quotations and promotional fluff but were reverted. I blocked the account as a role account, but I just realized that per WP:INVOLVED, I probably should have not done so. Can some interested admin review the block and if they agree with the block, reset it under their name? Or if they disagree, unblock and thwack me with a fish? Re-protecting the article might be a good idea, too. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Upon seeing userpages like that, I typically block even if they haven't made any edits to other pages; you made the right choice. Per Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there's no real need to re-block; if anyone complains, give them the diff for this edit. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Passes the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" exception to WP:INVOLVED. Bringing it here for review fulfills any obligation as well. Better to let someone else do the blocking most of the time, but like Nyttend said, we aren't a bureaucracy. Dennis Brown 2¢ WER 17:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. I just wanted to keep everything above board and preferred a review just in case. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Paintings with wrong licence ?

see uploads of user:Lpen, there are some paintings that shall be checked--Musamies (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have checked the remaining images and left the uploader a note. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Will Beback ban appeal

Original announcement

Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Noting for those too lazy to click the link that the ban of Will Beback has been suspended under a set of conditions. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ferahgo the Assassin ban appeal

Original announcement

Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Noting for those too lazy to click the link that the ban of Ferahgo the Assassin has been suspended under a set of conditions. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations by User:Jnyerere89

I present to you this user, Jnyerere89 who is repeatedly uploading images without any license information on them. He's received way too many warnings, as evident on his talk page. Any suggestions on how to deal with this user? Thanks. Ethically^Yours! 05:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, I assure you all that my intention is not to defy warnings. I am not an experienced user on this site. I simply don't know how to add the citations on these images. I just need help but all the information I am reading about how to cite the images is confusing. Ethically (talk) — Preceding Jnyerere89 comment added 05:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(added proper indentation) I understand that it may not be your intention to defy warnings, and you may not be an experienced user. We all were once like you, even I. But for now, I'd suggest you edit articles and put an halt to uploading images, other than images you've taken and that are considered valuable for the project. Thanks! Ethically^Yours! 06:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you say so. User: Jnyerere89 06:29, 31 March 2014

User:Jnyerere89, it doesn't matter if you cannot do the citations - WP:COPYRIGHT is pretty serious business - if you didn't physically take the image with your hands on your camera, it has copyright. That means it's usually not legal to upload it to Wikipedia. See our image use policy for more details. The short version is: if you didn't take it, leave it alone. Although you've been here for a couple of years, I left an image-related Welcome on your talkpage - it will go far in explaining things related to images DP 09:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting merge about the short-lived independence of Crimea as a country

Propse deletion tags removed from the Icekid article. Comment

Greetings Administrators, I tagged the Icekid article with WP:PROD. Several minutes later, 123kiki removed the propose deletion tag. I Nominated the page for deletion using WP:CURATE few minutes later. This time, 76.65.174.150 undid my edit. I suspect that user 123kiki and 76.65.174.150 are the same people. These users have violated Wikipedia's policy regarding nomination tags. This needs to be look into it. Thanks! versace1608 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well first off, no, that's not what happened. 123kiki hasn't touched the article since you made your first edit. The IP removed the PROD tag which is perfectly acceptable per WP:PROD. Then the IP removed the AFD tag which isn't acceptable but which was quickly reverted. Looks like plenty of users have eyes on this already, everything looks good, no need for attention here.--v/r - TP 20:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been deleted now (G11).--Auric talk 20:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC is backlogged with more than 60 sections

WP:ANRFC is backlogged with more than 60 sections, and should be attended to at once. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is your perennial reminder that formal closure of discussion is not mandatory. If you've had an RFC open and consensus (or lack thereof) is obvious, then please do not list it at ANRFC. ANRFC is for discussions that are complicated and need help, not for routine things that can and should be settled by normal editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Do they all need to be handled by admins, or could a few experienced editors cherry pick the ones that are obvious and thus reduce the list? Alternatively, would having an experienced editor go through the list and make recommendations help? That way an admin could evaluate 20 or 30 of them, confirm that 100% were good calls, and then for the rest do a quick check and then rubber stamp them. With 43,181,219 registered users, 131,533 active editors, and 1,051 administrators, you need to make sure that the admins aren't doing anything that can be offloaded to experienced users working under administrator supervision. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

They definitely don't need to be done by admins or with admin supervision. As with AFD anything which would need the tools a non-admin shouldn't close and anything which is going to be controversial but everything else please do close. If you need help you can always post your suggested close rationale in the section (at ANRFC) and ask others to take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think any editor should be able to do anything that doesn't require use of tools. If you can close a discussion w/o tool use, then good. Any close that is poor will be brought up to some noticeboard exactly like they are now, and any close that is well done shouldn't need an admin rubberstamp to say so. Admin's don't run this project, we just have elevated permissions that we use on behalf of the community.--v/r - TP 21:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked over the open discussions and I'm willing to try a few NACs. However, as these will be my first closes, I'd appreciate if someone would check on me after I'm done. (Even if it isn't strictly necessary, as per the above comments.) Sunrise (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Specifically: here and here. Though I don't think the second one actually needed a formal close. Sunrise(talk) 00:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Those both look pretty good to me. The important thing about tackling an NAC is to really spend the time to totally understand all the policy arguments that are brought up (fortunately, neither of those had much policy-wise). On complex RfCs, I have spent well over an hour just reading the discussion and relevant policies before I start writing the thing up. Probably the most important element in complex and contentious RfCs is to show those who disagree with the outcome where and how to further pursue the matter. If you can show the policy reasons, and the rationale behind that particular policy, you give them tools with which to understand how a particular decision on a particular article or set of articles reflects the larger values and organization of the whole of Wikipedia. VanIsaac_WS^cont 06:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, and thanks for the advice. :-) Sunrise (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply - Thank you very much for your assistance @Sunrise:. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Az-507

About VNG (company) and VNG on Wiki Vietnam

Dear administrators! I have a problem hope you can solve. I'm now editing content for VNG page in Vietnamese and when I tend to edit it in English. I can't search it under the name "VNG" itself. Even thought it was the same company. So I wonder if you may change it back to "VNG" only. Many thanks Nataliethaile (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No: VNG is a disambiguation page, and there is no primary topic - see WP:DAB for more information. However, I've added VNG (company) onto the page, so it should be easier now. ansh666 08:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC) (oh, and apparently I was welcomed on vi-wiki in 2009! who knew.)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dear ansh, thanks for your help so now I can search for VNG and access VNG (company). Since we can't change the page name. So can you make that when user search "VNG Corporation", Wiki'll automatic go to VNG (company)

Done by User:Darkness Shines - see WP:Redirect for more info on what he did. ansh666 01:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(Btw, may be it a sign you should learn Vietnamese now. I'm glad to guide you LOL) Nataliethaile (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Darkness Shines and ansh. Thanks for your help to fix and redirect VNG (company) page. But I just found out that Wiki can delete VNG (company) and "reborn" it under the name "VNG Corporation" (content will stay). Can you help me doing this ? That would be nice for the brand and easier finding it from now on Nataliethaile (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user Redmen44 deleting unblock request comments (again)

Redmen44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently blocked for edit warring by User:DangerousPanda, left my name as part of his current unblock appeal. I left a comment as a semi-involved admin, but Redmen44 has since removed my comment and his original mention of my name. Redmen's behavior of removing comments during an unblock request is repeat behavior from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Blocked_user_Redmen44_deleting_unblock_request_comments. Repeating my observations from before, "Community discussion in unblock requests is common. Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#What_happens_when_you_request_unblock says "Often you will find more than one user commenting on your block, or a mini-discussion happening". This discussion cannot happen if a user insists on removing these comments."—Bagumba (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

While the individual incident seems under control now, do we generally feel it is appropriate for users to delete unblock request comments on their user page? A previous attempt to make it clear that it was not acceptable was reverted at WP:BLANKING with edit summary of "Longstanding practice, not a loophole."—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's my understanding that denied unblock requests may not be removed as long as the block is in place. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Mine too, its a record of the requests made and behavior between time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The technicality that the user is WP:GAMING with is removing comments from others in the community before an admin has handled the outstanding unblock request.—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Typically, any comments left by admins or others related to the unblock are considered to be part of the unblock and should not be removed unless there are other issues (ie NPA, etc) at play ES&L 16:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? No reasonable interpretation of policy suggests so. Such a policy would mean that if an unpopular person gets blocked, then all of her worst enemies can add whatever they like to her talk page in support of her being blocked, and she is not allowed to remove any of it. True in practice? Hardly. You're an errant panda, please reform yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of having an open discussion on the unblock request, what benefit would deleting others' comments provide? The admin that handles the unblock request can sift through the merits of all arguments. I would agree that once the unblock request is accepted/denied, the other side discussions—excluding the original request and the final ruling—can be deleted if the user chooses.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. A blocked user should not be obliged to leave unwanted posts on their talk page, other than the material covered at WP:REMOVED. If you wish to change that guideline, here is not the place to do it imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur, and I'll note that I would hope admins reviewing a unblock situation are capable of using the page history to evaluate any removals. NE Ent 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I'm going to disagree with you as well. Most of the latitude to remove things from your talk page is suspended when a user is blocked. The sidebar discussion may have been helpful to the Administrator who denied the appeal (contributing circumstances, sidebar discussion by the blocked, etc.). That sidebar discussion should not be removed by the blocked until they're no longer blocked. The blocked editor may appeal for administrators to evaluate off topic sniping via the {{Admin help}} template if there's crowd members throwing rotten vegetables. If the user succeeds on their first appeal, then they're no longer sanctioned and they can remove the entire thread for the block (granted that's not really the most friendly way to vanish it off your page). Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I think you actually agree with me: I was proposing that they should not be deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Perhaps it's the wikilawyer in me reading, but your response suggests that once a block appeal concludes either way the blocked user can remove content. What I suggest is that commentary/discussion that happens in the context of appealing the block must not be removed by the blocked user until they successfully appeal the block or the block expires. For example: BadUser posts a block appeal on their talk page, various community members comment on it, the block appeal is denied. The user should not be allowed to remove the community discussion as it helped contribute to the determination of the administrator. Giving the blocked user the opportunity to remove unflattering commentary related to the block sets up the Admin corps for a "If Mom says no, ask Dad" Admin-shoping exception where all admins would have to be on the watch for Rose colored filters being placed in front of the appeal to push for the greatest success. Hasteur (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: We are in agreement that while the appeal is outstanding, comments should not be removed. That to me is the most crucial part. As for after the appeal, assuming the appeal fails, I'm ambivalent if it remains or not while the block remains active. I assume WP:BLANKING proponents won't see any point in keeping the comments if the admin has already denied the unblock; for that reason, I would accept it's removal after the block appeal as a compromise. At any rate, I consider it less important what happens to the comments after an appeal is over (even if the block remains).—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So, this comes down to "No consensus" on removing other editors' talk page comments in the wake of a block? I don't have policy to back this up, but it seems like context is important. Bagumba was posting in response to being mentioned as a part of the block appeal. That seems quite different than me going over to another editor's talk page and weighing in on their block status, where I am uninvolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin assistance (should be quick)

Would an administrator or really anyone double-check how I acted with the situation that recently transpired on my talk page, in which User talk:88.150.205.114 left a message at my talk that I perceived as harassment. I left a warning at his or her talk page, but wanted to make sure I did not over or under react. Thank you in advance. Phightins is Gone (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Templating people like this is I suspect is not a good idea. I'd just revert and ignore, unless they became verbally aggressive, in which case a block might be in order sooner rather than later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential edit warring

I don't know where to post this but there is a potential of edit warring on this page [[40]]. A picture of a ruined mosque is deleted and added again. The first addition was by me and I undid its removal. I find the picture a good example of ruined Ottoman heritage in the Balkans due to Muslim persecution. Others claim its not related to persecution or demand a source with exact wording of "persecution". I think the ruin is directly related to persecution as the article's section states: Muslim heritage was destroyed or neglected after the Muslims were expelled. Can someone interested check the page and give a third party opinion. If its a mistake to post it here, sorry. Thank you for helping. Bye. Bangyulol (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You can read WP:DISPUTE to resolve this situation.—Bagumba (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed ban from creating articles

This might sound like a weird question...

• Can I request an interaction ban against another user who constantly bothers me in discussions? If so, I'll start such a thread at ANI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You can start such a thread either here or at ANI. "Bothers" is a rather vague statement, so be cautious/solid about your policy-based links, and provide appropriate diff's ES&L 12:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, what I mean is that I feel as though another user has been trying to bully me for years because I don't share his/her viewpoints (I've seen it happen to other people too, but I can't speak for them). But I'll start a thread in a few minutes. Erpert^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Done (didn't have time to do it before work). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SALT Designemporia

Hello, please salt "Designemporia", "Designemporia.in", "Design Emporia" titles. Non-notable topics/promotional spam continuously being created directly in articles main space by SPAs. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

History:

(del/undel) 10:20, 3 April 2014 GB fan (talk contribs block) deleted page Designemporia (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 07:25, 26 February 2014 Jimfbleak (talk contribs block) deleted page Designemporia (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 09:36, 3 April 2014 Fram (talk contribs block) deleted page Designemporia.in (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 07:43, 28 February 2014 Gogo Dodo (talk contribs block) deleted page Designemporia.in (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 10:20, 3 April 2014 GB fan (talk contribs block) deleted page Design Emporia (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)

All titles now WP:SALT-d

There may be a valid article there. I'm happy to help with re-creation.

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for an admin with oversight ability to look at an SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc

Normally oversight-related requests are about suppressing edits, but this one is about peeking at what is already suppressed. If you saw my message to the functionaries mailing list, please note that I have amended and clarified the evidence (there may have been some confusion earlier). vzaak 22:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Deskana and I are both working this one - Alison ^❤ 23:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• CU case is now completed - Alison ^❤ 19:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected talkpage

This comes up a lot, but... Xavexgoem retired and fully protected his talkpage. Someone should fix that, as the page was not a target for vandalism as far as I can tell. Nathan ^T 20:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Guess I could've sent it to RPP. Oh well, out of practice. Nathan ^T 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to semi-protection. Enigma^msg 21:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Suspected block evasion case

Can someone take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redmen44? It's a suspected block evasion by a sock; it's been open for over 2 days without comment, as WP:SPI looks to be generally backlogged. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove autoblock

Some time back, I blocked User:Slowking4 for a range of problems. I've just discovered that User talk:TaraInDC, who's at an edit-a-thon, is being autoblocked as a result. I've attempted to remove the autoblock by clicking the "unblock" button in the

Block ID: #5049824 (BlockList • unblock)

line, but I got an error message, and I'm not at all confident that this is the right result, anyway. I'm on a bad Internet connection, so I'd really appreciate it if someone else could remove this autoblock for me. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, apparently [41] NE Ent 19:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

UK Banknotes

File:Bank Of England10.png and others..

I note the permission needed to be renewed, any takers? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not particularly applicable on copyright grounds, as this is unambiguously fair use according to US copyright law. Do any UK uploaders have reason to fear some sort of prosecution in relationship to this or other images? Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The permission is required because of British anti-counterfieting laws. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, will any UK uploaders potentially be affected? Being an American, I would be able to upload these images without problem, because there's no applicable requirement for me. Is there a UK law prohibiting UK subjects from accessing a website in which such images are displayed without permission, and/or are the uploaders of these images, such as Cloudbound, known to be UK subjects or otherwise subject to these laws? If the answers are "no" for all of them, we need not take the effort. Nyttend (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to ask a lawyer for a detailed answer. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, per below, it should be taken up by WMF Legal. For info, the criminal offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, 1981 is "for any person, unless the relevant authority has previously consented in writing, to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any British currency note or any part of a British currency note." I'd say the uploaders are no longer reproducing the image - I think WMF are now doing that. Citizenship is irrelevant, but I think WMF can feel safe that UK authorities won't be seeking their extradition for trial in the UK (presumably!), and probably wouldn't get it even if they tried. But I would think that WMF wouldn't be keen on even theoretically committing a UK criminal offence. (Where does Jimbo live these days?) As far as readers are concerned, there may be an argument that those in the UK are committing an offence by displaying it on their screens. (I'm guessing). Disclaimer: I'm a UK lawyer but know no more about the law of forgery than the next googler DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think these kinds of questions are why WMF has a legal team. VanIsaac_WS^cont 09:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's also why WMF has community liasons -- I've asked Maggie Dennis [42] for input. NE Ent 11:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. :) The handling of this (which I'm happy to pass on) may vary depending on what we're asking, so I want to get clarification. Are we looking for information on the impact of UK users on uploading/viewing these? Or for information on Wikimedia Foundation liability as the online service provider for the website being used to host it? (In case of the latter, I suspect that "actual knowledge" plays a part, but can find out.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, probably both those questions. But, in fact, if we just sought a renewal of the annual permission from the Bank of England it would make those questions redundant. This is the relevan BofE webpage and in these guidelines they say to renew you just email the relevant official. I was just about to go ahead and do that (as it seems no one else has done it) and it occurs to me that if the service provider is "reproducing" the image on the web, the request should really come from WMF. But I don't know if that's right or if that's something WMF would do anyway. DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are serious restrictions on the degree to which the Wikimedia Foundation can involve itself in content creation or curation, so I do not expect this is a request they would issue. Beyond that, if the request expires soon, waiting for legal to do it would probably not be a great idea, it can take some weeks to get a response from legal. (Sometimes, much faster - depends on the complexity of the issue and who has time.) The question of legal liability for users may be addressed through a meta:Wikilegal posting, and I'm happy to ask for it. I can also ask if the Wikimedia Foundation has concerns about its own liability, but I personally suspect that this is the kind of thing that comes up when it comes up. That is, if they receive a takedown notice or other complaint from a content owner, they respond accordingly. Online service providers are limited in liability for what users do with their services. But since I'm not a Wikimedia Foundation attorney, and this is just my assumption, I'm happy to ask. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, and because it won't hurt, I've re-applied to the Bank of England for continued permission to host the £10 and £50 note images. Cloudbound (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... can I ask that someone reviews the other notes as well? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The other 2 relevant media files being File:Adam smith note.jpg & File:Shakespeare20Lbanknote.jpg specifcally Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the Adam Smith note is replaceable fair use, and the Shakespeare note should probably include the word specimen across it. If permission is granted, I believe it would cover all Bank of England notes we display. Cloudbound (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bank of England have granted permission, so I have updated the templates for File:Bank Of England10.png and File:New Bank of England £50 note 2011.jpg. Cloudbound (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As a result of the above request, the Wikimedia UK office has received a letter from the Bank of England granting permission under Section 18(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 for Wikipedia to display banknote images shown in accordance with conditions 1-4 and 5e. See otrs:7487596 for more details. Regards -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Global blocks

Question for you all. I read WP:GB and followed a link or two to meta and elsewhere, but the first seems to be about blocking IPs globally, and the meta page seemed to be under construction. So my relatively simple question is, how do I get an account blocked across all the wikis in the world-wide world? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You can contact a Steward or request a lock on an account at Meta. Elockid^(Talk) 14:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Elockid. So "global lock" is the keyword. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Global blocks are for IP addresses, and global locks are for accounts. --Rschen7754 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend cleared that up on the policy page. I'm just a peon, Rschen, not an international sophisticated highway demon like you. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You may want to semi-protect Bob_Coy for a bit

Pastor Bob Coy (for those not familiar - he pastored a mega church down my way , Calvary Chapel ), stepped down over what is being called "Moral Failings". Some sources in the press are saying a bit more than that, however, their source is someone's blog, so I doubt they'd pass our reliable sources test. May want to semi-protect that article for a bit to head off speculation. So far the associated article Calvary_Chapel_of_Fort_Lauderdale appears to be quiet, but as that was the church he pastored, it might not hurt for semi on that too. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 16:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem? This is the official blog of the organization. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not the blog being used as a source, it's this one , which is not official in anyway. The Sun-Sentinel picked up that blog (with links) and used it as a source. The church's blog says very little about the matter. My concern is that that blog (not the official one) or others like it will be used to fuel speculation about Bob Coy.

(For the record, I don't attend his church, nor am I employed by it. I met him once and that's my only tie to him :) ) KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pages are not protected per-emptivly, if a problem arises then you may request it be protected. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also if the Sun-Sentinel is using that blog as its source, it doesn't matter if the source they used passes RS or not, what matters is whether or not the Sun-Sentinel does (and it does). Playing "Sourceception" isn't a rabbit hole we want to go down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree you Bushranger, except where a living person is concerned. If the Sun-Sentinel or any news organization quotes that blog, it's can't be considered a reliable source and cannot be in that article, as it fails RS and as an extension BLP. Once again, let's semi that article to prevent that from happening, he's a high profile individual and as such, there's going to be individuals that will want to use that (or other unreliable sources) to stir shite up. Semi it for a while, put Pending Changes on it, anything but leave it wide open. That's pretty much S.O.P for high profile individuals that hit the news during controversy.

KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 10:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be getting almost no editing traffic, considering. In my experience, if there were going to be vandalism based on the news, it would have probably happened by now. I'm keeping half an eye on it and am not averse to protecting if there's an uptick in vandalism, but so far I don't think there's a problem. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of a the 'requested move' procedure.

A contributor is seeking to get around the fact that a proposed article [43] is currently a declined AfC (and incidentally a recreation of an article already deleted by a clear consensus at AfD), by making a 'requested move' from AfC space to article mainspace. [44] Since this is clearly a misuse of the requested move procedure, can I ask that an admin close the requested move as null and void. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Please close the move request as out of order. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the contributor concerned is arguing that the statement "Remember to base arguments on article title policy" in the template rules out objections based on the previous AfD etc. There is also the issue that the AfC has been moved from 'Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Voice to skull' to 'Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull' - which I'm fairly sure isn't a normal procedure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Sort of, I'm still figuring out the paperwork. Never had to do one like this. Dennis Brown2¢WER 00:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If @DGG: is around, I wouldn't mind him taking a look. I closed, removed the template and manually removed from the RM main page as being out of process. He knows much more about AFC than I do. Dennis Brown 2¢ WER 00:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see @EdJohnston: already warned him about this, and he might want to know about this. Dennis Brown 2¢ WER 00:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the said contributor. What I am trying to achieve is to move the draft located at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull to the target page Voice to skull, which is currently a redirect page. Please help me find a way. Thanks. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You use the AFC process and submit it. It seems to be getting rejected for the same reason it was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull, so my guess is that it won't be created at all. If it isn't notable and is only fringe, there is nothing you can do to get it put in main space. Dennis Brown 2¢ WER 01:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Electronic harassment, which is already prone to this kind of lunacy. We do not need this article, best to forget it. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Password change advisory

FYI: Wikimedia servers were vulnerable to the heartbleed bug, that potentially exposed user passwords and session tokens to attackers (along with the site's cryptographic keys). The servers were patched yesterday and all existing tokens were or will be invalidated (i.e. everyone is being forcibly logged out and will have to log in again). As a precautionary measure, the WMF is recommending that all users change their passwords. Some VPT posters are suggesting this be taken especially seriously by users with advanced permissions (admin and above), which seems about right to me.

I'll add: if you use the same password on more than one site, then change them all, especially any sensitive ones such as finance, email, etc. Use your browser password store, or password manager software to remember multiple passwords across different sites. This bug is very widespread and probably affects multiple sites that you use.

Also, if your browser implements certificate pinning, you may have seen a warning message about the WMF site certificate having changed. The WMF did change the certificates because of the bug, so the change is a good thing. If you didn't get such a warning, don't worry about this. The feature is not yet widely supported.

References:

• http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2014-April/000666.html wikitech-ambassadors email about WMF server status, containing the password change recommendation
• http://heartbleed.com - technical description of the bug
• VP/T thread permalink to current version, live link that may have newer posts but that will go stale after a while.
• media coverage - there is a lot, try a web search.

70.36.142.114 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban?

What is the proper mechanism (if any) for reporting potential violations of interaction bans? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Contacting the admin who imposed the original interaction ban would seem a good first step. Maybe they could take it from there. Irondome (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I determine precisely which admin imposed the ban? Would it be whoever posted it to the list of topic bans? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be logical, yes. They must have had some involvement. At least they could point you in the right direction. Irondome (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BANEX says, in part:

Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following:

...

• Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include:
  • asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once).

Based on the foregoing, I would start by contacting an Administrator who notified you of the IBAN. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've now asked this question of the admin who posted it on the list of topic bans, and hopefully he can tell me what to do next. Thank you for your help! ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries mate. Hopefully the admin can take the issue from here. Hope it gets sorted ok Irondome (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Avario87

An SPI case was recently brought to my attention. Avario (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki) was blocked in 2007 for uploading copyvios, and returned in 2009 as Avario87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki). Technically, this would be block evasion, but given that they haven't repeated the same mistakes that got them blocked and probably would have gotten unblocked in 2009 if they had asked for it, I'm inclined to just let this one slide. Any differing opinions? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you King of <3. Very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avario87 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

[above "Thank you..." comment was added by Avario] I'd say no block right now (we're really at a statute-of-limitations point by now), but Avario, you need to be really cautious. I note multiple copyright-infringement warnings at your talk page, and that makes me wonder whether or not you've really understood the concept and or how to comply with legal standards. Since we'll be bending the rules to led you continue to edit, let me suggest that you be given a strict warning to comply with all copyright standards on pain of being (re)blocked on the first or second infraction. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• The end does not justify the means. If Avario wanted to edit again, they were required to submit a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request. They may then have had specific restrictions placed as a condition of unblock. Creating a new account is block evasion, whether or not they have repeated the behaviours. Even WP:OFFER is not a guarantee of unblock - certain conditions still need to be met. I haven't checked, but did the editor even formally link the accounts as per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY? ES&L 13:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

‎‎Dr Houshian

Hello, this user has created a page ‎Dr Shirzad Houshian about himself, I have tagged it for SD under WP:A7 and WP:G11. I noticed that Ruby Murray has also tagged one more of his article A new technique for closed management of displaced intraarticular fractures of metacarpal and phalangeal head delayed on presentation under WP:G12, and I think this page also belongs to ‎Dr Houshian own research work when I investigated on cross ref with DOI(Digital object Identified) that is clearly mentioned in the link from which he copied his own research paper in Wikipedia, see here. I think this user being Dr. as his user name suggest is advertising himself. I am not an admin so I can not delete his article or block the user as I don't have rights still, can any one respond to the user? Thanks A.Minkowiski (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done There was a long list of CSD articles waiting for deletion - I deleted both of these - please have patience. The editor has been warned not to repeat. What else are you expecting? He'll likely be blocked if he does either again. Also, next time, please report on WP:ANI, not here ... and remember that you are REQUIRED to advise the editor when you report them DP 21:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will's editcountitis

RfPP backlog

Hi all, it seems RfPP to be backlogged, with requests from a few days ago. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Azhar sabri

Azhar sabri (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure what to do with this user, but he has spammed and vandalized multiple wikis with his junk including this and this and shows no sign of stopping his disruption here or anywhere else; already he has proceeded to create his userpage and associated article as blatant duplicates of Satyapal Chandra. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking they're also copyright infringements of the CC-BY-SA guidelines since they don't credit the original source. And this user has done nothing constructive to Wikipedia so far, and shows severe competence issues at best. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I've indeffed him as a vandalism-only account.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

There are a lot of requests waiting for admin attention at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, could I please get some help from any admins who are free. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

New user using multiple accounts

He is not abusing them, but if there's some kind of newbie friendly templated message saying "please use one account", can someone drop it at Patryk Rutkowski (talk · contribs) / User:Norbituz. Almost certainly also the same editor as Kiper1922 (talk · contribs), Piotrek21511 (talk · contribs), Andal 93 (talk · contribs), Amos1337 (talk · contribs), Matteo18pl (talk · contribs), Mto9du (talk · contribs), Vildecik (talk · contribs), Tankista94 (talk · contribs), Pawel Ruminkiewicz (talk · contribs), 0john0 (talk · contribs), Maskawq (talk · contribs), Frihu (talk · contribs), Russen2010 (talk · contribs), Klabon (talk · contribs), Guren II Mk (talk · contribs), Kojot1240 (talk · contribs), WyklutyZ2Jaj (talk · contribs), Senseymobile (talk · contribs), Qwerty1410 (talk · contribs), Kazyuki (talk · contribs), Tomas933 (talk · contribs), Damian1271 (talk · contribs), Pyra116 (talk · contribs), Clichy22 (talk · contribs), Ttwe125 (talk · contribs), Nightcreature18 (talk · contribs) - he seems to create one stubby article about monuments in Września County region, than abandon the account. S/he even can create more than one account to edit a single article (consider Monument of Sokołowo (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)), or even create an account for a single minor edit (as is the case with the last two accounts listed here). The problem is that the articles are usually unreferenced, merit the {{rough translation}} notice, and the user is not responding to the messages on his/her talk page which they abandon. This article was created with a number of warning tags (after prior deletion?). Perhaps if we leave a mass message on all his/her accounts it will draw his/her attention? And someone may want to categorize those accounts under some sock category for an unknown single user, I guess. I am also pinging Azymut (talk · contribs) who edited and copyedited many of articles by that editor, perhaps s/he can shed some light on what's going on here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 08:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Some group of students? Each assigned one article by their teacher (perhaps Azymut)? Fram (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure review: Mr Whoppit

Lifting of Topic Ban

Here, in August 2012, I was topic banned from The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) topics. And here, in November 2012, I was blocked for one month for WP:DE and violating topic ban. I would like to ask that the topic ban be lifted.

My disruptive behavior leading to the topic ban was due to the fact I was a newbie at that time, and I made several mistakes because I was overly-enthusiastic, clueless newbie. These included e.g.: SPA, OWNERSHIP of the TZM article, inconsistency in assuming good faith, writing too many walls of text, IDHT, etc. More generally, I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's philosophy, culture, rules, policies, guidelines, and user-contributed essays, and unfamiliar with the importance of consensus and the theory and practice of the consensus-building process and closely-related issues. I was clueless, and myopic in my view of Wikipedia.

I'm now much more familiar with how Wikipedia works, and I understand in retrospect that my behavior prior to the topic ban was disruptive and the topic ban and the one-month block were justified, productive and beneficial for the encyclopedia. (Especially - but not exclusively - in the 3-4 weeks immediately preceding my topic ban, my behavior was increasingly disruptive to the project and my contributions on the TZM article and article talk page were more distracting to everyone - including myself - than helping to improve the article's content.) I don't blame anyone, I acknowledge I alone am responsible for all my actions, and I take full responsibility for my disruptive actions that resulted in my topic ban and one-month block.

I believe my record from the expiration of the block in December 2012 to date (almost 16 months, if I'm counting correctly) shows that my contributions to article development efforts and discussions are aligned with Wikipedia's culture and Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines. I have edited trouble free after the block, and I have contributed over a wide range of topic areas, without any of the problems that led to my topic ban. I have been receptive to feedback on my behavior and my contributions, and have edited constructively, acknowledging my mistakes. I have asked other editors to offer their perspectives to assist my article development and talk-page discussion efforts on issues in which my experience was somewhat lacking (e.g. Whitelist issues, questions regarding proposed sanctions on an editor I reported for vandalism, etc), and I am comfortable contacting more experienced WP editors to consult over questions/ issues/ challenges I may be facing.

Having contributed significantly to the development of the TZM article (from a stub) prior to the ban, my intention is to offer some perspectives to contribute to the conversations on the article talk page, to help move the discussions forward in the direction of some form of consensus, based on my intimate familiarity with all the secondary and primary references cited in the article, and my knowledge of the history of the article development efforts. My intention is also to resume TZM-related content creation based on citations from reliable sources, which is always what I most enjoy in Wikipedia.

IjonTichy (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to suggest that given the broad scope of the ban, IjonTichy might well be seen as violating it again by posting here, rather than contacting the admin who enacted it, as was clearly laid out when the ban was enacted [48]. As for the suggestion that IjonTichy contributed anything to the development of our problematic article on The Zeitgeist Movement but tendentious editing, interminable walls of text, and a level of disruption rarely surpassed on Wikipedia, I think the evidence is clear enough. But don't take my word for it, see the ANI discussion which led to the ban [49], and note the unanimous support it received. Given the problems we are currently having with TZM supporters trying to remove all negative content from the article, and turn it into promotional puffery, I have to suggest that the last thing we need is more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

no opinion as to the lifting of the ban, but not an infraction to ask about the lifting of the ban from the community/admins. Thats just rubbing salt into the wound, and clearly allows per WP:BANEX. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, WP:BANEX starts by saying "Unless stated otherwise...". I'd say that the ban notification "stated otherwise" clearly enough - but whatever, the main point is that IjonTichy was unanimously blocked for promotional editing (of the most interminably disruptive kind) in an article which he wishes to return to - and to which he still seems to think he made some sort of positive contribution. His evident failure to understand what 'contributing significantly' to the article would entail (or rather, wouldn't entail) suggests to me that he has failed to understand why he was blocked in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No comment on whether we should lift or retain the ban, but this is not a violation. We need to interpret the BANEX thing very strictly — only in the most egregious cases should a ban appeal be prohibited, and in those cases, it absolutely must be stated specifically "You may not appeal the ban". Locking the door and throwing away the key is occasionally necessarily, but we must never do it without explicit consensus to do it and an explicit statement to the user in question. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Stalking. Can the editor in question not be put on a 1 year probation, with the provisio that just 1 violation means curtains for keeps? Just a thought. At least it is an apparently sincere statement. The best appeal I have seen actually, in terms of regaining at least some clue. I'm not familiar with the case though. Irondome (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we impose that kind of restriction sometimes. Still no comment on whether or not that would be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks but no thanks. I don't have any objection to asking for a review of the ban just this once, but the request makes it pretty clear that the problem has not gone away and any further editing is likely to result in a swift reinstatement, with, no doubt, attendant drama. The Zeitgeist thing is pretty much dead anyway, there's no pressing need to bring in obvious partisans. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• User:IjonTichyIjonTichy would you a accept a 1 strike and an indeffed for any infractions for a period of 1 year as an acceptable condition? Irondome (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• As I read it, the penalty for ban-breaking would be an indefinite block for a year — please clarify so I can understand your actual meaning. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. I just proposed that IjTIjT be allowed to edit the ZG article but 1 infraction in a probationary period of 1 yr would mean an subject indeff, with no appeal. If the user is that committed to the article, then they can be gardener, making sure of its stability, helping to protect against vandalism, etc. I am also hearing colleague Guy(Help!) s comments below. Just thinking it would be kinder to give IjTIjT a quick decision. I of course defer to wiser heads on this. Cheers. Irondome (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is just a bad idea. We already know what the user's personal knowledge etc. means in context, it means a lot of original research and special pleading. There's no obvious pressing need for the input of someone with a history like IjonTichy's. All we're doing is imposing another period where independent editors have to watch every edit, and it's very likely that a block will be required sooner rather than later, with the additional drama that will involve. I don't think it is kind to hold out the hope that this user can return to a subject on which their input has in the past been judged profoundly unhelpful, on the basis that they think their input will suddenly be helpful instead. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• No. The topic ban was established for a good reason, and there would need to be a good reason to remove it. Would anyone wanting to make an offer please first examine the topic and the previous discussions, then indicate how promotion of The Zeitgeist Movement would benefit the encyclopedia. The most worrying part of issues like this is that people will learn how to push their favored positions without crossing obvious lines that would lead to sanctions. How much work should be dropped on the the couple of volunteers willing to monitor the relevant articles? The above proposal of "1 infraction in a probationary period of 1 yr would mean an subject indeff, with no appeal" is not possible as there is never "no appeal", and there is no definition of "infraction"—perpetual boosterism leads to puffery, but no single diff can be shown as an "infraction". Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we G6 failed AfCs re-created as articles?

As a question of principle, is it reasonable to speedy delete under WP:G6 ("technical deletions/uncontroversial maintenance") an article that's been failed at Articles for creation which has later been identically created as a mainspace article by the original author(s)? A test case is Amir Malik and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amir Malik. —SMALLJIM 18:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply choose the criteria that caused it to fail AFC in the first place. –xeno^talk 18:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, but different criteria tend to be applied in the two places. What would we use in this case - A7, G11? There is some credible claim to notability, and it's not exclusively promotional. Yet if we allow it to stand it shows that anyone not getting the result they wanted could easily bypass the AfC process, unless/until a full AfD is started. Hence the question of principle. (I see Jinian has since deleted it under A7/G6 - not sure if they saw this.) —SMALLJIM 20:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I did see this. I had seen this page before and believe that A7 applied. I used G6 as an alternate, meaning to not make a point about this discussion. Jinian (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So, the AFC was blanked by the creator - very obvious CSD criteria, although it was likely rejected at some point as non-notable. The article was A7 - again, very obvious. DP 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case, maybe, but I'm looking for comments on the principle of using G6. —SMALLJIM 21:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say no. Just because something failed at AFC doesn't mean it shouldn't be created. AFC is an optional process and folks shouldn't be forced to follow that path once they start on it. It's really likely that the article will get deleted (by A7, AfD, or whatever else) but you'd need to propose a new criteria (or get consensus on expanding it as you describe). Hobit (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this situation would not count as G6-able. Nothing technical or uncontroversial about it DP 22:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• The more-or-less accepted criterion for passing AfC is that it would probably stand at AfD. Probably does not mean certainly, and in all cases AfD is the undefintive way of dealing with it. (If an really unacceptable draft that shows no possibilities of improvement is in AfC or elsewhere and it doesn't fit in the General categories of speedy, then MfD if it's worth the trouble. My own feeling is we should be using that more, not necessairly waiting the 6 months till G13 is applicable. )

It's not clear whether A7 ever applies to an accepted draft, on the grounds that someone other than the creator thought it was at least plausible, and the same argument could be made for PROD. Myself, I think some cases are clear enough that I've been using both routes from time to time when I feel reasonably sure. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. If the consensus view is that G6 doesn't apply, that's OK: it was just an idea worth testing. The principle that AfC holds a candidate article to higher standards than the bare CSD criteria, to minimise the possibility of deletion once it has been approved, is sensible of course. But it does leave a large grey area containing those candidates that have failed AfC but which would actually survive as articles in mainspace. This is not only unfair to the good-faith editor (who after doing his/her best accepts the refusal); it also leaves a loophole that can be exploited by those who just ignore the refusal and copy their efforts into mainspace, some of which won't meet WP:N etc and will avoid NPP scrutiny. Is there scope for a bot to flag these for extra scrutiny? By the way the Malik article was re-created again and I deleted it as A7, per the consensus here. I've salted it now. —SMALLJIM 11:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Smalljim, you can still get rid of an old AFC easily: just redirect it to the article to which it was eventually converted. No need to delete it. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a useful tip, Nyttend, though it's not really what I was asking about. I think I'm done with this one now – thanks for all the feedback, including Guy below. —SMALLJIM 20:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I do tend to make creative use of CSD for obviously useless AFCs for living people, rather than go through the rather brutal process of debating whether X is actually notable, a term of art we know well and good causes serious offence to those deemed not to make the grade. But it is something I do selectively, and only where I know the failed article is causing an actual (usually non-Wikipedia) problem. AFC should not be indexed, after all. I'd really hope that an obvious A7 would never be copied to mainspace by the AFC team - G11's, however, do slip by, and that's hardly a surprise given the volume of work. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My 2 Pence: I prefer to hold AFC submissions to a higher standard for the simple reason that if AFC doesn't keep most of the junk from entering mainspace, then the next in line would be NPP or AFD. When I catch a AFC submission that has been copy/pasted from AFC space (i.e. not promoted by an editor in good standing) I redirect the applicable AFC page to the mainspace page, strip the mainspace article of any AFC identifiers it had (since it was never promoted by us), and wash my hands of it. Recalling a gaming of the intentions of the deletion process and AFC by a certain administrator by accepting patently incorrect submissions only to turn around and immediately speedy them because they were now in articlespace and articlespace has higher standards than what is permissiable in AFC space, I see these rogue editors self promotions as their rejection of the umbrella of AFC in favor of any random tag bomber or deletion junkie to come in and rip the submission apart. Hasteur (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Robsinden actions

Robsinden keeps reverting people at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates in the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL section despite many disagreeing opinions and then changing templates based on his view of what WP:BIDIRECTIONAL means. He has also been misreading consensus in discussions and making largescale changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment to add to Tony's comment, I will note the it was also Robsinden who made the edit that created WP:BIDIRECTIONAL in it present form (and the all caps shortcut also) and has since been enforcing what appears to be a rule he created. He's also been prone to being rather nasty about it as well. This has been going on for a couple months now. I tangled with him on this thread and here, and I think, in a couple other locations, all on the same general topic. Montanabw^(talk) 03:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• The problem here is that some editors don't seem to understand what navboxes are actually for, namely navigation between related articles, or what "bidirectional" means, and the explanation of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL was lacking (maybe through oversight), in that it only described the process in one direction, thus only describing "monodirectionality". Some editors seem to want to use navboxes as a substitute for lists or articles, promoting their "monodirectional" agenda, which is against the spirit and functionality of navboxes, and against the spirit of "bidirectional" as half-described at the guideline. The point being if you click on a link in a navbox, you would expect to see the same navbox transcluded at the target. There is support for the clarification at the talk page, but opposing editors are only now weighing in, nearly a year after the discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Rob, I have given you plenty of examples of why BIDIRECTIONAL is not really a rule that should be created. Templates that include historical characters such as {{Henriad}} or {{The Last of the Mohicans}} should not be bidirectional in the sense you discuss. I.e., a fictional character like a King of England should not include every template that includes him as a character.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This is start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, not "open a thread on WP:AN" material. NE Ent 10:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent did you write what you meant. It seems ungrammatical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Request - can an uninvolved administrator please help sort out this situation by taking a look, deciding to move to AN/I, or whatever, because I've had enough! It began weeks when TonyTheTiger opened this conversation on Talk: Ernest Hemingway, more here on my own talkpage, then he moved to Talk:The Sun Also Rises by opening this conversation. We apparently had consensus here, but then he went back to Talk:Ernest Hemingway to this thread. In the meantime, he also opened a thread on Robsinden's page here. There's been edit warring here, here, here - (I might have missed a few - I'm really tired of this). And of course, he opened this AN thread too. Anyway, thanks to whomever can help. Victoria (tk) 20:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that some editors don't seem to understand what wikipedia is actually for Rob. I think it's about time Rob was topic banned from templates.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Rob's actions have been problematic, but to my mind Tony's have been worse - some of his comments at Talk:Ernest Hemingway in particular have been such that, were I not involved in the original discussion, I would have blocked him. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for admin attention on ITN

If an admin could please take a moment to assess the consensus on this "In The News" nomination from a few days ago I would appreciate it. For whatever reason (possibly the huge discussion on items nominated shortly after it), the ITN regulars have overlooked it. No special knowledge of ITN is required to assess consensus. If consensus is found in favor of posting, here are the technical instructions. If not, just leave a note saying consensus was not reached/mor eopinions are needed to decide. We could definitely use more admin involvement at ITN, so here a good chance to get involved.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man took care of that one, but this one on Windows XP still needs assessed. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Said bin Taimur's bed

The only non-mirror reference of his habit keeping his gold under his bed, was this, http://www.geocurrents.info/place/southwest-asia-and-north-africa/oman-a-land-apart which was most likely extracted from Wikipedia. Perhaps a hoax?--The Theosophist (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The reference was added by an IP who was warned twice for unconstructive editing.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What do we do with unsourced statements that are challenged? All together now: we remove them pending a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Filter?

This user and his or her socks,

• Naghmehetaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Naghmehetaati 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Naghmehetaati 13 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Naghmehetaati 14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Naghmehetaati12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

does nothing but post long comments in Persian to Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Hassan Rouhani. No response to talk page inquiries. All except N14 are blocked at this point by Bishonen, but would it be possible for a filter to catch large amounts of Persian posted to article (and file) talk pages? The alternative is to long-term semi-protect these two talk pages, since N needs to create new socks in order to post.

BMK (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a filter necessary — it's rather easy to track, rather easy to revert, and rather easy to block. This isn't the kind of thing that sneaks past people, it's not disrupting articles, and the disruption it does on talk pages is easy to remove (just hit Undo if someone else has edited; you don't have to remove it carefully from a page), so the filter I think would be a lot of work for virtually no benefit. If you notice another sock come along, be sure to check Special:Listusers to find any additional usernames that have been registered. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I just thought it might be useful per WP:BEANS. BMK (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne

Can we have some comments at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Original Stories from Real Life? One of Adrianne Wadewitz's articles is going to run on the main page as "Today's featured article" on either the 14th or 26th, but we have 23 hours to find a consensus date. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Albania

A strange dispute has been ongoing in Albania page (you can see the talk page, where a number of editors, just refuse to use CIA Factbook data (based on the official Albanian census) for the ethnic data in the country. They still, keep by reverting, OLD data, from sources as back as 1991. As this is a case of edit-warring and refusal to discuss the sources themselves, by the editors, I hereby, request from administrators, to intervene, otherwise, it would be an endless anomaly. Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Apart from a widely established consensus, prior to Balkanian's intervention in the article, a dirsuptive instant reverting obsession apears to be obvious. All sides need to cool down and perform edits after a discussion takes place and I've asked for this article to be semied. Not to mention that Balkanian is also into a wide scale disruptive convassing campaign [[50]][[51]][[52]][[53]][[54]][[55]], calling his co-nationals for some kind of wikiwar.Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, where users that always use to make anti-Albanian edits (either Greeks or Serbians) have decided, on their own mind, that census results in Albania, are not RS, because a minor organization refutes them, while those census results are overwhelmingly accepted by international organization, as well as foreign governments, like CIA Factbook. As a clear case of ethnic-based edit-waring, it is a nonsense, to try to find consensus. This is the basic problem of wikipedia, and if administrators that have no connection to this issue, do not take part, it would be just a nonsense discussion. I am reverting the results. If anyone bothers to take part or to ban me, is welcomed.Balkanian`s word (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Askahrc topic ban violation

Heartbleed bug

Has there been any guidance from the Foundation on passwords (both for editors with special privileges and those without)? See this CNN article. I saw this comment at WP:VPT but with no link: "Perhaps an explanation is found on Commons: Wikimedia Foundation servers have been updated since a vulnerability was discovered in the OpenSSL software. As a precaution, all Commons users were forced to log in again using new, secure version of the software. While there is no evidence of any breach of servers or loss of user data, the Wikimedia Foundation recommends that all users change their passwords to ensure maximum safety of their accounts."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple, don't change your passwords until you're absolutely certain the server you're on has uploaded the OpenSSL patch to close the Heartbleed security hole. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I was wondering if they were going to offer guidance. I changed my password this morning, expect to change again tomorrow. Anyone with advanced bit should change their password, if not everyone, simply because we really have no idea if anything was compromised or not. Dennis Brown 2¢ WER 01:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Standard sysadmin statement: you don't use the same password on multiple websites, do you people? KeePass is your friend... Guy (Help!) 19:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a VPT thread,here the servers are patched and certificates have been replaced, all users are advised to change their passwords as a precautionary measure, but there's no confirmation of any actual breach. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Cindamuse is gone; please protect her user page

I'm sorry to inform Cindamuse has passed away yesterday morning, in Berlin, during the Wikimedia Conference. Please protect her page, per policy. Thanks. Ijon (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Salvio full protected the user page, talk page is open for condolences. Dennis Brown 2¢ WER 12:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvio, and thanks for the response, Dennis Brown. Ijon (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is bad to see any fellow editor pass on, but I really liked Cindy and she was a huge asset here. In passing, she definitely left a void. Dennis Brown2¢WER 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We also need a crat to remove the admin rights. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

'Crats hang at WP:BN. NE Ent 19:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap! That is terrible, terrible news. I am shocked to hear this. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• In order to maintain the user page as it was at that time of her passing:
  • could a sysop update the {{User wikipedia/Former administrator}} template to {{User wikipedia/Former administrator adjective=is a}}?
  • If someone is wiki savvy enough to set the count on the {{User Wikipedian for ... template to the time of her death, that would be good. (I'm going real life for a bit, otherwise I'd be more specific) NE Ent 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The "adjective=is a" doesn't help: the result is This user is a administrator on the English Wikipedia (verify). Having "adjective=is an" wouldn't be good, since it would make it seem that she was still an admin: we don't want the userpage suggesting that people can ask her for administrative help. I can't see anything in the {{User Wikipedian for}} documentation that would permit the counter to remain the same from day to day, instead of increasing. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The This Wikipedian is deceased. Her user page is preserved here in her memory. makes it clear she's not going to provide anyone help. "preserved" implies we leave the page in it's last form (i.e. present tense) -- she's not in the list of administrators nor the admin category, so editors seeking admin help are not going to be directed to her page. NE Ent 01:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume the subst: syntax can be used to capture a snapshot of the userbox? isaacl (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bug in delete/undelete

• In this edit of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests I found a request to move Jorhat, Assam, India to Jorhat. It proved to need history-merge, to correct a cut-and-paste followed by many edits and then a cut-and-paste back. So I history-merged it. But first I had to lose from Jorhat, Assam, India 5 redirect edits made while the text was in Jorhat, to avoid WP:Parallel histories. Jorhat, Assam, India had about 1800 edits. This involved the usual long-way-round process of deleting all edits, then undeleting all those edits except the 5 redirects, wasting my time and Wikipedia's server's time. And also, when I tried to undelete, up instead came the "search for text" screen, at least 3 times. To avoid that bug I had to undelete Jorhat, Assam, India in several portions, as seen in Jorhat, Assam, India's actions log (at this link). PLEASE can we avoid this long-way-round process and have a way to plainly directly delete a few edits selectively? (This is not the "hide some edits" feature.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: This is not the right place for this request. The fact that it's impossible to undelete more than a thousand revisions at once is tracked as bug 43911, and the aborted revision move feature is tracked as bug 21312. Also see this discussion on the technical village pump (which you initiated) and this Signpost story. Graham87 08:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please help

I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 6#WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities .26 Neighbourhoods not realizing that it required a protected edit. Administrative or template editor assistance is requested to revert [56] so as to recategorize the relevant talk pages. Also, Template:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods, which is move protected, should be moved to Template:WikiProject Saskatchewan communities and neighbourhoods. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've granted you template editor.--v/r - TP 00:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tiresome hopping IP

• 142.136.84.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Road Runner Northridge, CA)
• 142.136.131.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Road Runner Northridge, CA)
• 64.134.235.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AT&T Los Angeles, CA)
• 63.92.241.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Verizon, Corporate, Apple, Granada Hills, CA)
• 64.134.233.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AT&T, Los Angeles, CA)

This user vandalizes the school information for judges and lawyers, mostly in the infobox but sometimes also in the body to make it "consistent". Like many disruptive socks, some of his edits are not vandalism. Also, the first one, whom I just blocked today, branched out into other areas. After I block them (each for a month, although one I reblocked), I rollback all of their current edits without regard to the quality of the edit (already exhausting enough).

I'm not sure what to do. I can't see any range block being appropriate here because I believe it would sweep too many addresses into the ranges. Perhaps an edit filter that incorporates both the kind of edit and the different ranges. Does anyone have any ideas? Should I be blocking them for longer than a month when they pop up?

(I'm not notifying any of the IPs about this topic.)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Road Runner addresses are "sticky", i.e. semi-static, so those blocks should be sufficient until they are able to coax another IP address out of Time Warner Cable. The AT&T address is likely a WiFi hotspot at Starbucks, McDonald's, or some other establishment, and the Verizon/Apple address is probably an Apple Store, so those blocks are fine, but the vandal probably won't have much trouble circumventing them. —DoRD (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DoRD. I added another one to the list above whom I just blocked, this time for two months, a lot of good it'll do me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian election articles - eyes needed, please

I've been contacted by The Times of India, which I believe is the world's largest English-language newspaper by circulation. They are going to be running a story about how editors involved with the Narendra Modi article are handling the extra attention caused by the ongoing elections in India. Perhaps stupidly, I've pointed out that the issues at the Modi article are no different in principle to, say, the issues at the Arvind Kejriwal article, Kejriwal being one of his opponents in the elections. They've asked if they can quote things that I've said and I get the impression that the story may be published in the next 24 hours or so.

I think it pretty inevitable that it will generate more POV and otherwise poor edits etc, so I'd appreciate some more eyes on at least those two articles (and Aam Aadmi Party, which I also mentioned) for a brief period. They're all semi-protected at the moment anyway but I predict some extra hassle. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I came across a beautyful article this morning that was quickly blpproded by someone. So I decided to find some sources. Corruption and allegations. Then I thought the subject would rather have the article go quietly rather then have that in there. Agathoclea (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed on original research noticeboard

Can we please get some more eyes on the original research noticeboard about the Bundy standoff page. [57] There is some persistent attempts to add original research and outright crazy things to that page. 174.147.113.160 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I made an unusual block: block review of Cal Bare

Interaction ban request

Another bot malfunctioning

Well about a month ago, a same issue occurred . Been looking at filter logs and spotted Special:Contributions/10.68.16.31. ///EuroCarGT 02:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a short while so we can get this worked out. ---Jayron32 03:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another: Special:Contributions/10.68.16.39. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well 10. addresses will be operating in the internal WMF network, so it will not be a good idea to block, collateral damage is likely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• ^This. DO NOT BLOCK INTERNAL IP ADDRESSES. You will cause random collateral damage via XFF blocking. Legoktm (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Better to figure out which bots are involved, even if it involves asking a checkuser to help. I've blocked both the bots, and will now unblock the IPs. Risker (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't block a bot when its only malfunction is logged-out editing — this only prevents logged-in editing, after all, and won't affect anything that the bot's doing wrongly. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• What would your recommendation be? -- KTC (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

How about doing the "figure out which bots are involved" part, without blocking anything until you understand what's going on? It doesn't look like there is any page corruption happening here; it's just logged-out editing. My guess is that when the WMF reset editing sessions to deal with the Heartbleed bug, that the bots didn't "notice" that they had been logged out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why the bot's editing tokens still work when the bot is logged out. Someone should probably open a Bugzilla ticket about that, if there's not one already. Anyway I'd ask that the bot not be allowed to edit logged out. It's difficult enough to tell bot and human edits apart on any scale even when the bot is logged in. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely: logged-out editing is by definition an improper functioning of the bot. All bots are supposed to be coded so that they automatically are shut down if they get logged out, and either have coding that logs them back in, or they are manually restarted by the owner. Bot edits are flagged differently than logged-out edits, they show up on watchlists differently, and many actions of approved bots would be considered suspicious if carried out by logged-out editors. Many bots also have additional "privileges" that require them to be logged-in to activate (for example, anti-vandalism bots can edit semi-protected pages, and certain bots even have admin permissions), so they're by definition not working properly if they're logged out. This is a core functionality of bots, it's not something that's nice to have, and logged-out bot editing has been deprecated for years. Risker (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Warning for letting the Russian point of view be heard

Stephanie Adams

I request remove (Category:American metaphysics writers) Stephanie Adams article because the girl is a model and not a philosopher who writes about metaphysics. Thanks--Alexis0112 (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So all you need to do is go and discuss this at the talkpage of the Stephanie Adams article. Once you have consensus to remove it after a few days, you'll have no problem. Cheers ES&L 11:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alexis0112: Can you explain why you're systematically blanking a category from a large number of articles with no explanation? It's possible you're right to do so, but you appear to have joined Wikipedia and immediately set off, without any effort to justify why, to remove this category. If this is your first time on Wikipedia, that's a potentially problematic place/way to start. What's going on? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the categories because not correspond to the items, because all these people have no connection with metaphysics (you can check it yourself), his work focuses on the New Age and esotericism.--Alexis0112 (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If there's a category that is suffering large-scale mispopulation, then it probably should be discussed at WP:CFD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Unexplainable non-admin RfC closing and edit warring

About that interaction ban...