위키백과:관리자 게시판/아카이브272

제 IP 주소를 차단해 주시겠습니까?

가서 놀 다른 곳을 찾아봐.—DoRD (대화) 18:01, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.
로그인하는 동안 계정을 생성하고 편집할 수 있도록 설정하시겠습니까?나는 단지 아무도 내 IP 주소를 페이지 기록에 넣지 않았으면 좋겠어.고마워. 68.80.111.119 (대화) 14:07, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC) 문제는 다른 사람이 해당 IP를 할당받으면 편집이 불가능하다는 점이다.우리는 단지 IP에서 짧은 블록을 할 뿐이고 현재의 혼란을 막기 위해서만 한다.칠음 15:14, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC) 나는 호스트고, 다른 사람들이 로그인하지 않고 내 IP로 편집하는 것을 원하지 않는다.편집을 원할 경우 계정을 생성하고 로그인할 수 있다. 166.170.0.83 (토크) 15:49, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC) 당신이 IP의 당신 쪽에 어떤 종류의 제어장치를 두는 것은 환영하지만, IP가 편집이 허용되는 것은 위키피디아의 선호다.당신은 IP가 왜 특별한 고려가 필요한지, 혹은 왜 당신이 IP의 권위자인지에 대해 우리에게 많은 정보를 제공하지 않았다.칠음 16:22, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC) 불행히도 우리는 그것을 할 수 없을 것이다.IP 주소가 동적이거나 서비스 제공자를 변경하는 경우 블록은 의도하지 않은 개인에게 영향을 줄 것이다.정적 IP를 사용하는 경우, 인터넷 서비스에 액세스하는 사용자만 이 IP 주소를 통해 편집한다.만약 당신이 다른 사람들이 위키백과를 편집하는 것에 대해 걱정한다면, 이것은 인터넷 서비스에 접근하기 위한 비밀번호를 요구하거나, 위키백과에 대한 접근을 통제하는 웹 필터링 프로그램을 설치하거나, 단순히 당신의 가정에 방문하거나 거주하고 있는 사람들에게 당신의 희망을 알려줌으로써 당신의 최종적으로는 더 잘 관리될 수 있다. Mike V • Talk 16:31, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC) 이론적으로는 IP 주소를 제어한다는 것을 증명하는 것이 가능하지만(예를 들어, 나는 216.92.247.137을 제어하고 증명할 수 있다), 내가 216.92.247.137을 통제한다는 것은 아무도 그 IP 주소에서 위키백과를 편집할 수 없다는 것을 의미한다.68.80.111.119의 경우, 당신은 IP 주소를 제어하지 않는다.그것은 컴캐스트 케이블[1]에 의해 제어되는 동적 주소로서, 그들은 그것을 다른 사람에게 할당하고 그들이 원할 때마다 당신에게 새로운 IP 주소를 줄 수 있다.새로운 사용자가 위키백과 편집이 차단된 것을 고마워할 것 같지는 않다. --Guy Macon (대화) 17:34, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC) 두 개의 서로 다른 IP에서 게시된 OP(확실히)를 참고하십시오. 68.80.111.119 166.170.0.83 JoeSperrazza (대화) 17:45, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

축구 이적설/반달리즘으로 인해 RPP에서 밀렸다.시간이 좀 있는 관리자분?

축구 이적설이 다시 불거질 때가 됐기 때문에 많은 축구 관련 기사들은 잘 다듬어졌지만 문제가 되는 편집(아직 아무것도 확인되지 않은 상황에서 클럽을 바꾸는 등)과 노골적인 반달리즘이 뒤섞여 타격을 받고 있다.그 결과, RPP-백로그의 약 절반은 현재 축구 관련 기사에 존재한다.현재 RPP의 축구 기사 목록 - 이 포스트를 작성하는 동안 보호되었던 것 중 일부는

• 라파엘 판 데르 바르트
• 키케 플로레스
• 틀:축구단 벤피카
• FC 포르투
• 폴 클레멘트(축구 코치)
• 카를로 안첼로티
• 로빈호
• 폴 포그바
• 일카이 귄도안

그러나 RPP(Yet)에 보고되지 않은 많은, 더 많은 기사들도 어느 정도 영향을 받는다.향후 몇 시간 동안 이와 유사한 요청에 대해 RPP를 좀 더 주시할 수 있는 관리자가 있는가?AddWittyName여기 (토크) 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

1) 첫째는 이미 보호되어 있다.2) 오늘의 활동량이 보통 우리가 사물을 보호하는 수준이 아니고, 보통은 선제적으로 보호하지 않기 때문에 둘째는 자격이 없다 3) 셋째는 아마도 보호되어서는 안 될 것이다: 편집자 한 사람이 중대한 혼란을 일으켰고, 이미 차단되어 있다 4) 넷째는 단 한 명의 에디만 가지고 있었다오늘, 그리고 어제 되돌아온 소수의 편집자들만.다시 말하지만, 반전은 잘 되고 있고, 보호는 필요하지 않다.나머지를 확인하는 것을 포기했다.나는 우리가 약간의 활동 증가를 예상한다는 것을 이해하지만, 우리는 이러한 기사를 선제적으로 보호하는 것이 아니라, 새로운 편집자들 사이에서 선의의 활동이 증가하는 것에 대해 그 기대를 저울질할 필요가 있다.우리는 새로운 편집본을 초대해야 하고, 우리가 할 수 있는 곳에서 선의의 편집은 개선하되 서투르게 포맷하거나 참조하는 편집은 개선함으로써 그들을 도와야 한다.보호는 좀 더 아껴서 사용해야 하며, 정상적인 수준의 회전이 성가신 일이 되고, 우리는 따라갈 수 없는 최후의 수단으로 사용해야 한다.나는 여기서 그것을 볼 수 없다. --Jayron32 20:56, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

그들은 나에 의해 그곳에 보고되지 않는다는 것을 주목해라.나는 오늘 허글과 반목하면서 이런 문제들을 다루는 여러 기사들과 함께 그러한 보고서들이 심각하게 증가했다는 것을 알게 되었고, 밀린 업무들을 관리할 수 있도록 늘어난 보고서와 이슈들의 수를 지적하는 것이 최선이라고 생각했다.요청이 받아들여지든 거절되든 그건 언제나처럼 관리자에게 달려있지만, 그런 요청을 받아들이거나 거절하는 경우가 많고, 하루 중 더 많이 올 가능성이 높다는 것을 아는 것이 관리자들에게 유용할 것이라고 생각했다. 따라서 RPP는 평소보다 좀 더 바쁘기 때문에 관리자들이 좀 더 주의를 기울이면 도움이 된다. (그리고)그래, RPP는 전체 관리 백로그에 나타나지만, RPP는 내 경험상 거의 절반 정도의 시간이 있기 때문에, 이 경우에는 그다지 유용하지 않다) AddWittyName여기 (토크) 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

대화 페이지 주석 제거.

User:Bosstopher는 User:Bb23에게 임의의 제재를 경고하였다.사용자:FreeRangeFrog가 WP를 무시함:TPO 지침.WP당:BLACKING은 사용자가 경고를 공백으로 둘 수 있도록 허용되지만 여전히 경고가 읽혀지는 것으로 간주되며, 또한 다른 개인을 제거하거나 다른 개인을 편집하여 중지할 수도 있다고 명시되어 있다.나는 반대한다, 나의 주장은 보즈스토퍼가 장기간에 걸쳐 기여하는 것이 나쁜 믿음으로 그것을 하지 않고 있다는 것이다. 그리고 bb23은 그들 자신의 토크 페이지를 관리할 만큼 충분히 경험이 있다.나는 이 [2]와 [3] 부적절한 제거를 두 번 반대한다고 설명하려고 시도했는데, 그 반응은 부적절한 행동을 되돌릴 수 없다는 것이었다[4].나는 이 전에 한 번 되돌렸지만, 관리자로서 당신에게 특별한 보모 특권을 주지 않는다. FreeRangeFrog는 모든 작은 사람들과 같은 규칙을 따라야 한다.버킷 속 지옥 (토크) 01:38, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

이 중 어떤 것이 온라인 백과사전을 만들고 유지하는 것과 어떤 관계가 있는지 우리에게 알려주시겠습니까?Andy TheGrump (대화) 01:43, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

HiAB는 프로젝트의 순 손상이 되고 있으며, ⑴ 지적이고 잘못된 통지를 복원하고, ⑵ ANI로 가는 것은 위키백과로부터의 일종의 휴식이 지역사회에 유익할 것이라고 제안한다.조누니크 (대화) 01:45, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

공지글을 올리는 것은 부지런할 뿐인데, 페이지에 남도록 하기 위해 여기까지 가는 것은 다소 무리가 있는 것 같다.PeterThourth (대화) 01:46, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

죄송합니다만 사용자 관련 내역이 있는지 여부:내가 잘 모르는 보스스토퍼?여기 편집자가 적어도 4년은 있는 것 같은데, 그가 템플릿을 남길 만한 충분한 이유가 있을 것 같아.나는 다른 관리자에 대한 열성적인 보호가 무엇인지를 안다.나는 한 번 되돌리는 관리자에게 관련 관심을 가져온다.나는 더 토론하고 더 이상 되돌리지 않고 여기서 재검토를 요청했다.나는 징벌적 조치를 요구하는 것이 아니라, 여기에 오랫동안 있었던 사용자들이 그들이 무엇을 하고 있는지 알고 있고 그것은 내 사업도 아니고 어느 누구도 아닌 Bb23의 대응이라고 생각할 뿐이다.버킷 속 지옥 (토크) 01:55, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

• HIAB, 그들이 실제로 콘텐츠를 원하는지 아닌지를 결정하는 것은 Bb23에게 맡겨졌어야 했다.Bosstopher의 경고는 아마도 잘못되었을 것이다. 아마도 그렇지 않았을 것이다; 사람들은 FreeRangeFrog의 제거에 대해서도 같은 말을 할 수 있다. (편집 요약을 작성하는 동안 실수로 입력에 부딪히지 않았다면 훨씬 더 좋았을 것이다.)히에이브, 그 반전으로 자신의 시간을 낭비하고, 이 꽤 경박한 ANI 실로 모두의 시간을 낭비한 송어 자신.루케노94 (루크에게 여기서 나가라고 전함) 2015년 5월 25일 01:58, 25 (UTC)

만약 그것이 문제가 아니라면 나는 사과하지만 나는 합법적인 논평들을 삭제하는 것을 정말 싫어한다.이것은 매우 합리적인 대답인 것 같았다.이 모든 의무사항과 DS 또는 TPO에 대한 모든 알림을 통해, 누가 면제되는가?어떤 수준의 편집자가 그러한 통지를 받을 수 있으며 누가 그러한 통지를 받기에 적합한가?미안하지만 난 그저 우리 모두가 따를 수 있는 명시적인 지침을 좋아하는 타입이야.어쩌면 그것은 사실이 아닐지도 모른다.나는 FRF의 행동이 기내에서 일어난 것이라는 지역사회의 결정이라면 우리 모두가 합의에 의해 살아가고 있기 때문에 나는 거의 불평할 수 없다.버킷 속 지옥 (토크) 02:05, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

내 POV를 보니 이건 끝장난 사건인 것 같아.나는 확실히 위협적이거나 포티(POTY)를 의도한 것은 아니었고, 적어도 내가 파괴적인 주장을 하고 있다고는 생각하지 않고, 단지 다른 경계심 있는 편집자가 그들이 불공평하게 표적이 되고 있다고 느끼는 것을 원하지 않았을 뿐이다.나(그리고 페이지를 보는 꽤 많은 다른 편집자들)는 Talk:Gamergate 논쟁 페이지에 댓글을 다는 모든 사람에게 제재 경고를 주는 경향이 있지만, 대부분의 다른 주제 영역에서는 경고가 다르게 접근되는 것 같다.토크 페이지 역사인 Bb23과 내가 주로 이 주제에 대해 동의해 온 것처럼, 그것은 확실히 경고로서 의도된 것은 아니었다.Bosstopher (대화) 09:33, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

다른 사용자는 한 달 동안 편집을 해왔고, 총 16개의 편집이 있는데, 모두 하나의 목적에 관한 것이다.특히 편집자(디프) 중 한 명이 "백과점의 목소리로 BLP 인종차별주의자라고 할 수 없다"(최소한 새로운 사용자의 텍스트 중 일부가 노골적으로 부적절했다)고 지적한 점을 감안할 때, 그런 경우, 경험이 풍부한 편집자에게 제재 통보를 할 필요는 없다.기록에 의하면 (새 사용자가 도착하기 전) 오래된 텍스트는 나에게 더 기인하는 것처럼 보이고, 최근의 활동은 최근 아주 사소한 "논란"에 대한 일반적인 분노의 자극인 것 같다.조누니크 (대화) 2015년 5월 25일 10:43, 25 (UTC)

@Bosstopher:당신이나 당신의 경험 등을 질타하는 것은 결코 나의 의도가 아니었다.만약 내가 그렇게 우연히 마주쳤다면 사과할게.나의 유일한 요점은 그 경고가 불필요하다는 것이었다.그것은 의견의 불일치와 물론 더 폭넓은 논의의 주제일 수 있다. (CU는 정말로 DS 경고를 필요로 하는가 아니면 관료주의를 약간 지나친 것인가?) 그러나 불행하게도 그것은 단지 더 많은 극작품을 만들어냈다.§FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:46, 2015년 5월 25일(UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:아무렇지도 않아 조금도 무시당하거나 모욕감을 느끼지 않고, 그렇게 우연히 마주친 것도 아니다.내가 이 문제에 접근하고 있는 관점을 설명하려고 했을 뿐이야.음, 이것은 나에게 해결된 해결된 문제처럼 보인다.bb23은 경고를 읽었고, 다른 편집자는 훈령을 받았으며(그들이 적절한 편집 스타일을 천천히 익히고 있는 것 같았기 때문에 약간 유감스러운 일이다), 나는 처음으로 숫자 4를 내 빨간 알림 박스에 나타나게 하는 묘한 기쁨을 맛보았다.사용자:그는 아직 논의해야 한다고 생각하는 어떤 문제도 가지고 있지 않다.Bosstopher (대화) 22:50, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

BAselically Bbb23은 우리를 위해 그것을 해결했고 나는 FRF의 논평에 감사하지만 그것은 지역사회가 그렇게 가까이에서 별로 신경 쓰지 않는 이슈임이 분명하다.지옥 in a Bucket (토크) 22:53, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

이 사용자를 계속 주시하십시오.

사용자: AntonioMartin desysooped

계정과 관련된 정책 위반의 경우 사용자:Le Pato Frances; 안토니오 마틴은 낙담했다.그들은 성공적인 관리 요청을 통해서만 도구를 되찾을 수 있을 것이다.

지원: 쿠르셀, 더그 웰러, 고릴라워레, 게릴레로, LFaraone, 로저 데이비스, 살비오 줄리아노, 세라핌블레이드, 윤슈이

중재 위원회의 경우,

Courcelles (대화) 17:56, 2015년 5월 27일 (UTC)

다음 웹 사이트에서 이 문제에 대해 논의하십시오. 위키백과 대화:중재 위원회/공지판#사용자:안토니오 마틴이 담배를 끊었다.

욕설방법에 대한 세부사항으로 넘어가지 않는 가이드라인

최근의 이 실에서 나는 사용자(esp. administrators)에게 현재 사례의 구체적인 내용 이상의 세부사항을 주지 말라는 지침이 있는지, 파괴적인 방법을 묻는 것을 상기시켰다.나는 이것이 존재하지 않는다면 고려해 볼 가치가 있다고 생각한다.삼사라 01:21, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

WP와 같은 것을 찾으십니까?콩? TenOfAllTraes(토크) 01:24, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

네 말이 맞아, 그게 핵심인 것 같아.진지하게 받아들이려면 좀 다듬어야 할 것 같아.현재로선 불운한 버튼에 유아용 스토리를 더한 갤러리로 보인다.이런 상태가 우리가 상당히 애착을 가지고 있는 것일까?나는 "WP:파괴적인 행동을 가르치는 것을 피하십시오."샘사라 01:58, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

만약 있다면, 아마 거기 "See also" 섹션에 있을 것이다; 없기 때문에, 나는 우리가 그것을 가지고 있지 않다고 말할 것이다.2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

무명을 통한 보안은 약하다.그렇다고 WP를 존중해서는 안 된다는 뜻은 아니다.콩을 가이드라인으로 올리는 것은 문제가 될 수 있다.욕설의 잠재적인 방법을 토론하는 것이 유용할 수 있는 많은 이유들이 있고, 위키피디아를 보호하기 위한 유용한 토론과 불필요하게 욕설의 방법을 토론하는 해로운 토론 사이에 선을 긋는 것은 많은 복잡성을 수반할 것이다.(혹시 욕설하는 사람들에게 유용한 정보) 사람들이 WP에 얼마나 잘 복종하는지를 고려할 때:BEANS는 이미 괜찮다고 생각하는데, 우리는 그들에 대해 효과적으로 이야기하지 않고, 금지하지 않아도 된다고 생각해.몬티₈₄₅ 03:25, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

케르크호프의 원칙은 여기에 적용된다.위키피디아를 교란하는 가장 효과적인 방법은 무엇인가?와 같은 정보를 숨길 수는 없다. 만약 여러분이 시도한다면, 그것은 http://wikipediocracy.com/에서 출판될 것이다.반달리즘과 싸우면서도 구글을 사용할 줄 아는 반달은 쉽게 발견할 수 있는 정보를 숨겨두는 것은 나쁜 것이지 좋은 것이 아니다. --Guy Macon (대화) 06:37, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

우리가 합리적으로 비밀을 지킬 수 없는 것들이 있다.그리고 우리가 공개적으로 언급할 필요가 있는 세부사항들이 있다. 부분적으로는 합리적인 투명성을 위해 필요하다.하지만, 이해하기 간단하지 않은 것, 공공의 지식, 또는 대중에게 알리기 위해 필요한 것은, 우리는 알지 못한다.עוד 26 26ו c)) Mishehu 09:15, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

모든 사람들은 이것이 이중 속성으로서의 무명에 대한 논쟁이라고 항상 잘못 생각하는 것 같다.절대 아닙니다.엔트로피의 문제다.조금 흥미가 있는 사람에게도, 가르침을 널리 전파하면, 더 많은 수강생을 얻게 될 것이다.삼사라 10:18, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

꼭 그렇지는 않다.이것은 마치 아이들에게 성교육을 가르치면 아이들이 성관계를 갖기 시작할 것이라는 오래된 두려움과 같다.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 10:55, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

관련 표지판 피스.삼사라 11:31, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

분명한 사실은 이런 종류의 정보를 널리 퍼뜨리지 않기로 선택하는 것은 우리에게 가능한 선택이 아니라는 것이다.우리는 인터넷을 통제하지 않는다. 그리고 만약 우리가 위키피디아에 있는 정보를 억압하려고 노력한다면, 우리는 스트레이산드 효과를 유발하는 것 밖에 할 수 없다.무명을 통한 보안은 정말 좋은 생각처럼 보이지만 실제로는 재앙이다.대신에 위키피디아는 설계에 의한 Secure의 원칙을 따르고 그러한 모든 정보를 공개적으로 접근하고 쉽게 찾을 수 있도록 할 필요가 있다.취약성이 존재하도록 허용하는 것은 괜찮다고 생각하는 덫에 빠지지 마라.대신 옳은 일을 하고 결함을 공표한 다음, 취약성이 더 이상 존재하지 않도록 그것을 만들기 위해 노력하라.예를 들어, 위키피디아가 누구나 편집할 수 있는 백과사전이라는 사실을 공표하는 것은 보안상의 결함을 공표하는 것이다: 누구나 위키피디아를 파괴할 수 있다.이것은 우리가 위키피디아가 누구나 편집할 수 있는 백과사전이라는 사실을 숨기려고 노력해야 한다는 것을 의미하는가?아니. 반달리즘에 대한 더 좋고 더 나은 대책을 강구해야 한다는 뜻이야. --Guy Macon (대화) 18:15, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

무명을 통한 보안은 약할 수 있지만, 비록 당신의 문맥이 "우리가 지금 당장 고치고 있는 것"이라고 할지라도, 현재 효과적이라고 알려진 모든 공훈들의 목록을 조심스럽게 발표하는 것은 어리석은 짓이다.BEANS는 실제로 사람들에게 단지 그것이 효과가 있는지 보기 위해서(그리고 공공 기물 파손이 아닌 더 많은 맥락에서) 본 페이지를 삭제하도록 장려하는 것이 아니라, 우리가 널리 퍼지고 있는 문제를 인식하지 못하는 한, 실제로 어떤 문제도 고칠 필요가 없다.WhatamIdoing (대화) 06:33, 2015년 5월 27일 (UTC)

많은 것들이 우리가 정말로 고칠 수 있는 취약점이 아니다. 정책이 타협하는 만큼 말이다. 또는 단지 일반적인 관행으로 누군가 우리의 처음 몇 줄의 방어를 피하기 위해 그들을 조종할 수 있는 여지를 남긴다.예를 들어, 반달리즘을 원했던 누군가에게 단서봇이 어떻게 작동하는지 검토하고, 그것을 유발하지 않는 방식으로 반달리즘을 하는 것은 사소한 일일 것이다.이제 우리는 더 많은 대사를 할 수 있지만, 그것이 우리가 사람들에게 어떻게 그들이 첫 번째를 지나갈 수 있는지 말해줘야 한다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다.몬티₈₄₅ 19:39, 2015년 5월 27일 (UTC)

토크:침묵한 힐즈#프로포즈된 P.T.와 병합(데모)

편집자가 작성한 글의 백분율

BLP가 유투브에 연결만 되어 있다면 무엇에 태그를 달 수 있는가?

여기 Misho Bojich가 있어, 내가 그들을 EL로 옮겼지만, 그것이 삭제될지 어떨지는 확실치 않아!Wgolf (토크) 00:13, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

예, 소싱되지 않은 BLP는 태그만 달지 말고 삭제해야 한다. --TS 00:59, 2015년 5월 28일(UTC)

나도 동의해. 하지만 며칠 전만 해도 관리자가 기사 중 일부만 삭제했는데 그 기사에서는 (IMDB나 그와 같은 다른 곳까지) 최근에야 나는 더 이상 BLP 프로드를 넣을 수 있을지조차 확신할 수 없어.Wgolf (토크) 01:01, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

관리자에 따라 BLP 미소급 문제가 다른 것 같다.

좋아, 예를 들어, 몇일 전에 EL이 있는 곳에는 BLP를 붙이지 말라는 안내문을 받았어! (EL이 Linked in에 있을 때 한번은 취소된 적이 있어!)여기와 같이: 폴 맥길(배우)은 IMDB에 EL이 있어서 제거되었다. 나는 지금 무엇을 BLP 프로드로 계산해야 할지 너무 혼란스럽다.존 맥브라이드(필름메이커)도 마찬가지다.비록 EL을 가진 다른 사람들은 단지 거기까지 밖에 없지만, 그렇다.Wgolf (토크) 01:08, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

WP:BLPROD: "BLPROD 태그를 배치하려면, 이 프로세스에서 어떤 형태의 출처도 포함하지 않도록 요구한다(참고, 외부 링크 등). 만약 외부 링크가 있다면, BLPROD의 자격이 없다.외부 링크가 있는 기사를 삭제하는 사람은 누구나 정책에 반대한다.그렇다고 해서 그들이 벌을 받아야 한다는 뜻은 아니다.그냥 멈추라고 하면 된다는 뜻. --Jayron32 01:13, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

EL이 있으면 BLP를 올리지 않곤 했는데, EL과 함께 삭제되는 것을 보고 있자니 점점 미칠 지경이다. (EL이 트위터/페이스북/Linked in/thoup like that...) 비록 EL이 Twitter/Facebook/Linked in...Wgolf (토크) 01:15, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

외부 링크를 가지고 있다고 해서 기사가 삭제될 수 있는 것은 아니라는 점에 유의하십시오.그것은 단지 BLPROD가 근거가 될 수 없다는 것을 의미한다.무언가를 삭제해야 하는 다른 많은 이유들이 있다.관리자가 BLPROD의 논리로 사물을 삭제하고 있고, 기사에 외부 링크가 있다면, 삭제해서는 안 된다.자, WP와 같은 이성애자들이 있다.CSD#A7 이 기사는 어떠한 신뢰할 수 있는 중요성의 주장을 하지 않도록 요구한다.그래서 만약 어떤 기사가 "빌리는 귀여운 아이고 수학 시간에 내 옆에 앉는다"와 같은 것을 말하지만, 다른 어떤 것도 아닌, 지역 신문에 쓰여진 빌리에 관한 기사에 대한 외부 링크를 포함시킨다면, 그것은 BLPPROD에 의해 자격이 주어지지 않고, A7에 의해서 될 것이다.그러나, 신뢰할 수 있는 중요성 주장이 주장되고, 기사에 적어도 하나의 참조 또는 외부 링크가 포함된 경우, 정기적인 PROD 또는 AFD와 같은 더 많은 숙의 과정에 의해서만 삭제되어야 한다. --Jayron32 01:22, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

Monu1009 (토크 · 기여) 반달리즘

사용자가 어제 등록하여 두어 페이지(여기 및 여기)를 수정했다.그는 자신의 토크 페이지에 봇으로부터 경고를 받은 후 다른 것을 파괴했다.그는 또 다른 경고를 받고 나서 같은 페이지를 다시, 두 번(여기서 그리고 여기) 파괴했다.그의 편집은 오로지 파괴적인 목적을 위한 것이며 나는 그가 차단되어야 한다고 생각한다.Hansi667 (Near Of The Beast) 09:22, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

완료 - 향후 이와 같은 단순한 공공 기물 파손 사례를 WP에 보고할 수 있다.AIV. Best, Tiptoety 09:40, 2015년 5월 28일(UTC)

IP 범위에서 편집

IP 범위의 기여도를 볼 수 있는 도구를 알려 주시겠습니까?이것은 작동하지만 디스플레이는 그다지 사용자 친화적이지 않다.아베케다레 (대화) 2015년 5월 28일 19:14, (UTC)

여기, 아베케다레, IPv4 레인지 툴이 있는데, 여기 좋은 IPv4 계산기가 있다.우리에게 필요한 것은 IPv6 범위를 볼 수 있는 도구다.네가 그 비트를 다시 짊어지고 있는 것을 보니 좋구나.:)
— Berean Hunter(토크) 21:16, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

고마워 베레안그게 바로 내가 찾던 거야.아베케다레 (대화) 21:18, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

천만에요.몇 주 전의 실마리를 기억하면서 비쇼넨은 위의 도구들도 좋아할 것이다.
— Berean Hunter(토크) 21:21, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

이유 없이 수십 페이지에 걸쳐 쓴 'outdated'

다 된 검은 연 (토크) 00:38, 2015년 5월 29일 (UTC)

• 그 모든 것을 쉽게 되돌릴 수 있을까?사용자들은 전에 공공 기물 파손으로 고발당한 적이 있다.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.218.11.42 — 91.52.18.18.14 (대화) 06:14, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

접착된 RFC를 닫아야 함

폭스 뉴스 채널 RfC는 9개월 반 동안 영업 중이다.나는 자동화된 RfC 유지 관리 소프트웨어가 투표 방법의 예에서 누군가가 만든 가상의 연도 2252년 댓글 날짜에 의해 혼동되었다고 믿는다.

마이크로 요약: RfC는 리드에서의 "일부" 대 "다수"의 사용에 대해 물었다.그 과정에서 늦게 몇몇 편집자들이 대체적인 웰 소스의 표현을 생각해냈다.지난 7개월간 안정적이었던 것 같아나는 "일부 대 다수" 질문에 대한 "일부 대 다수의" 의견과 그 기사가 현재 안정적인 대체 표현을 가지고 있다는 구속력이 없는 의견을 제안한다.(대화) 06:52, 2015년 5월 29일 (UTC)

프로거 3140 표준 오퍼 청구

IP의 스쿨블록

안녕.

IP 블록을 어떻게 처리할지 확실하지 않음

a) 네트워크의 위치 작동 방식 때문에 가까운 장래에 완전히 유효할 수 있음

b) 현재 (내가 아는 바로는) 문제를 일으키고 있지 않다.

듣던 중이었습니다.

나는 그것이 관련된 조직의 최근 상대적 직원이다(그리고 머지않아 나의 COI를 선언할 것이다).

IP주소 81.144.194.192.142는 학교블록으로 불렸다.공공 기물 파손은 학교에서 온 것일 가능성이 높지만, IP 주소는 카운티의 모든 학교와 다른 사무실을 포함한 의회로부터의 모든 교통의 경로 지정 지점이다.이벤트의 일부로서 우리는 올해 후반에 개최할 것을 생각하고 있으며, 우리는 몇몇 학생들이 위키피디아에 접속, 편집, 그리고 그들의 학교에 관한 기사가 어떻게 존재하거나 갱신할 필요가 없는지 그리고 데이터가 어떻게 정확할 수 있는지에 대해 어떻게 해야 하는지를 알기 위해 한 장소에서 참고자료로 사용하기를 희망하고 있다.

(행사가 진행된다면) 블록으로부터 임시 방출을 허가하는 합의를 얻을 수 있는가, 그리고 만약 그렇다면 우리는 어떻게 그렇게 할 필요가 있을까?차단 관리자 제임스BWatson은 그들이 바쁘기 때문에 여기에 와서 답장을 하지 않을 수도 있다고 충고했다.상각(T)(C) 11:35, 2015년 5월 29일(UTC)

• 그건 문제 없어.좋은 사건인 것 같고, 블록을 푸는 것도 문제 없을 것 같아.블록은 싸고, 만약 공공 기물 파손이 새롭게 시작된다면, 우리는 언제나 그것을 되돌려 놓을 수 있다.정말 큰 이슈는 아니에요. --Jayron32 11:39, 2015년 5월 29일 (UTC)

그래, 내가 생각했던 대로야, 달리기도 장담할 수 없지만 가장 큰 장애물을 먼저 빼내고 싶었어.상각(T)(C) 11:44, 2015년 5월 29일(UTC)

@Amortias:네가 말한 이벤트의 블록을 제거해도 문제가 없을 것 같아.다만 IP 주소는 블록이 만료될 때마다 문제가 돌아오는 등 9년 넘게 공공 기물 파손의 근원이 되어 왔기 때문에, 나는 지금 차단을 해제하기보다는 행사가 열리는 기간만 커버하는 일시적인 블록 제거가 되고 싶다.만약 당신이 확실한 날짜를 가지고 있다면, 나에게 또는 다른 관리자에게 좋은 시간에 알려라, 그러면 행사 전에 블록이 해제될 수 있다.나는 또한 행사가 진행될 때, 익명으로 편집하기 보다는 각각의 학생들이 계정을 만드는 것으로 시작하도록 제안한다.그래야 공공기물 파손이 다시 시작되고 일부 관리자가 IP주소를 다시 차단한다면 학생들은 갑자기 프로젝트를 계속할 수 없다는 사실을 발견하지 못할 것이다."제임스"라는 가명을 사용하는 편집자BWatson" (대화) 2015년 5월 29일 14:00 (UTC)

일시적 미봉책이 아마도 가장 좋은 접근법일 것이다.그러나 만약 어떤 문제가 발생한다면, 당신은 그들에게 미리 집에서 계정을 만들게 하거나, 또는 당신이 스스로 6개까지 만들 수 있다, 만약 당신이 그것보다 더 많이 필요하다면, 계정 작성자 권한을 가진 누구든지 당신이 필요로 하는 만큼 만들 수 있다(또는 당신이 직접 그것을 할 수 있는 권리를 사용자에게 요구할 수 있다).몬티₈₄₅ 16:00, 2015년 5월 29일 (UTC)

토크 편집 제한사항 제거/수정:게메인 논란

나는 최근 내 토크 페이지에서 토크 페이지 보호의 장점에 대해 토론하게 된 토크 페이지의 무기한 반보호 요청을 거절했다.재고해달라는 사용자의 요청에 따라 이 주제에 관한 정보를 찾는 동안, 나는 Talk:Gamergate 논쟁은 반비보호적이며, 토크 페이지에 코멘트를 할 수 있는 500개의 편집과 최소 계정 연령을 필요로 하는 제한을 받는다는 것을 알게 되었다.이로 인해 몇 가지 흥미로운 논의가 이루어졌다(토크:게메르게이트 논란#토론 내용을 따르려면 편집자가 편집한 내용이 500개 미만이라는 이유만으로 삭제된 유효한 주석을 사용자가 읽어야 하는 경우, 어느 것이 실행 가능한 출처인지 아닌지를 판단하는 사람)이러한 제한은 또한 다른 사람의 코멘트를 삭제하는 것에 대한 토론(Talk:Gamergate disclusion/Talk 페이지로부터의 코멘트의 삭제)을 유발했다. 여기서 또는 AE에서 이러한 제재의 해제를 논의하는 것은 신중할 수 있다고 언급되었다(나는 이것이 WP에서 찾을 수 있는 것보다 더 넓은 포럼이라고 믿는다).AE).

익명 편집을 환영하는 공동체로서, '누구나 편집할 수 있다'는 생각과 선의의 근본적 가정을 중심으로 만들어졌다.익명/신규 사용자들이 심지어 편집이나 코멘트를 할 수 없도록 막는 것은 내가 여기서 우리의 목표와 반대되는 것이다.토크 페이지는 구하지 않는 한 독자들이 보통 볼 수 있는 것이 아니며, 기사의 변경에 대해 토론하는 포럼이다.커뮤니티의 구성원이자 관리자로서, 나는 가장 예외적인 경우를 제외하고 그 논의를 위해 개방적인 상태를 유지해야 한다고 믿는다(WP:휴먼 및 메타:설립 원칙.단순히 계정이 임의의 한계치 이하라는 이유만으로 타당한 코멘트를 제거하고 차이를 두는 것은 토론을 위한 매우 불충분한 해결책이며, 합의를 도출하는 것을 상당히 어렵게 만든다.따라서 나는 이 제한에 대한 다른 행정가와 편집자들의 생각을 보고, 그것을 어쩌면 없애거나 다듬어야 한다는 공동체의 합의가 있었는지에 대해 토론하는 것이 궁금했다.Best, Mifter (토크) 16:13, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

우리의 정책은 자살조약이 아니며 우리는 살아있는 사람들에 대한 인격살해의 항구가 되지 않는 것에 높은 가치를 둔다.트롤 괴롭힘 그룹에 의한 지속적인 조정된 중단 노력은 백과사전을 개선할 수 있는 우리의 능력을 보장하기 위한 특별한 보호책을 받을 가치가 있다. -- TRPoD는 2015년 5월 16:24, 25일 (UTC)

(충돌 편집)이 페이지 레벨은 Zad68이 시도하고 있는 흥미로운 실험을 승인한다.얼마나 효과가 있을지 모르겠지만 어떻게 될지 궁금하다.위키피디아에서 우리는 개방적인 접근을 하고 선의를 지킨다고 약속하지만, 속담에 있듯이, 그 약속은 자살 협정이 될 필요는 없다.거의 1년 동안 정당들은 이 주제에 관한 위키백과 기사를 조작하기 위해 공개적으로 외부와 결탁해 왔다.그들은 토크 페이지의 끊임없는 드라이브 바이 공격의 낮은 수준의 괴롭힘은 말할 것도 없고, 편집자들을 밖에서 괴롭히고 괴롭혔다.이것은 이 페이지의 구체적인 상황을 고려할 때 합리적인 제한으로 보이며, 그 효과를 판단할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 오랫동안 제자리에 있었을 때 재방문할 수 있다.위키피디아는 누구나 편집할 수 있는 백과사전이지만, 누구나 어떤 이유로든 언제든지 어떤 페이지를 편집할 수 있는 백과사전이 된 지 오래다, 그렇지 않으면 지금 메인 페이지를 그냥 보호해 버려야 한다.가말리엘(토크) 16:31, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

내가 여기저기서 언급했듯이, 이 제한은 내가 좀 느리게 편집하는 편이기 때문에 나의 손해다.말하자면, 나는 더 좋은 기사를 생산할 가능성이 있는 것에 전적으로 찬성한다.그러나 나는 자드68의 (그리고 지금 가말리엘의) 서브 페이지 해결책의 우아함에 대해 희망적이다.제한되지 않은 하위 페이지가 생성될 수 있는가?신호 대 잡음 비율이 그럴 만한 가치가 있을지 확신할 수 없으며 WP에 근접하고 있다는 점을 유념해야 한다.FORPOR 영역.또한 WP도 있다.BLP의 우려.하지만 어쩌면 메타 페이지 논의를 중단(또는 최소한 느리게)하는 방법이 될 수도 있을까?생각일 뿐이야.내가 얼마나 틀렸는지 얼마든지 말해줘!두무지드(토크) 16:39, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

나는 또한 내가 걱정했음에도 불구하고 백과사전을 보호하는 데 신중해야 하기 때문에 이것이 어떻게 해결되는지 보는 데 관심이 있다.그러나 IAR/감소화 상황을 이용하여 기사가 아닌 토론 페이지가 되어야 할 사항에 대한 비상한 조치를 정당화하는 것은 변화를 논의하고 단기적 이익을 위한 합의를 도출하는 우리의 핵심 원칙을 훼손할 위험이 있기 때문에 미끄러운 경사다.현재 시스템과 함께 내가 보는 가장 큰 붉은 깃발은 사용자가 임의의 임계값을 충족하지 못한다는 이유만으로 단순히 토론을 더욱 자극하고 이에 기여하는 다른 합법적인 논평(역사상 12개 및 기타 삭제)의 제거에서 비롯된다.나는 코멘트를 포괄적으로 제거/거부하지 않고 유용한 코멘트/토론을 허용할 수 있는 방법을 보고 싶다. 내 첫 번째 생각은 허글 화이트리스트 같은 것이었지만 그것이 실용적일지는 잘 모르겠다.나는 500 편집/30일 요건이 공개 토론을 허용하고 기사를 구성하는 방법에 있어 다른 관점을 끌어들이도록 되어 있는 토크 페이지에 너무 많은 부수적 피해를 주는 것으로 본다.미프터(대화) 16:48, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

"상처 손상" ?선의의 계좌의 이론적 '상호적 피해'는 실제 반복된 일회성 계좌의 피해에 맞서 20일을 더 기다려야 하는 것으로, 살아있는 사람들에 대한 명예훼손과 열망을 퍼뜨리고 있다.백과사전의 개선을 지지하는 선택사항은 매우 명확하다. -- TRPoD alka aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

미프터, 나는 이 기사를 "논쟁적"으로 보이는 다른 기사들과 비교하는 것은 불가능하다고 생각한다.한 시간 동안 보관된 38개의 토크 페이지를 돌아다니면서 순환 토론, 반복해서 질문되는 질문(X30), 이 토크 페이지에서 흔히 볼 수 있는 드라이브 바이 네이밍과 모욕 등을 살펴보십시오.그리고 이것은 10개월 동안 38페이지에 달하는 것이다.한때 이 토크 페이지가 얼마나 분열적이었는지 과소평가할 수는 없을 것 같다.이쯤 되면 출처를 자세히 조사하고 재검토해 왔으며, 혁명적인 일은 일어나지 않을 것이다.게메르게이트는 끝났고 지금은 게시판에만 존재하는 사건이었다.기사를 연마하여 반달리즘으로부터 보호하는 일이다.리즈 23:31, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

이 제한은 TheRedPenOfDoom에 의한 전쟁터 행동을 주장하는 중재 집행 스레드[8]에 대응하여 제정되었다는 점에 유의해야 한다.내가 가장 잘 알 수 있는 것은 최종 관리자의 동기가 잠재적으로 촉발되는 행동을 가능한 한 제한하기 위해서였다. 107.107.58.254 (대화) 17:21, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

가장 큰 존중을 받는 가운데, 핵심 원칙은 이미 훼손되었다.모든 사람이 편집할 수 있는 백과사전은 잘 짜여져 있고 자금도 넉넉한 홍보 조직이라면 누구나 전복할 수 있는 백과사전으로 탈바꿈하고 있다.게이머게이트 전술은 외부로 조직된 캠페인에 등장하는 새로운, IP, 좀비 계정의 끝없는 모집에 관여했다.종종, 이러한 캠페인은 "새로운" 편집자들이 그들에 참여할 수 없다는 핑계로 이전에 해결되었던 질문들을 다시 연다.그 결과는 100만 단어를 훨씬 넘어섰는데, 소프트웨어 산업에서 여성들의 성생활에 대한 지속적인 토론, 수십 개의 금지와 차단, ARBCOM 사건, 엄청난 양의 행정업무, 그리고 위키피디아에 대한 매우 비판적인 것에서부터 비논리적인 것에 이르는 신문 취재를 포함한 문자 그대로 수십 개의 BLP 위반이다.이 사건의 자살 조약은 그 프로젝트의 자살을 고려하는 것이지, 그 이하도 아니다.마크번스타인 (대화) 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

• 이것은 가끔 있는 다른 모든 것을 제외하고 가장 최악의 시스템이 시도된 것처럼 보인다.잠시 동안 뛰게 놔두고 어떻게 되어 가는지 보자.WP를 만드는 것이 유혹적일 수 있지만:AGF의 예외는, 유감스럽게도, 이 주제와 지금까지 일관되게 보아온 것처럼, 시스템의 만연한 게임에 대한 문을 훨씬 더 열 가능성이 있다.가이 (도움말!) 2015년 5월 25일 17:28 (UTC)

나는 게이머네이트 중재 사건인 악몽을 꾸었던 전직 군인으로서 가이의 말에 동의한다.이것은 결코 최적의 상황은 아니지만, 우리는 여기에 예외적으로 문제가 있는 주제 영역을 가지고 있다.둘 다 편집에 익숙하지 않은 사람이고 이 늦은 시간에 이 주제에 대해 불붙이듯 그려지는 사람은 아마도 한 종류 혹은 다른 유형의 극단주의자일 것이다.이것이 좋은 종교 신자들이 참여하는 것을 막고 있는 것이 가능한가?그래. 그건 아쉽지만, 예외적인 상황에서는 예외적인 해결책이 필요해.Beeblebrox (대화) 17:34, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

• 관련된 한 사람으로서, 나는 현재 500 편집/30일 제한은 문제가 되는 것을 막기 위한 합리적인 조치라는 것에 동의한다 - 기사에 대한 의도는 좋으나 WP 정책 내에서 이 주제를 쓰는 것이 얼마나 어려운지에 대한 좋은 느낌을 가지고 있지 않은 사람들, 그리고 그것들이 반드시 파괴적인 것은 아니지만, 그들은 도움이 되지 않는다.ng 당시 너무 많이.또한 WP 기사에 영향을 미치려고 하는 것으로 알려진 사람들이 현장 밖에서 조직되어 있고 그것이 선의라고 할지라도 백과사전이 만들어지는 방식은 아니다.그러나 동시에, 편집자들이 페이지 소유권 지점으로 지나치게 방어적인 것과 페이지를 원하는 시각으로 유지하는 것과 일치하지 않는 토론의 모든 길을 닫는 것에 대한 배틀그라운드 사고방식 때문에 우리는 문제를 가지고 있다. 그것은 새로운 편집자들이 와서 개선사항에 대해 물어보고자 하는 적대감과 욕구를 불러일으키고 있다.500/30 제한은 시험해 볼 시간이 있을 때까지 확실히 유지되거나 최소한으로 유지되어야 하지만, 이것은 또한 편집자들이 다루기 싫어하는 토론을 활기차게 블랙리스트에 올리려는 것과 균형을 이루어야 하며, 프로세스의 개방성을 유지할 수 있다. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

더 많은 관점을 보고 싶은 사람이 있다면, 주제에 대한 몇 가지 추가 토론: 여기와 여기 Riffraffselbow (대화) (출연) 18:56, 2015년 5월 25일 (18:56, 25)

이 오프사이트에서 조직된 "캠페인"과 "협박" 사용자들이 계속해서 언급하고 있는 증거는 어디에 있는가?그런 캠페인은 없는 것 같고, 기사가 (분명히) 심하게 편향되고 부정확하다고 보는 새로운 이용자들을 공격하고 토론 페이지에 코멘트를 하기 위한 공포 전술이자 변명이라고 본다. 50.255.103.205 (대화) 22:57, 2015년 5월 25일 (UTC)

• @50.255.103.205: "열린 마음을 갖는다고 해서 뇌가 빠지도록 놔둘 필요는 없다." 제임스 오버그(파라프레이티드)는 <악마의 세계>(1995년)의 칼 세이건을 통해 말했다.BMK (토크) 00:51, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

당신은 레딧과 8찬에 대해 들어본 적이 있는가? (특정 포럼이나 게시판에 링크하지 않을 것이다.)지난 10월부터 두 사이트 모두 자신의 입장에 반대하거나 동조한다고 생각하는 특정 편집자에 대한 토론을 비롯해 가메르게이트 관련 위키백과 기사의 편집에 전념하는 토론 실드가 많았다.조직적인 선거운동이라는 측면에서 담합이 아니라 이런 기사 편집에 접근하는 방법에 대한 비판과 불만, 전략 등이 많다.6개월 전만큼 두드러지지 않을 수도 있지만 여전히 발생한다.하지만 나는 이 정보가 이 주제를 편집하는데 얼마간 시간을 보낸 사람들에게는 새로운 것이 아니라고 생각한다.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

"특정 편집자에 대한 토론/특정 편집자에 대한 많은 비판, 불평, 그리고 편집에 접근하는 방법에 대한 전략 수립"은 ANI/기사 대화 페이지와 매우 흡사하다.만약 그들이 위키피디아를 파괴하거나 다른 이야기인 규칙을 어기는 방법에 대해 논의하고 있다면, 우리는 대비해야 한다. 만약 당신이 그것들을 연결하기를 원하지 않는다면 인용문을 복사해서 붙여줄 수 있는가? 216.155.129.27 (대화) 21:19, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

제발 그러지 마.그들이 말하는 것은 무관하다 - 우리는 여기서 결과를 본다.BMK (대화) 04:10, 2015년 5월 27일 (UTC)

아마도 그 증거는 부분적으로는 이 주제 영역과 관련된 모든 것에 대해 의견을 내는 모든 IP들일 것이다.PeterThourth (대화) 00:12, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

• 미프터의 접근법은 일반적으로 분명 좋지만, 게이머게이트 문제에는 특이한 해결책이 필요한 몇 가지 특이한 특징이 있다.나는 단지 어떤 일이 일어나고 있는지 가끔 흘끗 보았을 뿐인데, 최근에 해결된 문제들을 반복적으로 반복하고, 세상에 그들의 게이머네이트 버전을 말하는 것을 누가 만류하지 않을 것인가 하는 새롭고 재활성화된 계정들이 많이 있다는 것을 알아차렸을 뿐이다.거의 모든 그러한 활동들은 백과사전에 관심을 가진 일반 편집자들에게는 지극히 시민적이면서도 비생산적이고 피곤하다.나는 500개 이하의 편집으로 2007년에 만들어진 몇몇 계정을 보았고, Talk:Gamergate 논쟁에 참여하기 위해 다시 활성화되었다.AGF는 WP의 복잡성을 설명하는 데 일주일이 소요된 시점에서 그들의 견해를 개별적으로 검토해야 한다고 말한다.BLP 및 WP:그들 각각에게 RGW를 주지만, 그것은 실제로 가능하지.오프위키 캠페인(및 WP:ARBGG)는 기사를 옹호하는 편집자들의 제재 가능한 대응을 자극할 수 있도록 하기 위해 활동가들을 훈련시켰다.구글 검색을 해보니 너무 추한 것에 연결되지 않고 필요한 모든 것을 가지고 있는 합리위키에 정신이 팔려있었다.조누니크 (대화) 02:11, 2015년 5월 26일 (UTC)

그래, 빌어먹을 저 편집자들은 10년 전에 계정을 만들고 위키피디아로 돌아와서 위키피디아의 규칙 안에서 결함이 있다고 느끼는 기사를 개선하려고 노력했어!Riffraffselbow (토크) (기증) 04:32, 2015년 5월 27일 (UTC)

WP:CPUSH는 위키백과의 규칙 내에 있다. WP가 다음과 같은 이유를 가지고 있다.ARBGG가 필요했고, 38페이지의 아카이브된 토크가 있는 이유는 모두 지난 9개월 동안 작성되었다.경험 많은 편집자들은 새 계정과 재활성화된 계정의 유입이 "기사 개선"과 아무 상관이 없다는 것을 알 수 있다. WP는 다음과 같다.신뢰할 수 있는 출처의 말에 관계없이 RGW.조누니크 (대화) 05:58, 2015년 5월 27일 (UTC)

이 자료에 따르면 "38페이지"의 절반 이상이 상위 10명의 편집자, 모든 장기 사용자, 상위 20명의 75% 이상이 만든 것으로 나타났다.그러니까 틀렸어 - 신규 계정과 부활한 계정은 38페이지의 아카이브된 대화가 있는 이유가 아니야. 168.1.99.201 (토크) 07:38, 2015년 5월 27일 (UTC)

<나는 AGFING이 아니었기 때문에 내 자신의 코멘트를 제거했다(제한이 놓여진 이후 그가 세고 있다고 가정했을 때 그의 코멘트를 잘못 읽은 것은 말할 것도 없고)> 리프라프셀보우 (토크) 06:24, 2015년 5월 27일 (UTC)

나는 최소 500/30의 자격을 부여하는 관리자다.이 토론은 흥미롭지만, 관심 있는 독자들에게 내 생각과 관련하여 내가 사용자 토크에 올린 글을 지적하는 것 외에, 나는 잠시 관찰할 것이다. Zad682015년 5월 26일 15:00(UTC)

• Guy의 말에 강력히 동의하라: 500/30 바는 다른 모든 것을 제외하고 가능한 최악의 시스템이다.이와 같은 예외적인 상황에서는 자드68의 예외적인 조치가 보증된다.비쇼넨 대담 2015년 5월 29일 (UTC)

중복 페이지를 리디렉션하십시오.

여보세요. 관리인이 루이 오귀스트 세이를 루이 세이로 바꿔줄 수 있을까?그것은 중복된 페이지다.'루이세이'는 그의 가장 흔히 쓰이는 이름이다.페이지 작성자는 내 의견에 동의했다. (내 대화 페이지 참조)감사합니다.지그지그20s (대화) 23:32, 2015년 5월 28일 (UTC)

나는 두 기사를 병합해 보았지만, 경제학자 루이 오귀스트 세이와 루이 침례교 세이의 두 가지 번거로움이 있었기 때문에 나는 루이 오귀스트 세이라는 이름으로 두 기사를 병합해 보았다.병합된 자료가 어디서 왔는지 표시하기 위해 '복사' 템플릿을 붙였지만, 관리자가 루이 세이와 루이 오귀스트 세이의 역사 병합을 한다면 더 쉬울지도 모른다.BMK (대화) 00:04, 2015년 5월 29일 (UTC)

루이밥티스트 세이는 어디에 있나?내가 아는 한 루이세, 장바티스트 세이가 있을 뿐이다.'루이 세이'는 루이스에게 가장 흔하게 사용되는 이름이지 모든 연구에서 그의 정식 이름인 루이 오귀스트가 아니다...Zigzig20s (대화) 00:08, 2015년 5월 29일 (UTC)

Zz20s는 그들이 오직 하나의 "Louis Say" - 그 형제는 "Jean-Baptiste Say"라는 단 하나의 "Louis Say"라는 것이 맞는 것 같다.그러나 그는 WP에 대해 부정확해 보인다.전기의 주제의 CONNAME, 그것은 명백하게 (특히 당시의 명명 규약이 주어졌음){루이 아우구스트 세이"라고 되어 있었기 때문에, 나는 이것이 기사의 정확한 명칭이라는 의견에 변함이 없다.zz20s의 추가 연구가 그의 마음을 바꾸지 않는다면, RM을 시작하는 것은 단순한 문제일 뿐이다.그러나 나는 그것에 대한 이유를 모르겠다.BMK (대화) 00:26, 2015년 5월 29일 (UTC)

두 제목 모두 중복되는 역사가 많기 때문에 역사 병합은 현명한 생각이 아니라고 생각한다.Graham87 06:11, 2015년 5월 29일 (UTC)

OK BMK (대화) 17:49, 2015년 5월 29일 (UTC)

경계: 반(反)아랍주의 트롤의 귀환

몇 분 전, 이런 일이 있었다.지난주와 같은 패턴이야.조금만 더 주의하면, 이 남자는 탈선했고, 중동과 관련된 많은 기사들을 완전히 차단해야 했고, 새로운 계정을 만들기 시작했다.그날도 거의 같은 시간이었으니, 이것이 불붙을 것을 기대하라.각별한 경계심이 필요했다.나는 곧 잠자리에 들기 때문에 다른 모든 사람들에게 눈을 뜨라고 알려 줘. --Jayron32 04:33, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

넌 트롤이야 이 더러운 반(反)세미티야— Jayon32에 의해 추가된 서명되지 않은 이전의 논평은 유대인 혐오 트롤이다. (토크 • 기여) 06:23, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

이것은 WP를 위한 가능한 한 빨리 블록이 필요하다.여기 말고 다른 게 없다면.마넷DTalk 06:28, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

드래곤즈 비행에 감사한다.이 일이 끝나기 전에 다른 계좌가 만들어질 가능성도 있다.MarnettD Talk 06:31, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

모든 언어 언어 언어학자들에게 하는 질문

지역별 정당 목록 - 너무 구체적

안녕하십니까, 나는 정당의 명단이 대륙과 심지어 대륙 내의 어떤 지역들로 나뉘어져서, 그 중 몇몇은 어떤 출처에도 근거하지 않은 아주 짧은 기사들을 만들어 내고 있다는 것을 알아챘다(예: 국가별 중앙아프리카의 정당 목록 같은 것.나는 이 시스템이 너무 구체적이고 문제는 독자들이 지금과 달리 정치 시스템을 비교할 수 있게 해주는 모든 정보를 한 페이지에 모두 담을 수 있다는 것이다.누군가가 이 페이지를 삭제하고 하나의 포괄적인 페이지로 정리해 주시겠습니까?--109.144.220.183 (대화) 17:22, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

그것들을 삭제하는 것은 아마 아무 도움도 되지 않을 것이다.더 나은 선택은 적절한 귀속성으로 복사/붙여넣기만 하면 되는 과정인 그것들을 병합한 다음 제목을 리디렉션하는 것이다.당신은 그것을 할 수 있어야 한다; 당신이 적합하다고 생각되는 대로 그것들을 병합하고, 만약 당신이 페이지 이동에 도움이 필요하다면, 여기 다시 오거나, 남용 필터에서 잘못된 긍정들을 둘러보거나, 반투명된 페이지를 편집하거나, 또는 당신이 단지 어떤 것을 어떻게 해야 할지 확신할 수 없는 경우.나이튼드 (대화) 2015년 5월 30일 20:15, 30 (UTC)

위키백과:삭제/위키피디아 관련 기사:다운햄 시장의 버스 노선 삭제/목록

WTF? 이것은 AFD의 AFD이다.이 지명은 어느 곳에서도 초월되지 않았고 따라서 어떠한 논평이나 표도 얻지 못했다.CSD G6에 따라 삭제하시겠습니까? 103.6.156.167 (대화) 15:32, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

그래, 됐어.Beeblebrox (대화) 15:38, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

어, 여기 AFD 몇 개가 있는데, 절대 번복되지 않아서 어떤 논평이나 투표도 받지 못한 것들이야.

• 위키백과:삭제/토크 조항:카레이트 펀치(2006년 생성)
• 위키백과:삭제/대화 문서:더 민트 (TV 시리즈) (2006년 제작)
• 위키백과:삭제/대화 문서:요사노아키코(2006년 창작)

103.6.156.167 (대화) 17:13, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

내 취미 중 하나는 잃어버린 AfD 후보들을 낚아채는 것이지만, 적어도 활동적인 AfD 태그가 있는 후보들을 찾고, 가능한 경우 일반적으로 지연된 후보들을 완성한다.만약 그것이 위키피디아 토크 공간에서 그냥 사라진다면, 그것은 아무런 해를 끼치지 않을 것이고, 거기에 남겨지는 것이 좋을 것이다.누가 정말 원한다면 후보 지명을 지울 수도 있을 것 같아.몬티₈₄₅ 17:40, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

여기 더 많은 쓰레기들이 있다.

• 위키백과 대화:창작물/산타의 취미(G13)
• 템플릿 토크:후보/우버보이(G8)를 아십니까?
• 템플릿 토크:컴퓨터(G8)에서 IP 주소의 후보/공개 요령을 알고 있었는가?
• 위키백과:삭제/사용자 문서:엘비/샌드박스3(G2)

103.6.156.167 (대화) 16:20, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

내가 먼저 가서 이것들을 훑어볼게. 하지만 통상적으로 이것을 진행하는 방법은 여기에 실을 붙이기 보다는, 여러분이 분명히 익숙할 수 있는 과정인 빠른 삭제를 위해 그 페이지들에 태그를 붙이는 것이다.Beeblebrox (대화) 17:06, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

관리인 눈요기 부탁한다.

Infoboxes 중재 소송 관련 중재안

중재 위원회는 발의로 다음과 같이 결의하였다.

중재위원회의 경우 --L235 (t / c / ping in response) 20:24, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

다음 웹 사이트에서 이 문제에 대해 논의하십시오. 위키백과 대화:중재 위원회/공지 게시판#인포박스 중재 소송 관련 의견수렴

레인지블록?

예는 [10]을 참조하십시오.IP 블록이 많은 사용자들을 괴롭히기 위해 사용되고 있다.레인지 블록이 순서대로 있을 수 있다.Beeblebrox (대화) 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

그들 중 한 명은 심지어 사용자 대화에 반대했다.소문자 Sigmabot III.사인봇에서 누군가가 이런 불평을 하는 것을 본 것은 아마 처음일 것이다 :-) 레인지블록을 제대로 수행하는 방법을 이해한 적은 없지만, 무엇을 막아야 하는지 알려주면 내가 할 것이다.나이튼드 (대화) 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC) 17:17, 31

이것들은 BT의 엄청난 범위들이다.편집 필터나 반보호가 차단하려는 것보다 더 적절할 것이다. -- zzuzz^(talk) 17:18, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

이 작업을 수행하려면 편집 필터가 필요하다.나는 한 가지 요청을 했지만, 그들은 이미 행동에 적응하기 시작했다.하지만 레인지 블록 전체 /8을 시도하면 엄청난 부수적 피해를 입게 될 겁니다.우리에게 정말 필요한 것은 이것을 떠맡을 숙련된 편집 필터 관리자다.몬티₈₄₅ 17:30, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

편집 내용을 포착할 수 있는 일반적인 동작을 찾아낼 수 있다면 편집 필터가 좋은 옵션으로 보일 것이다.샘 월튼 (대화) 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC) 17:34, 31

나는 이들 IP에 대한 ISP(BT)에 학대 보고서를 보냈다.2015년 5월 31일(UTC) 18:05, 31(Equivalibility)

마지막 요약 편집 세트(특수:기여/86.142.21.80)는 "편집 필터는 끔찍하게 불공평하다"고 했다.나는 그의 재미를 멈추게 하고, 지루한 녀석이 사라지는지 보기 위해 48시간짜리 블록을 제안한다.가이 (도움말!) 2015년 5월 31일 20:40 (UTC)

@JZG: 어떤 범위 블록을 제정하자는 겁니까?몬티₈₄₅ 21:49, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

86.168.0.0/16 및 81.168.0.0/16, 48시간 동안 소프트 블록.BT 캔트랄 플러스 둘 다.가이(도움말!) 22:09, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

나는 또한 IP 트롤의 편집 요약이 "거대한 팬이 아닌 tbh"라는 것을 주목해야 한다.IP는 나를 그 목표물 중 하나로 만들었다(그는 자주 AN/I에 글을 쓰며 6월 2일 준보호가 해제되면 내 페이지를 파괴하겠다고 다짐했다) 그리고 48시간 범위 블록이 그들을 늦추지 않을 것이다.TheGracefulSlick (대화) 03:23, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)

WMF 이사회 선거의 마지막 날

WMF 이사회 선거가 약 24시간 후에 끝날 것이라는 것을 친절하게 상기시켜주는 것!그러므로 WMF의 최고 수준의 리더쉽에 누가 참여해야 하는지에 대한 여러분의 의견을 기여하고 싶다면, 지금이 바로 그 때 입니다.드래곤즈 비행 (토크) 23:18, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

그 말은 그 망할 현수막들이 더 이상 나타나지 않는다는 뜻인가?칠음 04:12, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

lol! 하지만 Preferences 내에서 그들을 비활성화할 수 없을까?아니면 관리자들이 그들을 차단하는 것이 허용되지 않는가?(말장난 의도 없음) 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC) 13_Fortuna^{Imperatrix Mundi}:19, 31

투표 완료! 리즈 14:06, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

응? 투표하고 난 현수막을 기각했는데 다시는 안 돌아왔어.가이(도움말!) 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

쿠키를 지우면 다시 나타날 겁니다.WhatamIdoing (대화) 02:32, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)

첫날 투표하고 현수막을 기각했는데도 여전히 돌아온다...색깔도 다르고...나는 컴퓨터를 자주 옮기는 경향이 있는데, 그것은 컴퓨터를 다시 나타나게 할 것이다.나는 그들을 모두 끄고 싶지 않지만 짜증나게 한다.EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:42, 2015년 6월 1일(UTC)

WMF 이사회 선거의 마지막 날

WMF 이사회 선거가 약 24시간 후에 끝날 것이라는 것을 친절하게 상기시켜주는 것!그러므로 WMF의 최고 수준의 리더쉽에 누가 참여해야 하는지에 대한 여러분의 의견을 기여하고 싶다면, 지금이 바로 그 때 입니다.드래곤즈 비행 (토크) 23:18, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

그 말은 그 망할 현수막들이 더 이상 나타나지 않는다는 뜻인가?칠음 04:12, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

lol! 하지만 Preferences 내에서 그들을 비활성화할 수 없을까?아니면 관리자들이 그들을 차단하는 것이 허용되지 않는가?(말장난 의도 없음) 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC) 13_Fortuna^{Imperatrix Mundi}:19, 31

투표 완료! 리즈 14:06, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

응? 투표하고 난 현수막을 기각했는데 다시는 안 돌아왔어.가이(도움말!) 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

쿠키를 지우면 다시 나타날 겁니다.WhatamIdoing (대화) 02:32, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)

첫날 투표하고 현수막을 기각했는데도 여전히 돌아온다...색깔도 다르고...나는 컴퓨터를 자주 옮기는 경향이 있는데, 그것은 컴퓨터를 다시 나타나게 할 것이다.나는 그들을 모두 끄고 싶지 않지만 짜증나게 한다.EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:42, 2015년 6월 1일(UTC)

로그-선형 모델 :: 제목 편집

이 글을 올리기에 적당한 장소가 아니라면 용서해 주십시요. 하지만...

필자는 최근 '로그선형_모델'에서 '로그선형_모델'로 페이지를 옮겨 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-Linear_model','이라는 제목을 수정했지만, 제목 속 'm'도 자본화해야 한다고 생각한다.

나는 새 사용자인데 시스템이 이 조정을 할 수 없게 했다.

아마 그라비타스가 더 많은 사용자가 이 아멜레오션을 만드는 데 도움을 줄 것이다.

S.Matthew English (talk) 06:44, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)

@H1395010:위키피디아는 보통 그런 것들을 자본화하지 않기 때문에 나는 그것을 다시 소문자 제목으로 옮겼다(관련 [[이름 지정 규약과 대문자 지침] 참조).Graham87 08:34, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)

그레이엄 하지만 이 분야에서 가장 존경받고 뛰어난 연구자 중 한 명이 쓴 이 글을 보십시오. 그가 따르는 관례를 보십시오. 왜 우리는 다른 관례를 따를 것인가?http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~mcollins/loglinear.pdf—H1395010(토크 • 기여) 08:37, 2015년 6월 1일(UTC)에 의해 추가된 서명되지 않은 이전 논평

왜냐하면 위키피디아는 다른 사람들의 것이 아니라 자신만의 스타일 가이드를 따르기 때문이다.— 148.253.221.44 (대화) 11:15, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)에 의해 추가된 이전의 부호 없는 의견

불행하게도, 종종 그런 경우가 있다: 우리는 우리가 전문가들보다 더 잘 알고 있다고 생각한다.그러나 H1395010, 내가 log-linear.pdf를 검색하면 대부분의 외모가 "log-linear model"이고, "Log-linear model"이나 "Log-Linear model"은 제목에 거의 항상 나타나는데, 다른 경우는 그렇지 않아도 단어가 대문자를 얻는다고 오해하는 것 같다.나이튼드 (대화) 00:18, 2015년 6월 2일 (UTC)

방금 큰 실수를 해서 지금 당장 고칠 시간이 없어.

자체 블랭킹된 AfD에 대한 빠른 질문/닫기

상담 시 관리 감독 요청:파라과이 전쟁

현재 Talk에서 이름 바꾸기 논의가 진행 중이다.파라과이 전쟁#요청 2015년 5월 25일 이동이전의 요청으로 인해 다소 잘못된 담금질 논의가 이루어졌고, 최근의 추가는 제안자(나 자신)에 대한 다소 명백한 인신공격이기 때문에 [11] 나는 일을 정상 궤도에 올려놓기 위해 관리감독을 요청한다.WCM_email 20:59, 2015년 5월 31일(UTC)

그것은 솔직히 인신공격처럼 보이지 않는다.또한, 만약 내가 할 수 있다면, 이 전쟁은 스페인어를 사용하는 세계 전역에 게릴라 데 라 트리플 알리안자로 널리 알려져 있다.아무도 그것을 "Guerra de Paraguar" 또는 그 무엇이라고 부르지 않는다(나는 이것이 Varusschlacht vs Teutoburg Forest와 같은 상황일 것이라고 추측하지만).그리고 너의 제안은 말이 안 돼. 이 세상 어딘가에 또 다른 트리플 얼라이언스가 있을까?나는 제안된 제목의 "남미" DAB 부분을 이해할 수 없다.§FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:20, 2015년 5월 31일(UTC)

트리플 얼라이언스는 여러 번 있었다.던컨힐 (대화) 21:29, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

응, 미안해.나는 "삼국 동맹의 전쟁이 또 있었다"고 말했어야 했다.§FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:33, 2015년 5월 31일(UTC)

내가 아는 한 거기까지는 없었고 그것은 3국 동맹의 전쟁으로 영어권에서는 꽤 많이 알려져 있다.브라질에서는 파라과이 전쟁으로 알려져 있다; 현재의 이름을 옹호하는 사람들은 브라질 프로젝트의 일원이 되는 경향이 있다.나는 마지막 요청의 마무리로 모니커(남미)를 다른 "트리플 얼라이언스"와 혼동될 수 있다는 전제하에 추가했다(혼란스럽지만 영어로 파라과이 전쟁으로 다양하게 알려진 최소 3개의 개별 전쟁이 있다).이전의 토론은 어리석게도 나쁜 담금질이었고 나는 반복을 보고 싶지 않다.WCM_email 21:47, 2015년 5월 31일 (UTC)

[12] Lecen (talk · concidents)이 지금 내 토크 페이지 게시물을 리팩터링하고 있으니, 누군가 그에게 WP를 상기시켜줄 수 있으리라.TPG. 나는 어떤 언급도 환영받지 못할 것이라고 생각한다 [13].WCM_email 08:14, 2015년 6월 1일(UTC)

(비관리자 의견) @WCM: 우연히 감독 요청은 이 (또는 다른) 포럼에 게시되지 않고 감독-en-wp@wikimedia.org으로 직접 이메일로 보내도록 되어 있다.Erpert 03:52, 2015년 6월 2일 (UTC)

두 개의 새로운 밀린 일수

{{Special 사용으로:PrefixIndex} 마크업, 두 개의 새로운 페이지 이동 백로그가 생성됨.위키백과:요청된 이동/잘못 배치된 XfDs는 올바른 XfD 보드로 이동해야 하는 XfD 후보 및 기존 삭제 후보 목록을 작성하기 위한 시도임.위키백과:요청된 이동/구 AFC 제출은 WT의 초안 목록이다.AFC하위 공간 하는드래프트네임스페이스로 이동해야.

아니, 자동 확인 사용자는 페이지를 이동할 수 있으므로 관리자 백로그가 아니다.이 메시지는 단지 홍보를 위해 여기에 게시되고 있다.본문 복사 또는 개선은 환영한다. 103.6.156.167 (대화) 11:52, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

관리들이 오고 있어뉴몰든에서 접속 배선함을 먹은 오소리와의 약간의 지연.러그넛^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:08, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

막 일을 시작하려던 참이었는데, "잠깐만, 왜 이런 일은 봇이 할 수 없지?"라는 생각이 들었다.어디서 그런 얘기가 나왔나?에프링엄과 블라인딩엄도 많이 절약될 것이다. - 포인틸리스트 (토크) 12:24, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

음, 위키백과:삭제/산술 랩에 대한 투표는 왜 인간이 관여해야 하는지를 보여주는 예다.Acid rap은 2009년(디프)에 Esham으로 합병되었으며, 원본 Acid rap 페이지는 리디렉션이 되었다.그 이후로 Acid Rap이 만들어졌고, Chance the Lapper의 앨범에 대해서.Acid 랩의 현재 상태는 Acid Rap으로, 때로는 Esham으로 리디렉션되는 것이다.그렇다면 삭제에 대한 과거 투표는 어디로이동해야 하는가:AfD/Acid 랩, AfD/Esham 또는 무엇으로?-포인트리스트(토크)12:44, 2015년 5월 30일(CoordinatedUniversalTime).

이제 위키백과:삭제/아시드랩(0차 지명) 조항대부분의 VFD 하위 페이지는 VFD가 AFD로 이름이 바뀌었을 때 AFD 하위 페이지가 되기 위해 봇짐으로 움직였지만, 어떤 이유로든 Acid 랩은 그렇지 않았다.WP 이후:AFD/Acid rap이 두 번째였고, VFD가 그 전에 와야 하지만, 두 페이지를 모두 옮기는 것은 도움이 되지 않을 것이기 때문에, 나는 그냥 순차적인 이름을 붙이고 WP에 해트노트를 던졌다.AFD/Acid 랩.나이튼드 (대화) 2015년 5월 30일 20:10, 30 (UTC)

정말 고마워 - 포인틸리스트 (대화) 22:09, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

다푸크? 몇 년 전 삭제 투표.말도 안 돼.그냥 과거의 관련성으로만 핵폭탄을 만들고 다음으로 넘어가라.가이(도움말!) 22:11, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

전부 다 그런 건 아니에요.Acid 랩을 위한 VFD는 유지되어야 한다는 확고한 합의를 이끌어낸 정상적인 지명이었다; 그것을 삭제하는 것은 훨씬 더 최근의 "유지" AFD를 삭제하는 것만큼 도움이 되지 않을 것이다.어디에도 가지 않은 것(다음 섹션의 세 개 삭제)은 지울 수 있지만, 그것과 그 잘못된 위치에 있는 실제의 논쟁을 구별할 수 있는 사람이 필요하다.나이튼드 (대화) 22:41, 2015년 5월 30일 (UTC)

Nyttend, 삭제해야 할 두 가지 다른 후보:위키백과:삭제/WikiProject 의료 조건 및 위키백과에 대한 조항:삭제/위키피디아 관련 기사:위키프로젝트 의료 조건. 103.6.156.167 (대화) 14:40, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)

하나는 삭제했고, 다른 하나는 실제로 약간의 논의를 받았으니, 남아야 한다.나이튼드 (대화) 15:56, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)

• WP에서 다음과 같은 4가지 이동 요청을 했다.RM/TR:
  • 위키백과:위키백과에 대한 삭제/초대 삭제에 대한 내용:삭제/Wikipedia용 miscellany:극단적 삭제 투표
  • 위키백과:위키백과에 대한 Jwrosenzweig 코멘트 삭제/요청서:삭제/Wikipedia용 miscellany:의견 요청/Jwrosenzweig
  • 위키백과:위키백과에 대한 John Kenney 코멘트를 위한 삭제/요청서:삭제/Wikipedia용 miscellany:댓글 요청/존 케니
  • 위키백과:위키백과에 대한 삭제/WikiProject 의료 조건 조항:삭제/Wikipedia용 miscellany:위키프로젝트 의학적 조건

그러나 그것들은 완성되지 않았다.이러한 움직임은 현재 XfD 명명 규칙을 준수하기 위해 수행되어야 한다고 생각한다.이를 위해 RM을 시작하는 것은 무의미하다. 103.6.156.167 (대화) 03:14, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)

나는 그들이 그 당시에 존재하지 않았던 현재의 명명 기준에 대한 슬라브적인 헌신 외에는 그것을 할 이유가 전혀 없기 때문에 그렇게 하지 않았다고 의심한다.이것은 내가 10여 년 동안 위키피디아에서 떠올릴 수 있는 가장 무의미한 요청 중 하나이다.그리고 그것은 뭔가를 말하고 있다.Guy (Help!) 08:41, 2015년 6월 2일 (UTC)

잘못된 형식의 AfC 요청은 검토가 필요했지만, 만약 봇이 어떤 이유로든 페이지를 옮길 수 없다면, 이 오래된 삭제 페이지는 그냥 누크 처리되어야 한다.토론에서 10년 된 VfD에 의지해야 할 사람은 이미 논쟁에서 졌다.—Xezbeth (대화) 08:52, 2015년 6월 2일 (UTC)

여기, 여기 이렇게 대답했다. 103.6.156.167 (대화) 15:11, 2015년 6월 2일 (UTC)

쿼리된 이동 요청

• 누가 위키피디아 토크 좀 봐줘:삭제/극한 삭제에 대한 내용: IPA 사용자가 관리자에게 "Wikipedia:삭제 조항/..." 이 요청은 유효한가?Anthony Appleyard (대화) 04:31, 2015년 6월 2일 (UTC)

참고 항목:위키백과:관리자 알림판/아카이브272#2개의 새로운 백로그, uppage... --IJBall (대화) 04:38, 2015년 6월 2일 (UTC)

WP:NOVODYCARES가 적용된다.가이(도움말!) 10시 54분, 2015년 6월 2일 (UTC)

@JZG: WP를 호출하는 것은 부적절하다.NOBODYCARES here since the AFD and MFD processes use suffixes such as "(2nd nomination)", "(3rd nomination)" etc in their page titles, which means that pages in the wrong namespace (articles in MfD, miscellaneous pages in AfD, and everything in VFD) are likely to go lost or unaccounted for when new nominations of those pages are made. 103.6.156.167(토크) 2015년 6월 2일 14:51, (UTC)

WP:BURO를 참조하십시오. 마지막 토론이 삭제 투표일 때였다면, 관련되기에는 너무 오래 전 일이고 어떤 경우든 토크 페이지에서 찾아볼 수 있다.그리고 비관리자들이 반드시 움직여야 한다고 생각한다면 그들을 막는 것은 아무것도 없다.가이 (도움말!) 2015년 6월 2일 15시 19분 (UTC)

줄리안 가드너(포커 플레이어) 문제

여보세요

위키피디아 페이지 줄리안 가드너(포커 플레이어)를 가지고 있는 내 의뢰인 줄리안 가드너(Poker Player)를 대표하여 글을 쓰면서 (포커 플레이어) 섹션을 삭제해 줄 것을 요청하고 싶다.줄리앙은 2000년대 중반에 전문 도박사로 일생을 시작했음에도 불구하고, 2014년에 금융 서비스(헤지 펀드)로 옮겨갔으며, 이들 중 하나로 언급되는 것을 선호한다.그의 아이들은 인터넷에 접속할 수 있는 나이가 되어가고 있고 그는 차라리 그들의 눈에 도박꾼으로 보이지 않을 것이다.

감사 — Ldv89(대화 • 기여) 07:03, 2015년 6월 1일(UTC)에 의해 추가된 사전 서명되지 않은 의견

어디 보자, 그가 헤지펀드에 관해 주목할 만한가?'줄리안 가드너'의 '헤지 펀드'는 구글 히트 수가 142개에 불과해, 대답은 '아니오'인 것 같다. 자선가로서 그가 주목할 만한가?'줄리안 가드너'의 자선가는 221개의 구글 히트작을 가지고 있어, 그는 그곳에서 그다지 두드러지지는 않는 것 같다.'줄리안 가드너' 포커는 어때?뭐야? 구글 조회수 20만2000개!!!글쎄, 당신의 질문에 대한 답인 것 같군, 당신의 고객인 줄리안 가드너를 대신해서 Ldv89, 그는 주목할 만해. 왜냐하면 그는 헤지펀드나 자선사업에 관여해서가 아니라 파워 플레이어였기 때문이야.나는 그가 다른 분야에서 주목할 만한 일을 하기 전까지는 그것을 감수해야 할 것이라고 추측한다.BMK (대화) 09:49, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)

BTW, 당신이 편집한 기사 줄리안 가드너(포커 플레이어)는 다른 편집자에 의해 번복되었지만, 당신이 어떤 자격으로 그를 대표하듯이 줄리안 가드너와 관련하여 분명한 이해 상충을 가지고 있기 때문에 내가 직접 번복했을 것이다.또한 귀하가 유료 편집에 관한 당사의 이용 약관을 준수하지 않으셨음을 유의하십시오. 이 약관은 귀하가 귀하의 토크 페이지와 해당 기사 토크 페이지에 귀하의 충돌을 명확히 명시하도록 요구하는 사항입니다.BMK (대화) 09:57, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)

분명히 화이트워싱은 용납되지 않는다.그가 도박꾼으로 알려지기 싫다면, 인기 높은 TV 게임블링 경연대회에 반복적으로 참가하는 것은 그것을 할 수 있는 방법이 아니었다.반면에, 그는 정말 눈에 띄는 모자를 쓰고 있는가?우리가 이 기사를 가져야 할지도 모르겠어.비블브록스 (대화) 23:49, 2015년 6월 1일 (UTC)

"사과와 신뢰할 수 있는 출처와 참고문헌은 기사 제목이 현재 형태에서 옳다는 것을 보여준다"고 말하는 것이 그렇게 어려운가?또한 COI 및/또는 급여를 사용한 편집에 관한 규정이 있다.Julian Gardner에 대해 더 편집하기 전에 해당 내용을 읽어 보십시오."아니오, 편집자 유보를 죽이는 스나크와 스탠드오퍼시스를 위해 오른쪽으로 가십시오. 129.9.75.248 (토크) 16:36, 2015년 6월 2일 (UTC)

오 퍼프트.사람들은 위키피디아에 있는 "그들의" 기사를 통제할 수 있다는 생각을 갖게 되고, 그것들을 편집하거나 그들의 대리인을 보내 더러운 일을 하게 할 수 있다는 생각을 하게 되는데, 나는 그것에 완전히 질렸다.우리 기사에는 아직도 홍보주의가 팽배해 있고, 나는 그것에 대해 무관용 정책을 취한다.그 사람들이 웹사이트에 돈을 지불하게 하거나 소셜 네트워킹 사이트의 내용에는 관심이 없는 사이트 중 하나를 사용하도록 하자.BMK (대화) 22:32, 2015년 6월 2일 (UTC)

지난 번에 내가 살펴본 바로는 우리는 고객이나 고용주를 홍보하기 위해 이곳에 오는 편집자들을 "유지"하는 데 큰 어려움이 없었다.무슨 일이 있어도 저들을 막을 순 없어가이 (도움말!) 2015년 6월 2일 17시 7분 (UTC)

persondatas에게 무슨 일이 일어났는가?

위키백과:중재/요청/사례/OoccultZone 등

OccultZone과 다른 편집자들과 관련된 중재 사건은 이제 종결되었고 최종 결정은 위의 링크에서 볼 수 있다.다음과 같은 구제책이 제정되었다.

1. User:OccultZone은 영어 위키백과에서 무기한 금지된다.그들은 12개월 후, 그리고 그 후 6개월마다 이 금지에 항소할 수 있다.
2. User:OccultZone은 또한 a) 성폭행이나 b) 범죄와 관련된 편집을 금지한 주제인데, 둘 다 광범위하게 해석된다.
3. 사용자:OoccultZone은 단일 계정 운영으로 무한정 제한된다.

중재위원회의 경우 란키베일 12:29, 2015년 6월 3일(UTC)

다음 웹 사이트에서 이 문제에 대해 논의하십시오. 위키백과 대화:중재 위원회/공지판#위키백과:중재/요청/사례/OoccultZone 등

메릴랜드 GAA

쿠미오코 / 레굴라

이미지 저작권

안녕.

나는 이 사진의 사진작가: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_F._Frye.jpg 피험자의 아들이 나에게 연락을 했고 나는 그에게 권리를 완전히 공개하고 싶다.주제 페이지에서는 어떻게 하지?

감사합니다.

A.K. 루소 — A.K에 의해 추가된 서명되지 않은 코멘트. 루소 (토크 • 기여) 23:14, 2015년 6월 4일 (UTC)

너는 OTRS 과정을 거쳐야 한다.기본적으로 자신이 작가라는 것을 증명해야 하고, 적절한 권한 해제도 허용해야 하며, 이 두 부분을 담은 이메일을 보내야 한다.후자는 간단하다: WP에서 주어진 라이센스 중 하나를 선택하십시오.ICTIC, 그리고 당신의 이메일에서, 「이 이미지를 [여기에 라이센스 이름 삽입]의 조건에 따라 사용할 수 있도록 허용한다」 또는 「이 이미지를 공개한다」와 같은 것을 말한다.이 모든 면허증은 모든 사람들(어린 F례씨뿐만 아니라)이 당신을 작가로 귀속시키는 것 외에 어떠한 의무도 없이 그들이 원하는 목적(상업적으로 포함)으로 이미지를 수정하고 복사할 수 있도록 허용한다는 것을 명심하십시오.만약 네가 괜찮다면, 좋아. 그렇지 않다면, 더 이상 가지 마.저자 시연: 이 이미지는 이전에 어디에도 출판된 적이 있는가?만약 그렇다면, 당신에게 귀속되어 출판된 곳이 있는가?만약 그렇다면, 그리고 만약 그것이 온라인이라면, 가장 쉬운 경로는 그러한 웹페이지에 대한 링크를 받아서 그것을 당신의 이메일에 포함시키는 것이고, 그것이 단지 오프라인일 경우, 당신은 당신의 이메일 본문에 출판물에 대한 인용문을 제공할 수도 있고, 더 나은 것은, 출판물의 그 부분을 스캔하거나 사진을 찍어서 당신의 이메일에 첨부할 수도 있다.마지막으로, 가능하다면, 당신은 당신과 연결된 주소에서 이메일을 보내야 한다. 예를 들어, 만약 당신이 웹사이트를 가지고 있다면, 웹사이트에 제공된 주소에서 permissions-enwikimedia.org으로 이메일을 보내라.이 모든 것은 이메일이 꽤 간단할 수 있다.예를 들어, owner@akrusso.com을 사용하여 "나는 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_F._Frye.jpg,의 작성자이고 CC-BY 3.0 라이센스로 이를 공개한다."라는 이메일을 보내십시오.마지막으로, 만약 당신이 이것이 혼란스럽거나 더 많은 도움을 원한다면, 내 토크 페이지로 가서 메모를 남겨라. 그러면 나는 기꺼이 당신을 도울 것이다.나이튼드 (대화) 23:46, 2015년 6월 4일 (UTC)

Consistent vandalism

Big old sock farm, lots of articles affected

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#ADDgrammar, brought by the valiant Brianhe and please see admin Yunshui's comments there. SPI case is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Factsonlyplease39. Displaying my ignorance here, but is there some way to "roll back" the edits (and new article creation) by this sockfarm, or do we really have to work through what appears to be maybe (?) a hundred articles? The number not at all clear to me at this point, but this looks like days and days of work and i would rather not spend my WP time cleaning up a pile of dogshit this big. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

left out Joseph2302's key role in bringing that SPI case, sorry.Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've glanced over about 40 of them, and almost all of them fall into the category of just about notable CEOs, with lots of puffery, women's baseball players from c.1950 with very few sources, or other people/books by people that are generally spammy and questionably notable. Although lots of the CEOs do seem to just about meet Wiki standards, and the baseball playes do meet WP:NBASEBALL, I would also support deleting the lot, and then they can recreated properly without the spam.

For correctness, it was User:Yunshui not me who created the SPI.Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the corrections. but is there something that can be done here? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me as if a manual repair job is the only option. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I endorse block deletion as obvious abuse and probable promotion. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Having looked through loads of them, it seems there are some good, notable articles, and some sports one that pass relevant guidelines (WP:GRIDIRON, WP:NBASEBALL, WP:TENNIS). Also, lots of the bad ones are up for AfD now, and seems quite a few of them are being cleaned up well by editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note I'm more than a little suspicious (based on technical and some of the behavioural evidence) that these socks do in fact belong to Ronn Torossian's 5WPR company (see previous discussion here and this SPI). I'd be grateful if someone more familiar with this group's modus operandi could take a look. Yunshui^雲_水 12:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Are they known for copyvio? See this and I suspect many others. SmartSE (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC Review at Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 9

NOTICE: Persondata has been deprecated and is subject to removal in the near future

As administrators, you are likely to receive questions about persondata in the next few days. Template:Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of Wikipedia biography subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve accurate data. Here are three examples of Wikidata for notable athletes: Ryan Lochte, Mary Wayte and Dara Torres. I'm not an expert, but I have received a crash course in Wikidata over the last three days, so if you have any practical questions about the persondata removal, transfer to Wikidata, etc., please ping me. I have found that User:Jared Preston is also a Wikidata administrator and has been a valuable resource for answering "how to" questions about Wikidata over the last several days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't suppose a bot can be made to do this? bd2412T 19:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

1.23 million articles. Wooooo.... --NeilN^{talk to me} 19:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 24. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. In the meantime, can someone point me to a list of articles with information to be ported to Wikidata? Or should we just start going down the "what transcludes" list at Template:Persondata? bd2412 T 20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"Impending mass deletion"...words you don't like to read. It would be comforting if this all appeared to be a well thought-out plan instead an announcement that there is an emergency need "to preserve accurate data". Why the rush? Liz^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Why is a template with that amount of usage being deleted at all without an accompanying plan to migrate the data? What is going on around here, have people taken leave of their ability to think things through to the end? Is there an equivalent of a temporary injunction to stop the deletion? BMK (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well the shortest bios of living people will soon have a massive change then-currently the number 1,000th has 797 bytes Wikipedia:Database reports/Shortest biographies of living people-kind of a shame for this reason as only a year ago the number 1,000th has 711 bytes-in other words the articles keep on getting longer there, either way looks like a massive drop will happen! Wgolf (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

In case any of you missed it (as I did) here Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 122#RfC: Should Persondata template be deprecated and methodically removed from articles.3F is the RFC that has lead us to where we are now. MarnetteDTalk 03:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the "Rough Plan" which resulted from the RfC was that deletion of the template was not to take place until after all the data had been migrated, but some deprecation hard-liners are trying to force it to be done immediately, under the rubric "deprecated is deprecated". BMK (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I am having a very difficult time believing that this can reasonably be construed as 'delete good information collected over many years without saving it somewhere' That's just an absurd construction, and an absurd action. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Quickly browsing the link MarnetteD provided, I'm surprised at some of the names who opposed the deletion of the template. They include some tech-savvy names, the ones who know "deprecated" does not mean "has been killed with fire" but "still works, but not supported & any bug reports will be laughed at, so you are strongly encouraged to stop using it". Unless a reasonable time is given for this data review & migration, the result will be a very unpleasant mess & the people who have been beaten up over Visual Editor will find immense schadenfreude in. -- llywrch (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Cynefin article

Could I ask for some admin oversight on Cynefin. I'm personally involved as the article concerns a model I created. The article was not created by me (for obvious reasons) and most of the work has been done by other editors. I've added references or made factual changes as needed. Recently changes were made by an SPA account (other that two changes to Cynefin his draft articles both elaborate his own organisation and model neither with third party references) took a single case for a software product and attempted to link it as criticism of Cynefin, an extension of a series of campaigns he is conducting in social media. I've done my best to play it by the book and summarised the issues here which seemed to deal with the matter. But now we have another inexperienced editor who has overruled by consensus on Welsh People joining in without engaging on the talk page commentary and making a deliberately derogatory change from scholar to salesman. Dave Snowden has also been subject to periodic attack by sock puppets so I am used the the perils of being an active editor on wikipedia who doesn't hide his identity. But I realise the dangers of being personally involved hence the request for some oversight. If anyone thinks my editors have breeched a line then please tell me. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you've not violated anything (except the spelling rules for "breached" :-) in your actions. The statement "In 2014 doubts were raised regarding the solidity of the approach when the IRC" is definitely not supported by http://www.irc.nl (in other words, it's a hoax), and while the other source mentions you repeatedly, it never addresses the concept of "Cynefin". Either the stuff dependent on the second source is a hoax (i.e. the article never touches on the subject) or it requires original research; I can't tell, because I'm not familiar with the subject, but it doesn't particularly matter because both are prohibited. I've left warnings for the other two editors and protected it for 24 hours, lest another editor come along and attempt to restore the hoaxing. Please re-report if problems continue after protection expires. Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate the intervention. Apologies for the spelling - mild dyslexia, if the spell checker does not pick it up neither do I! ----Snowded^TALK 19:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

that article appears to be one big violation of WP:SELFCITE and most of it is WP:SYN - stringing together a bunch of PRIMARY sources to tell a story. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Temporary injunction regarding open Lightbreather arbitration case

The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Lightbreather arbitration case:

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary injunction regarding open Lightbreather arbitration case

Backlog: Too few active administrators to handle the workload?

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Requests for comment has a bunch of unclosed RfCs that are over 70 days old and one that is 98 days old. Should I start recruiting experienced non-admins to start evaluating and closing them on the theory that we have too few active^[Note] administrators to handle the workload?
(Note:Actually active as administrators, not the bogus "30 or more edits in the last 2 months" statistics we often see quoted.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

In the old days we only had RFCs here and there, it seems we have them all the time now. Chillum 18:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Experienced editors are actually allowed to close RfCs, but should only do ones that don't require an admin action. Sam Walton (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. There are actually no formal rules for closing discussions. Most discussions don't even require closure and closures can be performed by any uninvolved editor, not just admins. With RfCs though I would think uninvolved editors can review and close them where necessary. They don't even necessarily have to determine the consensus. If they're stale, just deactivate them. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 18:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Per all of the above, closing discussions is not an admin function. Any experienced, uninvolved editor may close any discussion. If an admin action is needed specifically, ping the admins here at the board. But if something doesn't need protecting, deleting, or blocking, just do it. It doesn't need an admin. --Jayron32 18:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I've never tried to close one of those... It looks like it's mostly the same process as closing an ANI thread (plus removing the {{rfc}} tag) – is that correct? --IJBall (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Basically. Only big difference is there is a larger variety of subject matters and possible outcomes, many that don't require the mop to carryout. Many are also really looking for a conclusion, whereas many NACs in the AN space are discussions that have run their course, with the close just wrapping it up, whereas RFCs will usually ask for direct judgement of Consensus. (AN related NACs can do that, but typically those are the ones closed by admins) Monty₈₄₅ 18:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yikes – in looking a couple of those, I wouldn't even know where to start. It looks to me like the "Macbook" one is "no consensus" (and there seems to be not be much headway on the associated follow-up RM discussion either...). The first one especially is a massive tl;dr discussion, that should probably only be tackled by one of the editors who's already gone through it... Bottom line: I can definitely see why these ones stay open for months at a time – they're not "easy"!! --IJBall (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The Meghan Trainor one has already been closed at the Talk page, so at least one of those can be "closed to go"... (I'm not going to do that one myself, because I'd like to see someone else do it, so I can see the process.) --IJBall (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

General thoughts – This probably gets back to the issue of whether AN and ANI should have official "Clerks". I gather such a proposal was already shot down, but I think that was years ago, and I wonder if it's a proposal that should be revisited?... --IJBall (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Non admins often do clerking duties regularly at ANI such as yourself and Liz what effect would establishing official clerks have? Winner 42Talk to me! 19:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I dunno – if you have a "title", it's actually like having a "job", and you'll take it more seriously? (Isn't this basic psychology?... I wouldn't know – I never took psych!) I can only speak for me, but I only "pick" at ANI closes on days that I don't have a lot of time to devote to Wiki (certainly not enough time to do proper "content creation"), and closing ANI threads is something I can do relatively quickly and painlessly when I want to blow off steam. OTOH, if I were an "official clerk" (and I ain't saying I wanna be!!...), I'd take it more seriously, and do things like take the much more time-consuming plunge into the backlog mentioned in this thread... Anyway, that's my $0.02... But I dunno if there's any interest in reviving the AN/ANI "clerk" proposal. --IJBall (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally the question becomes what will the clerk do, that a non-clerk can't already do now, and how will that make the process more efficient. The obvious answer would be to allow clerks to close things, and then have admins do any necessary tool use. But in the absence of a strong consensus in favor of having admins defer to the decisions of the clerks on certain matters, the admin remains fully responsible for the tool use, and thus must repeat any work the clerk did to verify the outcome is correct and thus that the tool use is correct. I wonder if we could achieve such a consensus for some less controversial admin tasks, but I don't think AN or AN/I would be a good place to trial such move. Monty₈₄₅ 19:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think lots of admins stay out of RfC closures deliberately, for a variety of reasons: Some RfCs have been opened to make a WP:POINT and then got a lot of comments which have only a tangential bearing on the matter, that makes it difficult to evaluate what it is about and what the actual outcome; some RfCs have a lot of different opinions, with very long explanations of each, and many people (including admins) wouldn't have, or take, the time to read it all, that leaves the discussion open for a considerable time; and many RfCs have been hotly debated, and whatever the result assessed by the closer, the whole thing will go through closure review right here. I've been a little busy IRL last week, but I'll have a look at some of the long-text RfCs next week when I'm free. However, I couldn't close the CfD which has been open for 98 days because I !voted in it. But I made a suggestion at the pertaining thread. Kraxler (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I only close ANI cases in a couple of situations: a) an admin has taken action on the original complaint (a page is protected, an editor blocked), b) if there is a case where proposals are floated but none has a consensus and the thread is stale and likely to be archived soon or c) the OP has withdrawn the complaint or says that the situation is resolved.

It seems like there are a fair number of NACs of RfCs that bounce back to WP:AN (initial alphabet here) because at least one editor wants an admin to review the closure, on the assumption, I guess, that the outcome would be different. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Back to the specific issue at hand – I personally can't close the "USSTATION" RfC's because I voted so I'm "involved", but they were opened by Dicklyon who's subsequently been blocked for socking, and I don't think there's been a follow-up reply in weeks, so I think all of those can be closed. My guess is that they can pretty much all be closed as "No consensus" (though there may have been a general consensus for "[Stationname] station" with a lowercase "s" for "station" for article titles, I can't remember) or closed in the direction of the WP:USSTATION guideline conforming in its totality (i.e. with no exceptions, like there have been in the past) to WP:AT. FWIW. --IJBall (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The backlog at the head of the page was close to zero and then a bunch more got added. When they are listed on the top of this page, they get dealt with - unless they are the kind that requires the patience of Job to unpick a 63kb argument on which shade of blue an infobox should be. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've done what I can with the RfC's backlog (thanks also to: Stephan Schulz, Esquivalience and Alsee!). Guy had actually already closed a number of these on May 26, and it just hadn't been logged here. I closed a couple more "easy" ones. The rest fall in to two broad categories: 1) complicated ones that are going to require an Admin (or someone far more experienced with these than me!) – some of these look to this untrained eye as "no consensus" cases, but other ones will require a deeper look; and 2) those that have had comments within the last couple of weeks and thus aren't really "stale" enough to close yet. --IJBall (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any chance someone could close the RfC at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion? The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether I need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, etc., that contain "religion = None" in the infoboxes would be really helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked at that one. My reading of the situation was that the basic consensus was for "No parameter (inclusion)" in those cases where there was "no religion" (e.g. agnostic, athiest, or areligious). I'd be willing to close that one, but only if I get some confirmation from others that my reading of this one is correct. (And, if my reading of that one is correct, I'd think its consensus would likely extend beyond BLPs.) --IJBall (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much. The root of the problem, IIRC, is a small group of people trying to crowbar in their assertion that atheism is a religion, which view is clearly rejected. Guy(Help!) 20:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Our original problem was, specifically, a small group of people trying to crowbar in their assertion that atheism is a religion into the BLPs of politicians, presumably to influence voters. Those editors appear to have abandoned that effort. Now I have another problem; when I wrote the RfC I clearly specified that "this RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures", but the threaded discussion (with far fewer participants) was unanimously in favor of removing "religion = None" from the infoboxes of fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. Unless an uninvolved closer evaluates those comments and writes in the closing statement that there is a consensus concerning those other pages I need to post a new RfC to determine consensus. Which I don't mind doing, of course; I just need to know. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: you have specifically asked for an Admin to close this RfC (in several places) – would you be OK with a (semi-)experienced non-Admin editor closing it instead? (I get the impression that a number of Admins have voted in it and so are "involved", and those that haven't may not want to deal with the hassle of closing this one...) --IJBall (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be fine. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

ANRFC's "backlog" is artificially created by a few edits like this one. We have one or two editors who have appointed themselves the unnecessary task of listing 80% to 90% (ninety percent!) of all expired RFCs on that page, including RFCs that have no actual content or whose consensus is so blindingly obvious that it's stupid to ask some other editors to some waste time writing, "100% of respondents vehemently agreed both with each other and the major relevant policies, so I guess that's consensus". An actual majority don't need a formal close by anyone, much less by an admin. If you want to stop having a backlog at ANRFC, it's easily solved: Just create a rule that anyone listing an RFC must either have participated in it, or actually asked the participants if they wanted to have the discussion listed for formal closure (and not listed it unless there is at least one response by a participant that approves of listing it). This would take us back to the days when not only (almost) "anyone can edit", but (almost) "anyone can be assumed to be capable of figuring out the consensus for the discussions they participate in". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

One problem, WhatamIdoing, with RfC is the same as most maintenance discussions including for example, AfD and RfA: most voters are drive-by, they don't return to see how the debate is develping. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Some voters are drive-by, but there is almost always someone watching an RFC – and if it's ever true that nobody is watching the discussion, then I'm sure you'll agree with me that posting a closing statement is a complete and utter waste of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'll reiterate again: MOST voters are drive-by, they don't return to see how the debate is develping. They fly by, dropping their comments like pigeons flying over the crowd at Trafagar Square, and often with about as much intelligence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And I'll reiterate again, too: If you're not watching the page, then a closing statement that you never read brings you no benefit at all. As far as those fly-by !voters are concerned, a closing statement is a complete waste of time. So why bother writing it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

On the main questions here and at WP:VPI#Identifying new admin candidates, it looks to me like things are dying down. The traffic on this page is high enough to discourage watchers who might otherwise participate, so I'll try to get a thread going at WT:RFA#RFCs. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment How is it that an AN/I thread leading to a judgemental result with regard to a living editor can be closed in two hours and without comment by the editor concerned while an RfC can be left open for two months even though the thread's concern may be limited to an aspect of content? GregKaye 09:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Appeal for Wikignomes and admin watchers

Quite a few of the backlogged items are done. You could help by marking them done in the backlog list, and maybe cruising the project lookign for others. Oh, and anything with fewer than five or six people opining, that has remained open for more than 60 days, where debate has tailed off over a month ago and the matter is of no importance? Feel free to non-admin close it as "moot, due to passage of time, please feel free to start a new RfC is issues remain" or some such. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This advice and the simple permission to just close long stale RFCs is enormously helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• IIRC, some years back WP:AN had a table showing the number of tasks of various kind awaiting admin attention, with color-coding indicating extent of backlogs in each category (CSDs in various categories, unclosed AFDs, RMs, unblock request, unanswered 3RR and RFPP reports etc). Is such a consolidated list still available somewhere, or is my memory faulty? Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Are you sure you aren't thinking of the Bureaucrats' noticeboard? If such a chart was on AN, it must have been before my time. BMK (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Can't vouch for when and where I recall seeing them, but I am thinking of tables like the ones here but more comprehensive. They provide an admin with a few minutes on their hand a quick guide as to where their attention may be best directed. Abecedare (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, I think something like that (here) would be a good thing. --IJBall (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare, would it be Template:Admin dashboard? I like Reaper Eternal's console...I've been meaning to steal it for myself but lurking works, too.
— Berean Hunter(talk) 15:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are certainly the type of tables that I recall. I too will lurk for now, and possibly steal/personalize the design at some point. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixing the scripts

As an admin, I would do a lot more for the backlogs, but I won't until someone will fix some of the scripts that sem-automate some processes, such as, for example, closing AfD. I really like the challenge of closing some of those AfD that even seasoned admins won't touch, but so long as it would take me 20 minutes with my slow INternet and the incredibly slow Wikipedia server (often 5 mins to load a single Wikipedia page or even 'show preview' ) just to mess with all the templates/transclusions to close one, I'd rather be doing something else. All of our most useful scripts and tools were developed by volunteers and are available to admins through extensions such as Twinkle, but many of those editors have long since retired and no longer maintain theier scripts. I firmly believe that with all its millions of surplus $ it's time the WMF started adopting some of these tools and commit themselves to maintaining them. I hear some WMF employees/contractors complaining that there are no budgets for this kind of thing. I'm afraid I do not and cannot believe this for an instant. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js for AFD closure. It's regularly updated and works great. Nakon 02:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

In the 2015-2016 financial year the Wikimedia Foundation plans to spend $28.9 million on engineering and another $12.6 million on community engagement. (Signpost Coverage) Perhaps somewhere in those budgets the foundation can find the time and resources to create and maintain scripts critical to Wikipedia. This seems significantly more productive than converting the tiny village of Esino Lario (population 772) into an internet connected center for Wikimania. Winner 42Talk to me! 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

What we'll probably get is a bunch of "improvements" in the way of new "features" that no one asked for, that no one really wants, that will be poorly implemented and turned on without notice, that you can't opt out of, and that someone will have to write code to remove from your account. That's been the pattern, anyway. BMK (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't go into more detail in my post above, but I have to admit that Winner 42 and BMK echo my opinions entirely. Not to mention the WMF junkets that are slid into the expense accounts of the many, many, many departments of the WMF. The cost of just one round-trip flight across a couple of states for one telecommuting contractor to spend a day in the office in SF would cover a lot of the cost of examining the exasperating problems with scripts, gadgets, and tools, and of course those software solutions that nobody wants. Like any NGO or non-profit, one thing the WMF is extremely good at is wasting donors' money. Until admins get more of the reliable kind of tools they need, and the sooner the WMF can wake up to the need of WP:ACTRIAL, the sooner we will see a serious reduction in backlogs and a pool of active admins who can cope with them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I'd be willing to have a go at fixing up some of our user scripts. From your post it sounds like we need somewhere to systematically list requests for new scripts and for script updates. We used to have Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests, but that was marked as historical. Perhaps we should start a new page for it. — Mr. Stradivarius^{♪ talk ♪} 07:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius:, I'm not 100% sure that all the scripts need fixing, but on installing the script for AfD closures recommended by User:Nakon I now realise that for some reason all the scripts in my User:Kudpung/vector.js have stopped working. Is this due to some MediaWiki 'upgrade' I didn't hear about?. Using FireFox 37.0.2 on OSX 10.10.3. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not just you Kudpung, I was away for a few months and I came back to find that some scripts and gadgets don't work any more and that includes the delsort/close afd/admin dashboard stuff as far as I can remember. —SpacemanSpiff 20:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm relieved to hear that SpacemanSpiff. I've also noticed that since yesterady, among other things, PopUps have stopped working too although the sorely missed Wikimarkups have magically reappeared at the bottom of my editing window. None of my other scripts are working although I have checked all my preferences. Perhaps we must take Mr. Stradivarius up on his kind offer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Side note: The WMF is creating a dedicated dev team whose main purpose is to help out with things that are important to admins and other power users, but that the community isn't maintaining well on its own. Anyone can list broken user scripts or other ideas in the brainstorming list at m:Community Tech project ideas. The idea is to complement, rather than usurp, the volunteer tech efforts, so if you write scripts or bots or are interested in becoming a MediaWiki hacker, then you may want to follow those discussions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good place to list the non-working scripts. @Kudpung and SpacemanSpiff: If you can figure out exactly which scripts aren't working, and post on that page saying how they used to work, and how they don't work any more, I'll be happy to take a look at them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(Kudpung: having said that, though, I think that first we should take a look at your vector.js page first, as it's become complicated enough that the problems could just as well be there as in the individual scripts.) — Mr. Stradivarius^{♪ talk ♪} 12:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, I believe users with admin rights are able to edit other users' vector.js pages. In which case I have no objection to you hacking around i mine . It would serve the common good. Thank you for your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Request

In regards to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification, are there any neutral non involved admin who would be willing to preform the closure when it comes? I bring this up because I see it is a heated (personal for some) debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Preferably someone who is not a sports fan, for reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#To the closer: survey is statistically invalid. Skyerise (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Depending on how editors feel, we can include up to 3 admin closers if it is too much for one. I saw your post but don't think being a sports fan would matter if the person is uninvolved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh it matters insofar there is plenty of ridiculous logic being spewed around the discussion. I'm somewhat concerned some are trying to force editors to use specific pronouns on the talk page, and are threatening sanctions using a very unique interpretation of the discretionary sanctions. How would,one get a clarification on this? It's clearly an attempt to chill speech.69.143.188.200 (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Old Policy - Can't Find It

Good morning everyone. I've been seeing a bit more lately that on AfD votes, page moves, and general votes for consensus a lot of time the nominator will state their nomination then vote right below it.

Delete this article. It is a bunch of crap -User X

*Support per nom. -User X

I remember many years ago seeing some policy that said people shouldn't be doing this as it is in a sense "voting for yourself". Does anyone know where it specifically says this? Point of order, I am not stating anything about a particular user who has done this, I just am curious where the policy is so I can link it on my user page. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a specific policy on the subject, but the key is avoiding confusion, per nom suggests the nominator is someone else, and its a second voice being added to the discussion, which is bad. Often people will say just leave it to the closer to notice, but its still frowned upon. Note though that Support as nom. -User X is much more common, is rarely objected to, and in some cases, such as unsigned RFC proposals, is necessary to make it clear who is even proposing something. Monty₈₄₅ 15:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Might you be looking for Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? It's not a policy per se but an essay that some users refer to in AfD discussions. Support per nom/user is used to state that someone shares the same view without having to restate it again, although some find it less convincing if the original opinion is not policy based. Fuebaey (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would make a lot more sense to say Delete as nominator. It should be very clear to the closer. Chillum 17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It was not a deletion discussion OberRanks was referring to, it a was move discussion, so "Support [move] as nom" would be the equivalent of "Delete as nom" in a deletion discussion. BMK (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@OberRanks: Please don't be disingenuous, this didn't just pop into your head randomly. Your inquiry comes immediately after a disagreement between us expressed on my talk page [21] and on two article talk pages. [22], [23] Your pretense that your question is not about "any particular user" is just that, a pretense. I expected more in the way of intellectual honesty from you, and I am honestly disappointed. BMK (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Uhhhh, yeah....I was curious where the policy was because yours was about the fifth case I've seen in the past few weeks where the nominator put a vote right below their nomination. But I wasn't "reporting" anyone to the ANI and didn't mention you or the votes you're conducting in anyway....you did that. Try WP:AGF a bit and have a great night. -OberRanks (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

So if someone "reminded" you of a policy you'd "forgotten", you're saying that you wouldn't have posted that on the talk page discussions, in another attempt to convince me to "merge back" my "Support as nom" vote back into the opening statement? Just so you know, I'm not in the market to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, either. (And, BTW, RMs have been known to be open for all sorts of reasons, so it's not a foregone conclusion that the nominator is in favor of the move.) BMK (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I keep a list of useful policy links here. If we ever locate one which spells out the format for voting/page move/afd pages, it would be a welcome addition. -OberRanks (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There isn't one that says what you're remembering. The good news is that these are closed by real humans, who are generally smart enough to notice that the nom is !voting, even if the editor incorrectly writes "per nom" rather than "as nom". You don't really need to worry about it, because it won't change the outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think that the important thing is that editors are being open and honest and see no problem in adding a reference such as "Support as nom, ...". I would find it a violation of honesty as well as third person arogance if a nominator were to wilfully write, "Support per nom, ...". This to me quite humerously presents the view that "I now cite myself". Especially later in threads I think that it can be useful to give a first comment of support as "Support as nom, ..." as this gives an appropriate introduction for the supportive comment to follow. GregKaye 08:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Importtext

The content of this page is incorrect and misleading. Import of pages has been enabled since 2009 and pages are frequently imported per Special:Log/import. This page was last updated only in 2008 by MBisanz. 103.6.159.179 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I've never seen that page before. How did you find it? Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't remember. Found it sometime ago. But I just checked the "What Links here" for that page and saw it's linked from User talk:Graham87/Import, where that user seems to be offering some explanation. Are you sure with the deletion? 103.6.159.179 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "are you sure with the deletion?" Could you clarify? Perhaps you mean "are you sure you should have deleted it"; to that I say yes, I think it's better with the lesser warning than with the lesser and the greater warnings. Perhaps you're not familiar with MW pages (if you are, I apologise) — MediaWiki default pages, including MW:Importtext, are always here: we can't get rid of them without significantly modifying the core software. We can, however, modify them by creating a new page at the same title, and whatever's in the newly created page will always override the default page. It's possible to delete the newly created page, but when that happens, we don't lose everything: we just lose the modification. Does this answer your question? Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Bfpage and her block

Liz, IJBall, Beyond My Ken, MrX, EvergreenFir, Euryalus, NinjaRobotPirate, Viriditas, Winkelvi, this message is being sent to out of courtesy since you were part of the discussion or were pinged in this ANI discussion. Administrator Kevin Gorman has removed my block.

I regret that I was not able to participate in the discussion, but it was not possible to answer any of your questions since I was blocked. I was not ignoring your questions, nor did I intend to make you think that I was behaving in an uncivil manner by ignoring your comments. If you would like to see the results, rationale, conditions and guidelines that resulted in my request to be unblocked please see User talk:Bfpage/guidelines that administrator Kevin Gorman has created for that purpose. Best Regards,

Bfpage leave a message 21:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think you were ignoring questions when you were blocked. But I do question placing this post on WP:AN rather than on your talk page. It's not an issue that warrants the involvement of administrators. Liz^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page states: This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators...Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.

It was my intent to convey information to the involved administrators and other interested editors about the block review that occurred in the ANI referenced above.

Bfpage leave a message 21:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm stating this here because I prefer not to comment on Bfpage's user talk page or user subpage talk page, and because I think we should both get clarification on this... Via email, I told Kevin Gorman that what is currently number 3 at User talk:Bfpage/guidelines is confusing; it states, "If BF notices that Flyer has edited an article, BF wil[l] refrain from editing that article for at least a week." It's confusing because Bfpage‎ is generally restricted from interacting with me on the talk page. What if Bfpage‎ makes an edit to an article and I contest the edit? If I revert, there is no point in directing Bfpage‎ to the talk page to discuss the matter. After all, number 3 limits the matter to a week and I've noted before that (while Bfpage‎ does a lot of good work for Wikipedia) I'm generally not a fan of Bfpage‎'s editing styles. I am likely to revert Bfpage‎ if it's an article that I care a lot about. So how are Bfpage and I to interact with each other if I revert Bfpage or Bfpage reverts me at an article? If it's a matter that needs discussion, are we to not even try to discuss the matter? Are we to post to the talk page and indirectly respond to each other? And I note "indirectly" because number 5 states, "[...] BF won't directly respond to comments made by Flyer22 unless it's necessary for the flow of the discussion/needed to improve the article, etc."

On a side note: Kevin Gorman cannot yet participate in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am glad that Bfpage has agreed to stop the egging-on barnstarring/thanking behavior. I am concerned on the same issue that Flyer22 raises. Bfpage said very clearly that she intended to start following Flyer22 around (cannot provide a diff b/c she moved that discussion to a subpage and then had it deleted per User talk:Bfpage/Following me around) -- and then did so, going full-bore into articles I will characterize as being about gender-related disputes, or about reproductive health (call it "X"). It appears to me that prior to her encounter with Flyer22, Bfpage's editing included little to no activity on X. I don't know if Flyer22 would agree that this adequately describes the locus of disputed topics but there would be a much greater chance for peace in the project if Bfpage withdrew from X topics rather than focusing on interactions alone. Flyer22 how would you characterize X, and do you think this would be a more useful way to go? Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think Bfpage was clear about tracking my edits. But Bfpage didn't truly acknowledge it as following me around. When Bfpage created User talk:Bfpage/Following me around, Bfpage says that it was a way to know which articles I edit and to avoid those articles so that we would not interact; as noted in the first WP:ANI discussion about Bfpage, I found that annoying as well. In "My other thoughts on this matter." piece above, I did note that Bfpage was not interested in the types of articles that I edit until the encounter with me. I think this partly concerned me and partly concerned Bfpage wanting to help improve the poor state of many of these articles. As noted at User talk:Jytdog/Archive 10#Advice on potential WP:Hounding behavior, that is what Bfpage essentially told me. It seems that our interaction inspired Bfpage. This is not the first time that an editor has gotten inspired by me in a way, whether it's because they like the work that I do, and/or want to edit alongside me, and/or think that they can do a better job at it than me. I welcome those who can help improve these topics, especially since I am generally lazy at improving them these days due to so much Wiki burnout, but only as long as they are not disruptive and do not try to antagonize me. In Bfpage's case, as we know, we just don't mesh well together. I understand that Wikipedia is a working environment, but there are some editors who are better off apart instead of together; I believe that's the case here. But I don't want to try and keep Bfpage from editing such topics; I just want it so that we usually don't need to interact. And, as noted, Bfpage and Kevin Gorman have attempted to come up with a solution for that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, you have been consistently looking for more of an Iban than topic ban. I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that it may be helpful if editors concerned can present their views on any aspects of their own editing priorities that may raise contention relative to the other editors worldview. I think that it would be great if editors can contribute to the presentation of views that present positions and understandings. I also hope that both parties concerned can be open to amicable working relationships. We are an editing group and editors need to be able to openly work together. We need to be able to talk and work together on content issues and IBAN's between editors that work on similar contents blatantly do not work. Editors need to be able to interact directly and openly while we all endeavour to present clear and fair arguments and presentations of information. GregKaye 20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Greg, maybe you should go into dispute resolution. Liz^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz On what issue? An editor's editing of some categories has not been cited as raising any content dispute. Despite this the editor was been banned for six months. It all happened in the context of in a process in which other editors have been able to make various comments about the editor concerned and in which the editor has been denied the possibility of reply.

Jytdog how do you propose that an Iban can work between editors working on the same content? GregKaye 02:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Greg, all I meant was that you were really passionate about issues surrounding fairness and I think you might find WP:DR work satisfying. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I am concerned about a few things surrounding Bfpage's unblock agreement and its guidelines:
  • First, the unblock conditions clearly state Bfpage is to cease mentioning a couple of other editors in her user space: Flyer22 and Jytdog. Yet, when one looks at the guidelines talk page, she refers to them more than once.
  • Next, it was my understanding that Bfpage had already agreed to the terms of the unblock, yet she is now questioning the conditions and seemingly has issue with some of them. Why weren't these concerns brought up before she agreed and was subsequently unblocked?
  • Last: Based on the above, haven't the terms of the agreement already been violated? If nothing else, she was told to stop worrying about the other two editors, but I believe the comments she has made at the unblock guidelines talk page show quite the opposite is true. From my vantage point, it would seem some of the same behaviors still exist, indeed, they were never abandoned. At least, that's what I see. If anyone else has a different perspective, I'd be interested in reading it, because what I think I see happening is disturbing to me. Especially without the blocking/unblocking admin currently available to keep an eye on things. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi thanks for your thoughts on that and for looking out in Kevin's absence. It is pretty borderline in my view, especially in Kevin's absence. I struggle with the last comment not so much about who but what. As noted at User talk:Jytdog/Archive 10#Advice on potential WP:Hounding behavior she set out to start following Flyer22 around... but this is an admin matter. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog something that I have still not been able to understand in all this is how an editor such as Flyer22 can get to the point in the thread Following me around of being able to talk about "Every single editor who has followed me around"? On past performance, not that I have asked this, chance may have it that someone will start following me around.

Please also consider in situations like this addressing Bfpage directly. We are meant to have a community where people talk and get on with each other.

On the TP for Bfpage I commented (at 05:33, 4 June 2015) "As far as guidelines go, I think that that the essence of what needed to have been covered was covered in the summary of the 2 hour and 19 minute long Incident report that ended at 06:19, 8 March 2015. In reply also to another editor who had certainly made unneccessary and very pointed WP:CANVASS references to Flyer22, this simply said: "please stop making unnecessary references to Flyer22, either directly or through ..., hidden replies and followup barnstars. Any continuation of this behavior will be considered a breach of WP:HOUND." I do not see what has changed since this and I do not see how this had not been followed."

Surely this sufficiently covered the issue of hounding. What, if anything, am I missing? GregKaye 07:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, I am allowed to point to matters where people stalked me before, whether it's confronting a current stalker or whether it's mentioning the matter at WP:ANI; and I mentioned that particular past stalker in both WP:ANI threads I started about Bfpage. Regarding this case you linked to above, I fail to see how you don't understand how I could get to the point of mentioning a past stalker when addressing Bfpage about following me around, especially when Bfpage was denying following me around. Bfpage did follow me around, as is clear by the aforementioned archived discussion on Jytdog's talk page; since Bfpage was aware that I did not want us to interact and did not appreciate Bfpage following me around, I viewed the "learn from your experience by reading the articles that you have authored and articles which you have edited with the intent of improving upon what you have already accomplished" outlook as WP:Hounding...for reasons I made perfectly clear at Bfpage's talk page, Jytdog's talk page, my talk page, and WP:ANI. I still view it as WP:Hounding. I pointed Bfpage to an example of a very serious stalker, and what happened in the case of that stalker. I don't see how that is a problem. Despite your statements that mentioning past stalkers is irrelevant, and that I have "a wider and colourful history of involvement in ANI," I view mentioning past stalkers when confronting current stalkers as very relevant; it is informing them that I have been stalked before and that I know what it entails. It is showing what happened in those cases, and that I clearly am not keen on being stalked (well, unless it's an editor I don't mind following me around because we have a good or decent Wikipedia relationship). In other words, those past stalking cases show what can happen to the current stalkers. I gave Bfpage ample warning to stop following me around; the following continued, and we know what happened. Even this post by Bfpage makes it seem like Bfpage never followed me while knowing that I would be upset by it. Again, it is clear from the aforementioned discussion on Jytdog's talk page that Bfpage followed me around. That you don't understand why I was highly frustrated with Bfpage during that first WP:ANI matter and why I am still frustrated with Bfpage, and that you feel the need to state I have "a wider and colourful history of involvement in ANI" as if I was ever a stalker or was just as much of a problem as Bfpage, is beyond me. Those other WP:ANI cases of mine are irrelevant to this matter, and a few involved another well-known stalker of mine. Let's look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive873#User Flyer22 and User EvergreenFir - Hounding, harassment since you referenced my past WP:ANI matters. That does not show me as a stalker; it shows that I was dealing with highly problematic editors, and others agreed that those editors were highly problematic.

I am pretty much done discussing this WP:AN matter unless Kevin Gorman shows up here to comment and I see a need to respond. There is no need at all to WP:Ping me to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The op of the recent AN/I was built on recent evidence that Bfpage had recently edited the Anal sex and Vagina articles. You have taken the plausible though not proven interprets that such actions have been taken so that "Bfpage could ease into articles that I edit". I then took the time to present the hopefully constructive reply that included reference that edits by Bfpage have included the following:

480Monarch butterfly migration ...
159Pelvic inflammatory disease ...
129Scrotum 115Sexism
113List of microbiota species of the lower reproductive tract of women ...
47List of bacterial vaginosis microbiota

In this context, though no certainty, I think that it is similarly plausible that Bfpage may have simply followed her areas of interest in editing the mentioned pages.

There is no reason that I can see that she should be restricted to adding, say, to her 411 edits to Monarch butterfly. If there is a content dispute in regard to articles such as others mentioned then this can also be dealt with as a content dispute.

In my above post I said, "Surely this sufficiently covered the issue of hounding. What, if anything, am I missing?" Again, what am I missing?

I apologise for my statement, which I now see as incomplete, on the talk page of Bfpage where I said "I have also noted that Flyer22 will quote irrelevant cases of other editors stalking her ...". I should have made mention of this in specific reference regarding my opinion on such use in AN/I type environments. I am genuinely heartened by the efforts that have been made to resolve this dispute on a personal basis. I am also heartened by the moderate view that you expressed that you were, "not looking for Bfpage (who identifies as female, by the way) to be blocked. And Bfpage being blocked for six months is too harsh, in my opinion." I do object to inferences on Bfpage's talk page of "applaud(ing)... seeing through the friendly country artist grandma persona" when, in truth, it does not seem that she was even recognised to be female. GregKaye 06:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerning IP edits

Have seen this a few times.

• First IP adds vandalism [24]
• Second IP edits shortly after to clean up half the vandalism [25]

I am not sure if this is being done to hide the half that is remaining? It appears to protect it from User:Cluebot Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it too. I think the theory is that a casual glance will make it appear that the second edit cleared up the vandalism, so that the remaining vandalism will stick around until someone comes across it haphazardly. I've seen it work too. Sometimes I just make sure by going back to the pre-vandalism edit as the "Last Good Version" (LGV). BMK (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes BMK that is my feeling aswell. It is a little hard to AGF of the second IP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Named accounts do this too. Evlekis went through a phase of doing this with good hand / bad hand socks. bobrayner (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have seen this tactic too. But in this instance, AGF may be warranted since (1) the IPs geolocate to differentstates, (2) the Leprosy article is viewed ~100 times/hour, so it is not unexpected that an independent reader saw the obvious vandalism in the opening sentences 5 minutes later and corrected it (about 5 other readers must have seen it too, but chose not to correct it or, likely, didn't know how!), and (3) the vandalism in the infobox image caption was much harder to detect for a reader, as opposed to watchlisters looking at the diff or persons who knew how to look at the article history; and only a person familiar with wikipedia innards would have likely fixed both issues in the same edit. If 96.238.189.128 (talk·contribs) efforts had been spotted in time, it would have been good to thank them and invite them to join our ranks. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In general, there is no way to know if the second IP is a good-faith user trying to clean up vandalism and just happenned to show up at that article at that time, or the same person as the first trying to keep his/her vandalism by having a different IP clean up part of it. We should generally AGF for the second IP, unless we have other evidence otherwise (e.g several such pairs show up, each pair within a few minutes, from a single range). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked then unblocked as involved

Seems I blocked User talk:Weathereditor recently for edit warring, but I had acted in haste as I've been involved in things there so unblocked. Will someone see to things at here and take over? Then whack me a good one or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Tide rolls for applying the block. Now I'm off to enjoy some sunshine. Vsmith (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirect by mistake

Viva-Verdi (talk · contribs)

Please remove this user's pending changes reviewer and autopatrolled right per Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines#On the account.--GZWDer (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Done§FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110
111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130
131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150
151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170
171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190
191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210
211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230
231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250
251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270
271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290
291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310
311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341
Incidents (archives, search)
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110
111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130
131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150
151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170
171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190
191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210
211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230
231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250
251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270
271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290
291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310
311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350
351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360
361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368	369	370
371	372	373	374	375	376	377	378	379	380
381	382	383	384	385	386	387	388	389	390
391	392	393	394	395	396	397	398	399	400
401	402	403	404	405	406	407	408	409	410
411	412	413	414	415	416	417	418	419	420
421	422	423	424	425	426	427	428	429	430
431	432	433	434	435	436	437	438	439	440
441	442	443	444	445	446	447	448	449	450
451	452	453	454	455	456	457	458	459	460
461	462	463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
491	492	493	494	495	496	497	498	499	500
501	502	503	504	505	506	507	508	509	510
511	512	513	514	515	516	517	518	519	520
521	522	523	524	525	526	527	528	529	530
531	532	533	534	535	536	537	538	539	540
541	542	543	544	545	546	547	548	549	550
551	552	553	554	555	556	557	558	559	560
561	562	563	564	565	566	567	568	569	570
571	572	573	574	575	576	577	578	579	580
581	582	583	584	585	586	587	588	589	590
591	592	593	594	595	596	597	598	599	600
601	602	603	604	605	606	607	608	609	610
611	612	613	614	615	616	617	618	619	620
621	622	623	624	625	626	627	628	629	630
631	632	633	634	635	636	637	638	639	640
641	642	643	644	645	646	647	648	649	650
651	652	653	654	655	656	657	658	659	660
661	662	663	664	665	666	667	668	669	670
671	672	673	674	675	676	677	678	679	680
681	682	683	684	685	686	687	688	689	690
691	692	693	694	695	696	697	698	699	700
701	702	703	704	705	706	707	708	709	710
711	712	713	714	715	716	717	718	719	720
721	722	723	724	725	726	727	728	729	730
731	732	733	734	735	736	737	738	739	740
741	742	743	744	745	746	747	748	749	750
751	752	753	754	755	756	757	758	759	760
761	762	763	764	765	766	767	768	769	770
771	772	773	774	775	776	777	778	779	780
781	782	783	784	785	786	787	788	789	790
791	792	793	794	795	796	797	798	799	800
801	802	803	804	805	806	807	808	809	810
811	812	813	814	815	816	817	818	819	820
821	822	823	824	825	826	827	828	829	830
831	832	833	834	835	836	837	838	839	840
841	842	843	844	845	846	847	848	849	850
851	852	853	854	855	856	857	858	859	860
861	862	863	864	865	866	867	868	869	870
871	872	873	874	875	876	877	878	879	880
881	882	883	884	885	886	887	888	889	890
891	892	893	894	895	896	897	898	899	900
901	902	903	904	905	906	907	908	909	910
911	912	913	914	915	916	917	918	919	920
921	922	923	924	925	926	927	928	929	930
931	932	933	934	935	936	937	938	939	940
941	942	943	944	945	946	947	948	949	950
951	952	953	954	955	956	957	958	959	960
961	962	963	964	965	966	967	968	969	970
971	972	973	974	975	976	977	978	979	980
981	982	983	984	985	986	987	988	989	990
991	992	993	994	995	996	997	998	999	1000
1001	1002	1003	1004	1005	1006	1007	1008	1009	1010
1011	1012	1013	1014	1015	1016	1017	1018	1019	1020
1021	1022	1023	1024	1025	1026	1027	1028	1029	1030
1031	1032	1033	1034	1035	1036	1037	1038	1039	1040
1041	1042	1043	1044	1045	1046	1047	1048	1049	1050
1051	1052	1053	1054	1055	1056	1057	1058	1059	1060
1061	1062	1063	1064	1065	1066	1067	1068	1069	1070
1071	1072	1073	1074	1075	1076	1077	1078	1079	1080
1081	1082	1083	1084	1085	1086	1087	1088	1089	1090
1091	1092
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110
111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130
131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150
151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170
171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190
191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210
211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230
231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250
251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270
271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290
291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310
311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350
351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360
361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368	369	370
371	372	373	374	375	376	377	378	379	380
381	382	383	384	385	386	387	388	389	390
391	392	393	394	395	396	397	398	399	400
401	402	403	404	405	406	407	408	409	410
411	412	413	414	415	416	417	418	419	420
421	422	423	424	425	426	427	428	429	430
431	432	433	434	435	436	437	438	439	440
441	442	443	444	445	446	447	448
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110
111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130
131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150
151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170
171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190
191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210
211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230
231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250
251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270
271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290
291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Kangaroo court

Please advise regarding suitable location for an ability to reply related discussion

Requesting unblock of User:Contribsx

Emergency Request for protection of Ellen Pao

Re: Ronn Torossian company ban

[26]

This discussion seems to have been archived without any resolution. Was there a decision to impose a company ban or not? I would like to suggest that the consensus was to impose a company ban, but there was no consensus to include User:Judae1 in the ban, and there were editors who felt that he should explicitly exempted from such a ban.

Closure is needed because there is currently a discussion at WP:COIN regarding an editor who is apparently employed by Torossian. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly how would this work? How is it known who is working for his company? Which accounts? What if they don't go by their real names? What if an employee doesn't edit articles that have anything to do with the company, why should they be blocked on the assumption that they might? Its an unworkable proposition. Blocks and bans are meant to prevent disruption, they don't anticipate disruption when there is evidence of none nor are they imposed on editors who have not been shown to have committed misconduct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I neither agree nor disagree with you. I just note that there was a discussion on this, a consensus developed, but the discussion was archived before a decision was reached. And, as I note, the decision is relevant to the discussion currently underway at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ronn_Torossian. If there is a company ban on employees of Torossian, it means that user Cada mori would be banned if there is a consensus that he is a paid writer working for Torossian. If there is no company ban, then some lesser sanction (or no sanction) might be appropriate. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on noticeboards are often archived without coming to a decision on a particular action. Sometimes this is actually a good thing as editors/admins are undecided or a situation hasn't become serious enough or clear enough to have a good idea what a positive resolution would be. Other times, archiving just puts off action because there is not much interest in the case or it is very complicated and then it is unfortunate but understandable as this is a volunteer activity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block closed

An arbitration case regarding Sockpuppet investigations block has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The CheckUser permissions of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) are revoked. He may seek to regain them only by the usual appointment methods.
2. The oversight permissions of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) are revoked. He may seek to regain them only by the usual appointment methods.
3. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block closed

Twinkle news: Batch operation tools updated, Deli-batch deprecated

Some exciting news for administrators: Twinkle's batch operation tools (batch delete, batch undelete, batch protect, deprod, and unlink) have been overhauled. They should now be significantly more reliable and provide more useful status output. Helpful options, such as "Select All" and "Deselect All" buttons and the ability to shift-click to toggle many checkboxes at once, have been provided. In addition, batch deletion has a number of new options, including the ability to delete the talk pages of the pages being deleted.

Some long-standing bugs have also been fixed, such as the long-obsolete CSD criterion "R1" being referenced in some deletion summaries.

Admins who use the image deletion ("Deli-batch") tool should know that it has been deprecated. The reason why Twinkle has a separate tool for image deletion goes back to the pre-API days (before 2011) and has not been relevant for some years. Admins are advised to use batch deletion ("D-batch") instead. If there are any features from Deli-batch that are missing from the new, updated D-batch module, please let us know at WT:TW. In a few months, Deli-batch will be removed altogether.

Any administrators who need to perform mass operations may like to consider making use of the newly updated Twinkle toolset.

Thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I taste a liquor never brewed

Request Admin Eyes at Talk: Zeitgeist (film series)

There is ongoing controversy at Zeitgeist (film series). There was formerly an article on The Zeitgeist Movement, which is a response to the films. It was merged into the film series article, but some favor splitting it back out. A content dispute was taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard. After one unsuccessful effort at mediation, two Requests for Comment were posted at Talk: Zeitgeist (film series), and the DRN thread has been closed as being handled by the RFCs. Threaded discussion of the RFCs has become heated, and has gotten to the level of personal attacks. I am requesting a few admin eyes (two would be good, four would be better, six would also be better) at the article just to deal with the personal attacks. Since the film series includes a theory that September 11, 2001, was all part of a World Order master plan, disruptive editing may be subject to WP:ARB911. Disruptive editing will become more clearly subject to discretionary sanctions in a few days, when the American politics decision is finalized. Thank you in advance to anyone who watchlists. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Do the 'personal attacks' in question include the gross violations of WP:BLP policy regarding assertions concerning the founder of TZM which have repeatedly been made on article talk pages? If so, it is about time - they have been repeatedly ignored when raised at WP:ANI. Or am I right in assuming that the community considers it OK to accuse someone (based on no sources whatsoever, naturally) of "brainwashing" or "neuro linguistic programming and meme control", as well as accusations of concocting a political movement for personal profit, as long as they aren't a contributor? Judging by past experience, that would seem to be the case, which tells us a great deal about the narcissistic concerns of Wikipedia, and just how little its proclaimed 'neutrality' matters when it comes to minor articles about political movements of marginal notability that nobody much likes. The failure of the community to address this is of course symptomatic of the larger issues that have led to the ArbCom cases - and frankly I very much doubt that ArbCom is going to resolve the issue either. While 'adnmin eyes' on the thread in question might be welcome, what is actually needed is a viewpoint from further back - one that looks at the root causes, rather than the overt symptoms, and which actually addresses the underlying problem, rather than relying on 'discretionary sanctions' fixes which merely paint over the cracks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump - The way to raise issues about gross violations of BLP against Peter Joseph is by raising issues about gross violations of BLP against Peter Joseph, not by accusing other editors of insanity. As I have recently explained to a few less experienced editors, civility is not a nice-to-have in Wikipedia; it not only is required, but it works better than invective. A stubborn editor who is attacked is very unlikely to respond positively. A stubborn editor who is reasoned with may or may not respond positively. BLP violations are taken very seriously on article pages; I haven't seen a claim about BLP violations against Peter Joseph on Peter Joseph or Zeitgeist (film series). If you want to complain about BLP violations on talk pages, do you want the specific violations redacted, or do you want a policy shift in general to enforce BLP more strictly on talk pages? The one issue that possibly could be within the remit of ArbCom would be to clarify that there should be stricter BLP enforcement on talk pages. I would suggest to you, Andy, that you aren't likely to get ArbCom to take up a case just by over-the-line against BLP violators, at least not without getting sanctioned for your own personal attacks, which were over-the-line. You didn't even say BLP when you called the other editor crazy. Maybe you should have. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see no evidence whatsoever that anything 'works better than invective' - the facts of the matter are that Earl King Jr's repeated violations of WP:BLP policy have been repeatedly raised at WP:ANI - and repeatedly ignored. And no, I am not asking for a more strict BLP policy. I am asking that the existing policy - which explicitly states that it applies on talk pages - be enforced. Along with a requirement that contributors actually comply with the 'neutrality' they repeatedly accuse other of breaching, and that they don't use article ledes to promote their half-baked and contradictory conspiracy theories. And no, I don't see why I should have to mention WP:BLP policy explicitly when I point out that EKJ is using Wikipedia talk pages to accuse a named individual of a conspiracy involving "brainwashing", and concocting a political movement for personal financial gain. I would assume that anyone with basic skills in comprehension would understand why it was a problem. Maybe I am expecting too much though, and should cite Wikijargon in every sentence, just for the benefit of those who view this project as a MMORPG exercise in amateur bureaucratics, rather than as an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. There are actually people demanding that we characterise these as documentaries. Because obviously the gubmint did 9/11. Obviously. Attacks on Merola, we do not need. I would even step in to prevent attacks on his brother, propagandist for the vile Burzynski Clinic. Guy(Help!) 22:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Would you also step in to stop people engaging in off-topic guilt by association commentary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Block this editor?

I would like Ani Admins. to block AndyTheGrump from editing Wikipedia because of his disregard for basic civility which is a cornerstone of editing here. Example [28] example taken from a request for comment on the Zeitgeist film series page. Another example from my user page [29] There is no doubt that he would not deny calling me a little shit also previously. Bringing up those old Ani's is probably not a good idea either. All of them were thrown out or dismissed. I am not saying I am the world best editor or that I do not make mistakes. Talk page discussions should not be dredged up from last year to prove some obscure point either about my being somehow violating editing guidelines. Discussion on a talk page should be free ranging for better articles. Personal attacks that are vicious, blatant and possibly designed to intimidate should not be used to make points. Andy has an extensive block record for doing what he is doing. I think another block is in order. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusing a named individual of engaging in "brainwashing" for personal financial gain is not an "obscure point" about "somehow violating editing guidelines" - it is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. And as for 'civility', I recommend looking at EKJ's routine harassment of any individual he considers sympathetic to TZM - which usually consists of a lecture on 'neutrality' combined with unrestrained vitriol concerning the movement. The term cognitive dissonance springs to mind... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Block Abusive editing does not win the day. Making another personal attack here, on top of the Zeitgeist film series recent one at the RFC and the personal attack on my user page by Andy seems almost like he is asking to be blocked from editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that you have violated WP:BLP does not in any shape or form constitute a personal attack - and neither does pointing out your hypocrisy in supposedly espousing 'neutrality', while posting rants like this [30]AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that pointing out BLP violations is not a personal attack. There were personal attacks, which are not permitted, there appear to have been BLP violations, which are not permitted, and there were comments about BLP violations, and those are necessary. Within a few days, when ArbCom decides a few details, enforcement will go to Arbitration Enforcement. In the meantime, personal attacks on editors are still forbidden, and attacks on the subjects of BLP articles are still BLP violations that are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy brought all that up after the fact and his given zero examples. Here we have Andy exaggerating liberally what ever point he is trying to make to the degree of again personally attacking he considers sympathetic to TZM - which usually consists of a lecture on 'neutrality' combined with unrestrained vitriol concerning the movement. The term cognitive dissonance springs to mind... How could it be that Andy thinks this is a good way to communicate his ideas? It shows a very comfomfortable mode of long extended personal attacking that for what ever reason no one has stopped permanently. Look at Andy's block history for more information. Its about time this person is stopped for trash talking other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"Trash talk"? as in this [31] example of bizarre logic where you cast aspersions on the validity of a source on the grounds that the journalist responsible was probably paid to write it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre logic Andy you will not let up. You can not make a point without adding personal diatribes which when gathered together end up being a vicious attack on the Zeitgeist page and my user page, as you have done here and elsewhere over a long period of time. It is not a reliable source was the point. Past consensus on the article agreed it was not a reliable source. Journalists normally get paid. Free ranging talk within reason on discussion pages is a non starter. Trying to make that into some kind extreme case by comments about users is not a good way to discuss things on the article, my user page or here to make any points you are trying to make. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion that a source is unreliable because the journalist responsible for it receives payment for his work is bizarre by any reasonable standards. That is what journalism as a profession entails - and your attempt to denigrate the journalist responsible by pointing out that he was probably paid for it was clearly intended to denigrate him as an individual. Just another example of the systematic bias you show with regards to anyone who doesn't accord with your personal enmity towards Joseph and TZM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I really think there is no place for your style of editing. I did not denigrate anyone. I pointed out that the Huffington Post thing is a blog. The past consensus on the page was to not use it. The current consensus is probably close to the past one. Why are you making up stuff like this Andy, Just another example of the systematic bias you show with regards to anyone who doesn't accord with your personal enmity towards Joseph and TZM. end quote. Is it in the best interests of editing for you to claim that? No I don't think so. What if I told you I find the Zeitgeist page and its supporters comical and I have no particular feeling about them beyond that? Why do you think you can diagnose peoples people on Wikipedia and make statements about their mental health? You continue an onslaught of bad will and tendentious infighting over something like a comment about a blog, blowing it out of proportion where you are constantly being an amateur Dr. of Psychology, do you think you are exhibiting cooperative editing skill? I understand rhetoric and your use of extreme highlighting of insignificant mentions on the article. All this reinforces my opinion that you are way over due for a site ban or long block. The larger point is that it is a non notable blog that is best left behind in regard to using good reliable sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware that you pointed out that the source was a blog. That is however irrelevant, since I haven't debated the fact. The simple verifiable and relevant fact here (which everyone can see I haven't been 'making up') is that you also suggested that because the journalist was probably paid to write it, that was also somehow grounds not to use it - an argument which were it to be accepted and applied elsewhere would decimate the referencing for almost every article on Wikipedia. Irrational by any definition. As for the remainder of your comments, I see no point in debating with you - your enmity towards Joseph and TZM is self-evident... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You lost the debate Andy when I posted the links on the Zeitgeist film page and my user page. Personal attacks and harassment seem to be a way of life for you as an editor [32] Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And that is a personal attack. BMK (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that nobody has offered the slightest support for you call that I be blocked from editing, I would have to suggest that your judgement of how this 'debate' has been going is somewhat open to question... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, Robert noted that you made personal attacks on me, but he is an involved person so is not going to do much except mention it here. Again your debate on my judgement is something you did in your personal attacks which I will repeat now over and over [33] and [34] since this Ani did not really start out as a call to block probably people are not focused that way. And, because of your personal attacks on me I am saying that you have lost the debate, lost credible interpretations of any kind of goodwill editing and have a long history of doing that kind of thing and should be taken off the project. I hope that is perfectly clear. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump I would like to personally ask you to please reflect on the tone and content of comments that you have made in talk page discussion between editors. Please, we need WP:No angry mastodons and as far as I can see that project page could pretty much have been written about you.

What I think would be of most help here is if you can show that "you understand what you are (potentially being) blocked (for)" as per content at: WP:Guide to appealing blocks. Please consider the, I would argue, disruptive effects of your editing. Comments of yours have included:

• "... repeating your batshit-crazy conspiracy theories won't make them any more true. ..." as at 06:33, 3 June 2015 at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)

Even on this page and while you have been involved in this discussion you delivered a retort as: "On the basis that I'm not a complete fucking imbecile" so as to imply that the other editor involved was "a complete fucking imbecile" as you did at 02:24, 6 June 2015.

Please can you give some kind of statement by way of acknowledgement of any understanding that you have with regard to the importance of these issues and any kind of reassurance that you can give as to any intention you may have to curb your unacceptable behaviours.

Please read advice given at WP:No angry mastodons#Edit when you're at your best including: "Get a glass of water. Walk around the block. Go wash the dishes. The feeling will pass after a few minutes and you will be less likely to write things you would regret afterward."

Please read, absorb, meditate on anything here or elsewhere that may help.

GregKaye 09:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I will of course reflect on the mastodon essay. Though I wonder whether it might be appropriate to also reflect on the merits of creating an essay for your perusal on the merits of not repeatedly insisting that mice are in fact mastodons, in the face of multiple contributors providing evidence to the contrary.[35] Somehow, I don't think that either of us have shown our better sides here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump I genuinely wish you well with the angry mastodon issue. Then when a discussion was closed and when, for instance, my TP is open, you add WP:POINTy comment in an irrelevant location. I presented a large (3kB) OP on the, I think, important issue of Right of reply within contexts such as WP:AN/I. As far as I am aware this type of topic is relevant within the context of WP:AN which presents "Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." I saw a lot of opinion and a lot of quibbling about terms that were used. Wikipedia prides itself on NPOV the preservation of the biographical reputations of living persons and yet we customarily engage in thread discussion with one way criticism of other editors within which the editor concerned may be the only person that cannot contribute.

Please try not to throw good faith back in people's faces. GregKaye 17:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You explicitly referred to a comment I made in the thread you started. I exercised my 'right of reply' by pointing out that your own behaviour in the thread was open to question. Like I said, I don't think that either of us have shown our better sides here. I at least have acknowledged that. You appear not to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed blocks

• Recommend block for both Earl King Jr. and AndyTheGrump for using WP:AN as a forum to exchange hostility. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any length for those proposed blocks in mind?--67.68.29.99 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That does not seem fair at all. I just complained about Andy making personal attacks on me. How does that deserve a block or topic ban? I gave examples. I would be perfectly happy if he just said he was sorry and would move on. If someone calls you bat shit crazy etc. why should that be tolerated. If someone calls you 'a little shit' at these things why is that tolerated. Since this was brought here and not by me I made some comments. Andy seldom edits that topic area so a topic ban would not even affect him to any degree. If you want to deescalate this lets just ask Andy to stop insulting people. What he does is way beyond grumpy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose BMK (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be noted that it was Robert McClenon who started this thread - to accuse me (or Earl for that matter) of using it 'as a forum' would therefore seem to imply that he thinks we have no right to respond. That, as far as I'm aware, isn't Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block of Andy the Grump engaging with Earl King Jr. in this location on any topic that does not directly concern him. GregKaye 17:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any blocks would only be punitive at this point. MarnetteD Talk 17:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD If you think that a block, which might help get a message across, would only be punitive, what would you suggest? as Earl King Jr. has, I think, fairly expressed, "If you want to deescalate this lets just ask Andy to stop insulting people. What he does is way beyond grumpy." Having read this and the related page I certainly endorse the "Request Admin Eyes at Talk: Zeitgeist (film series)". GregKaye 08:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban from Zeitgeist (film series)

• Neutral as to topic-ban for both, as alternative to block. This is getting nowhere and they both need to be stopped, either by blocks or by topic-bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. A topic ban on us both would be fine by me - since I withdrew from the topic some time back, and only became involved again as a result of EKJ's further abuse of Wikipedia talk pages as a means to further his personal enmity towards Joseph and TZM, and as a consequence of observing his repeated attacks on the integrity of other contributors at WP:DRN. If Earl is topic-banned, I will have no reason to involve myself further in this colossal time-sink. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It can be noted Robert McClenon who started this thread - to draw attention to the page and its problems was acting in a positive to help the article. Being penalized for discussion here would therefore seem to imply that he thinks we have no right to respond. That, as far as I'm aware, isn't Wikipedia policy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang

• Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Going back to the first edits of Earl King Jr., in Marc 2012, virtually all edits are to Zeitgeist and related articles (post-scarcity economy, Venus project etc). AndyTheGrump has been here longer and has a far more varied editing pattern.

There is, at this time, no obvious consensus to block either. A topic ban on Earl King Jr. would in my view reduce drama. AndyTheGrump is sanguine about the idea of a topic ban, which is entirely in line with an edit history which shows no obvious fixation on this topic.

I would say that a topic ban of Earl King Jr. is the only action supported by the evidence at this time. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That does not seem fair at all. I just complained about Andy making personal attacks on me. How does that deserve a topic ban? I gave examples [36] and [37]. I am not an [38] just a person that has in interest in related subjects. Why should AndyTheGrump act with impunity making personal attacks? Single purpose editors are just as valuable as others but I edit a variety of things. Single purpose editors that are not neutral or at least trying to be are a problem. I don't fit into that niche. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Earl King Jr., per JzG. BMK (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• No topic ban For Earl (me) How is it that Andy seems to have no consequences despite his continued personal attacks that are documented? Bringing up personal attacks by Andy gets me topic banned? No. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• You know, sometimes life's a bitch. BMK (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving a draft to new account

Hello. I am a beginner to creating pages. I have been working on two drafts and have submitted them, however they got rejected. Since this has happened, I brilliantly lost my password for the account and did not have an email associated with it. I've tried to search for help on this and found that I would have to open up a new account and "move" the pages to my account. However, since they were drafts, I can't access them. Can you tell me how in the world I resolve this? I don't want to lose the pages I worked so hard on, as I know there is a time limit on them. Any help is much appreciated.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywoodresources (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, what is the name of your old account, and what are the titles of your drafts? De728631 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be User:Hollywoodresource. Drafts are linked form thier talkpage. Amortias (T)(C) 20:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hollywoodresources: Drafts are (or at least can be) community edited, any account can improve drafts and submit them (indeed, I've done this myself eg: The Minories, Colchester when I've wanted to get seriously stuck in and help). I certainly wouldn't speedy delete Draft:Summer Moore but in its current state, plus a brief news search, I'm not sure if I could salvage it to the point of acceptance right now, as sources seem to be of a gossipy / tabloid nature. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

On the brink of collapse

Lately, especially in the last days, it feels like we're on Titanic after already hitting the iceberg and taking in water, but before starting to sink. Everywhere we look, there are backlogs building up. I just had a look at WP:SPI where there are open cases stretching back to April. WP:ANV looks good right now, but I've frequently seen a 10-hour backlog during which vandals manage a lot of damage. At WP:ANI, more and more discussions are never closed. I'd say an unclosed report is always a bit of a failure; many are not good but could be still be closed. We've come to a situation where backlogs are now feeding themselves. For instance, the lack of a attention to a user's unblock request led to a rant on WP:ANI [39]. (The request was perhaps unfounded, but then it could have been turned down). Despite the pointy cabal accusations, the subsequent discussion showed that many users (and admins) have noted this same problem. Same thing today, again a post on WP:ANI about the lack of attention [40]. In fairness, it was dealt with rather quickly, but it was such an obvious case it could have been quicker. These are just a few examples, but I see more and more such examples and, worryingly enough, more and more good, serious users as well as admins commenting on it [41], [42], [43], [44]. I'm not saying there's one single case that is very serious (I haven't seen it) and I certainly have launched no unaddressed report myself that would require immediate admin intention. But the general picture is beginning to look worrying. Admins do a fantastic job here, an unpaid and voluntary job and the usual "thanks" is abuse and insults and accusations. The last thing I intend is to accuse any admin, and I don't think any other established user do either. Notwithstanding that admins do all they can, though, if this situation continues, Wikipedia will be in problem. The whole structure is reliant on vandals, socks, conflicts and disruptive users being addressed quickly. The more time it takes, the more damage is done which in turns require more time to sort out, and which can push serious users away, and we're quickly entering a downward spiral. Not calling for any quick fix, nor for admin attention to any specific issue, but for a good discussion about what we can all do.Jeppiz (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your links are helpful, thanks. The two most recent discussions I'm aware of are WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_120#Proposed_user_right:_Vandal_fighter and WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_119#Last chance for a while. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, those discussions are very relevant. I agree with the premise. Given the current situation, I think extending some responsibilities to established users in rather straightforward matters would free up some time for admins to focus on the more complex issues.Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• While we can certainly use more admins, I disagree with some of what your pointing to. To start with AIV, it is rare for a blatant case of vandalism, were the vandal was fully warned, (4 escalating warnings followed by another act of vandalism) to not result in a quick block. If there is a report there more than 60 minutes old, it is almost always a more ambiguous case. For example, I'm very cautious about blocking genre warriors reported to AIV, because my own understanding of Genre sucks; not in a position to make a judgement either way, genre warrior reports pile up, and may not be actioned for a few hours, creating an appearance that AIV has a long backlog, when it only sort of does. As for reports on AN/I not being closed, until a year or two ago, reports at AN/I were not regularly closed unless it was a specific proposal that needed a consensus determination. Not every thread on AN/I needs to have a definitive outcome, sometimes they just fizzle out and the issue doesn't arise again. There are real backlogs, but its typically not critical time sensitive things like active vandalism, but things like RM, where another month is annoying, but wont be the end of the world. Monty₈₄₅ 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I would probably describe it more as "on the decline" than "on the brink of collapse". I don't really have any "big picture" solutions for you though. I've just been trying to do my part, ie I've recently learned and started contributing to CSD for the first time in these last few months. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• I spend some time at AIV, and Monty's assessment is in the right direction. The majority of the backlog isn't accounts that need to be blocked, it's bad reports that need to be declined. I'd say that, most days, far more than 50% of the reports I respond to are not valid AIV reports, and I have to spend a considerable amount of time crafting an explanation as to why they are being declined, usually some variation of "Vandalism is not a synonym for edits I disagree with". Most of the old AIV reports are simply ones admins have looked at and decided no block was needed, but didn't bother to write a decline rationale. You can know this by watching the history of AIV, where the really obvious vandals often only remain mere minutes, but the "This guy keeps changing the genre and I don't like it!" stuff hangs around a long time. The backlog would go away at AIV (and I suspect many other boards) if over-eager vigilantes would stop biting the newbs and creating frivolous reports that have to get dealt with. --Jayron32 01:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Jayron, I take your word for it and I'm sure there are lots of bad reports, possibly even bad faith reports. As I said, none of what I address here is a criticism of any admin decision, there is no particular case that made me comment but rather a thought building up over several weeks. I have seen some obvious vandals (who eventually were blocked) remain much longer, but could it perhaps also be a matter of time zones? While English Wikipedia is fairly global, I'd still guess there could be times when there are less admins around than at other times. As as I also said, AIV is probably the least worrisome of the different places I mentioned.Jeppiz (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Jayron, would a verbose but standard template be useful to you in declining those inappropriate reports? I'm thinking about something that includes a Venn diagram drawing, to explain that vandalism is only one type of unwanted ("bad") edit—"edits that create problems" and the subset of "edits that create problems and the editor was intentionally trying to create problems". Or maybe we should try better instructions. I have some ideas; I'll post them at WT:AIV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't believe in templates. If someone is worth talking to, they're worth my time to directly talk to them, not templating. I never use user talkpage warning templates. If I feel the need to explain something to someone on their user talk page, I have the decency and respect to leave a personalized message, TYVM. --Jayron32 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are a few things that could be done. The most logical (and, unfortunately, the most unlikely) would be to tighten registration procedures to ban IP editing and require some sort of significant registration process to edit. This would reduce vandalism by an enormous percentage, lightening workload. Second would be an unbundling of tools to enlarge the anti-vandalism force. Third would be an expansion of the pool of administrators through an easing of the RFA process. We approved a record low 22 new admins in 2014 and are on a pace to set a new record low in 2015. Desysopping of inactive administrators will once again top the 50 mark. There are less than 600 administrators with 30 or more edits in the last 2 months, which is a very loose definition of "active." The question is: how many are really needed? Carrite (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the IP aspect. A vast majority of the vandalism and misconduct I have to deal with comes from IPs who feel they can hide behind the veil of anonymity. As long as registration is free, I personally don't think that it violates the "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" mantra, though from what I've observed, there's quite an opposition to this though, correct? Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are two theories here that could do with being tested and proved, qualified or refuted. The first is that allowing IP editing is the secret sauce that built this site, partly because a large proportion of goodfaith editors start with a few IP edits before they create an account. The second is that most vandals will do the minimum necessary to vandalise wikipedia - so if we require them to create accounts they will do so and thereby become harder to spot, and the editors we lose by requiring registration will predominately be goodfaith ones. Personally I'd expect to see either theory if properly tested would give sufficient grounds to justify continued IP editing. But if someone persuaded the WMF to do the research and both theories were tested and refuted then I would be willing to change my view . ϢereSpielChequers 05:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Monty, well argued disagreement is always the best thing. Support is nice, badly argued disagreement annoying, but well argued disagreement is both nice and instructive. I agree that I've only rarely see AIV with a big backlog, though those rare occasions are all recent. I agree it's not the my main concern. About AN/I, I would argue that closure is always a good thing. Quite a large number of unclosed cases tend to come back sooner rather than later. I'm not saying that does not happen with closed cases, but if a case has been closed and comes back without any major development, it's a very easy close by just referring to the old one. Even though closing cases take some time, I'd posit it may be a time saver in the long run. And Sergecross73, of course "on the decline" is a more accurate description than on the brink of collapse, pardon my somewhat dramatical exaggeration. But ideally, we would not want decline either, right? Carrite, I think you nail it, thanks for those very relevant (and slightly worrying) statistics. With an already low number of active admins, and an actual decline in the number of admins both in 2014 and (on current trends) in 2015, it's little wonder the situation is becoming more difficult. While I agree with Sergecross73 about decline rather than collapse, it's not rare than a slow decline rapidly becomes a large decline when a critical point is reached. The harder it gets to edit and admin, the less admins and good users are likely to stay, making it still harder to edit and admin, and downwards we go.Jeppiz (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, I do definitely get what you're saying overall. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Good to hear, thanks!Jeppiz (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The backlog issue has been going on for sometime. The 10hr backlog mentioned in the lead is nothing compared to the one at WP:CFD which goes back to 17 January (as of typing this). I'd like to invite the latest appointments at WP:RFA, namely Jakec, Opabinia regalis and Ritchie333 to help out. Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

How is this their problem in particular, out of all the people who might help? I'm thinking of the 500 to 600 admins who are still editing regularly, the Wikipedians who could probably become admins if they ran at RfA, and non-admins, who only differ from admins in not having extra buttons to push. Who would want to run for RfA if being a new admin makes you responsible for problems that aren't yours? - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No backlog is anyone's problem, but all these alluded to helping out with backlogs, and surprise surprise, none of them have stepped up to the challenge. I picked those three as they were the most visable. You'd expect them to at least being active. I guess not. And speaking of the other 500 to 600 admins - what the hell are they all doing? I bet if anyone started a thread on this very board questioning one of them, it would be locked down in no time at all, but when there's work to be done, they're nowhere to be seen. Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, my goal here isn't to get this page "locked down" when you or anyone says something uncomfortable about what admins are or aren't doing; you're asking reasonable questions. There's work to be done here that's not getting done, and there's a wide range of approaches the community might take to make the workload a little easier or get more people doing the work ... I don't have a position on that, and I'd prefer to stay neutral. Until the community makes some progress on this, the best we can hope for is to at least avoid various negative feedback loops that might make the problem worse. For instance, if new admins become scapegoats for the larger problem, then obviously, we'll have fewer new admins. (Not that you're scapegoating them, but that's the risk of focusing on the newest admins.) OTOH, it wouldn't be inappropriate to get the word out to all active admins, and to everyone else who might be willing to help, that we're falling behind on some things that we probably don't want to fall behind on, and help would be appreciated (help of any kind that lightens the load or gets more work done ... for instance, help with triage, or making the jobs easier, or figuring out better ways to delegate work, or increasing throughput at RfA). - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone is a volunteer here, not an employee. The problems are not the fault of the 500-600 remaining admins, they are the fault of the stupidity that is RFA. Of course there's going to be a gradual reduction in admins; people lose interest, get jobs, have families, and all the other things that reduce their time to edit here. When I passed RfA in 2007 I had plenty of time to edit Wikipedia; now I don't. I get a few minutes here and there, or if I have a bit of time I hit the AfD backlog for a little while. But the facts are these; in 2014 there were 34 succesful RfAs ... in 2007 there were 408. Until the community gets its act together and makes RfA easier to pass (or gets rid of some of the stupidity that causes admins to not bother any more), the situation will continue to deteriorate. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

22 in 2014, and we're on track to produce fewer this year. It's not as bleak as it sounds, but there are decisions that need to be made. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would run for RfA and reduce the backlog if someone could only convince me that one of the following isn't true: [A] I would go through hell during the RfA, and [B] I would almost certainly lose the election. In other words, I would tolerate going through hell if I thought that there was a chance of winning, and I would take my chances despite almost certain failure if doing so did not involve going through hell. I just want to help the encyclopedia in wikignomish ways and have zero desire for "power" over others.

BTW, I know exactly how to become an admin. Stop getting involved in discussions at AN, ANI, RSN, etc,, stop mediating at DRN, pick a poor-quality, uncontroversial article that nobody seems to be editing or watching and create high-quality content, withdrawing and moving on if anyone disagrees with me in any way, and repeat that pattern for at least a year. In other words, avoid anything that in any way resembles what an administrator is asked to do. Again, I do want to help but the price is too high. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

I agree with User:Guy Macon. The procedure to become an admin has become one of avoiding all controversies and bringing a few articles up to FA status; but bringing articles up to FA status has nothing to do with how the mop is used. The RFA process is seriously broken, and gives too much attention to editors who have Enemies Lists. The English Wikipedia community is not about to come up with a consensus on how to fix RFA. It is time for the WMF to do something, but the WMF thinks that the English Wikipedia is a grand success story, which it is if one looks only at the numbers of articles and editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the community as collectively misbehaving or slow-witted, on this or any issue. I think we decided in previous RfCs that the best course was to avoid any drastic changes ... and, knowing as little as I know, I'm not in a position to say that was the wrong call. I'm not sure how we proceed if a future RfC determines that something should be done, but we can't agree on what to do; that's going to require some finesse. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's all true, to be an admin you have to do things which you wouldn't expect an admin to do and even then do you really want to go through an RFA only to receive your new toys but with a higher scrutiny and a reluctance to ever use them because someone is waiting for you to trip up? I don't gnome in any big way, stuck to RFPP these days but I'd still like to take on the dumb mundane tasks nobody else wants to, we need admins who'll do gruntwork other admins wouldn't because they were selected as content creators, not for their skills in actual areas where an admin is necessary. I wouldn't ever pass an RFA as it stands now so most of this is moot besides the fact we really have no clue how to gain new admins that'll use the tools anymore than how to retain editors. tutterMouse (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I've checked the logs for the three new admins you mention, all have easily enough logged admin actions since their RFAs to qualify as active admins, so I think it unfair to single them out - may I suggest you strike your "none of them have stepped up to the challenge. I picked those three as they were the most visable. You'd expect them to at least being [sic] active." We do have admins who have yet to perform a hundred logged actions, none of those three are in that group, and I suspect some who are are among the admins who got the bit in order to get rollback before it was unbundled. We may once have had new admins going through RFA and then not using the tools, but I don't see that happening now. ϢereSpielChequers 16:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice of you to check that and reply on their behalf. I guess they're far too busy to come here to reply in person. Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That assumes they knew they you were criticising them and they had something to reply to. How did you inform them of this thread? I don't see a note from you on their talkpages. ϢereSpielChequers 07:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

They were linked in my initial post with the username template, so the notification system would have alerted them to this thread. So they either don't have that function turned on (which would be odd in their role) or they've chosen to ignore this. I'll go with the latter. Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Your ping to User:Opabinia regalis would not have worked because you corrected the user name in a second edit—notifications do not respond to such edits because that would re-notify any correctly listed users. In addition, there have been reports of apparently correct notifications not being received, so in general they should not be relied on. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I love how they're being defended to the bitter end. You'd think a board titled Administrators' noticeboard with the heading "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators" would be looked at by administrators on a regular basis. C'mon, lets hear the next poor excuse for them. Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I did get a ping and looked at some of the entries in WP:CFD, but decided the oldest needed too much background knowledge for me to make an effective judgement call on any of them. I meant to report this back but got sidetracked with real life. Lugnuts, you could always try stepping up to the mantle and request an RfA nomination yourself, particularly if you've identified an area of deficiency. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are inevitably parts of a 5,000,000 article domain (not to metion so many multiples of administrations) that never stood up, so collapse is not possible. Effective triage still occurs, but whole swathes are built not to be cared about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Fundamentally, a consensus driven organization where everyone can participate will never be efficient. It has wonderful virtues, but efficiency is not one of them. If one has to be efficient, one needs fixed authority, and thebest part of our approach to vandalism is some purely mechanical operations, such as the edit filters. I think that part of the problem is our tendency to prefer discussion to work. Looking both here and at ANI, for example, or at some of the other noticeboards, we are spending an inordinate amount of time to decide simple questions, including repeating ones. Some of it is inevitable because we have no way of permanently fixing decisions nor is it easy to think of how a consensus based system could do so. (NOT PRINT is a handicap here, not a help; with print, what is printed is printed & the discussions are limited to the new items) . But some of it could be helped by an agreement on focus and time limits. There are too many of us (myself sometimes included) who often seem to be here primarily to show off how well we can argue. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• I can't improve on what Jeppiz said above: "The harder it gets to edit and admin, the less admins and good users are likely to stay, making it still harder to edit and admin, and downwards we go." The question for me is whether any kind of negative feedback loops are kicking in yet, and if so, what we can do about that, before people get discouraged and the problem becomes harder to solve. Does anyone want to offer to look at supply-and-demand problems concerning admin-related work over the next month or so and make some kind of report? Does anyone want to offer to help close some relevant RfC in about a month? - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC) (I don't mean this should be formal, only that it would be nice to give everyone a month so everyone gets a chance to have a say and no one is rushed, just as we do for RfCs.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The sad part is that, were I to become an admin, working on various backlogs is pretty much the only admin work I would do. I really have no desire to deal with difficult editors and their behavior problems using any tool other than persuasion. Boring, repetitive work, on the other hand, is very relaxing to me after my real-life job of dealing with disputes between engineers. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a level of adminship that would allow a worker drone to be upgraded to have powers of deletion? I'm guessing not, but Guy highlights a good point that would help. Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion is harder to unbundle than blocking. I can't remember the last time we had an RFA fail because the candidate had been making overzealous AIV reports, but we get plenty of RFAs fail because the community doesn't think the candidate is ready for the deletion button. I can think of several RFAs that have failed because the candidate had been overzealous with tagging for speedy deletion at Newpage patrol. ϢereSpielChequers 09:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Difficulty of unbundling certain tools seems like a problem, but it really isn't. If we as a community decided that we wanted to unbundle deletion, we could simply have RfAs for no-deletion admins, have them promise not to delete, and desysop them if they do. There are all sorts of things admins are not allowed to do that are technically allowed by the Wikimedia software. This would simply become one more of them. There are zero technical obstacles to unbundling. The only obstacle is that we have not agreed that unbundling is something that we want to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the successful unbundlings such as template editing, file mover and of course Rollbacker, there are some common threads. These are tools that can be used independently of the rest of the admin toolset, there are people who wouldn't pass RFA but we would trust with that tool and the solution was to actually separate the tool so it could be given out on its own (I don't know why, but there are a number of RFA !voters who will oppose candidates who give undertakings that they will never use certain parts of the toolset). Blocking new and unregistered vandals fits all those criteria, and non admins can judge whether the block was a good one or not. Unbundling deletion would be a very different kettle of fish - I can't see how anyone could be trusted to delete but not to be an admin, non admins cannot check deleted pages to see if they agree with deletions. ϢereSpielChequers 08:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've been keeping an eye on RFA numbers and admin numbers for several years now, and at first glance we have a huge problem with RFA having collapsed in early 2008. But first glances are notoriously misleading, the early 2008 change at RFA came immediately after the unbundling of Rollback, we have since had thousands of rollbackers appointed, and many of us support the flip side of that - "good vandalfighter" is no longer sufficient qualification to pass RFA, some examples of adding reliably sourced content are now required. If Rollback had been unbundled a couple of years earlier I believe many vandalfighting admins would never have gone through RFA. Of course the logical corollary of that is that we should also unbundle "block Ips and Newbies" so that vandalfighters can block vandals but only admins can block or unblock the regulars. The subsequent decline is more troubling and has put us below replacement level, but the good thing is that once people become admins they usually stick around for a long time. So whilst I think the current situation unhealthy, and it can't be a good thing that eventually we will have insufficient admins, but at present I worry more because of the wikigeneration gulf that has emerged between an admin cadre dominated by people who have been admins for many years and an active editing community many of whom rightly or wrongly see adminship as out of reach. To me we will have entered a negative feedback stage when our remaining admins start giving up the tools because the number of stray requests on their talkpage to use the admin tools interferes with their hobby of editing, and from my own experience that is not even close. That said new and returning admins would be welcome, there are plenty of active editors who could easily pass RFA if they ran (if you think that might be you feel free to email me). ϢereSpielChequers 08:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think there is probably a tipping point for successful RfAs. Candidates need experience, and that bar has risen substantially over the years, but the longer someone has been here the more chance there is that they have upset some people and that those people will come out of the woodwork. I am an extreme example but there is a running gag about how many sockfarms and POV pushers would turn up at any RfA by me. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• There used to be a theory that if you hadn't made admin before you completed 10,000 edits you never would, that theory has been long disproved, now we even have one or two !voters who will oppose candidates who have done less than 10,000 edits. As for the idea that the longer you are editing the more wiki enemies you acquire, I don't see RFA working that way, opposers who drag up old examples are likely to get a response along the lines of "thanks for demonstrating that the candidate wasn't ready two years ago, do you have any examples that would be relevant to this RFA?" though usually more diplomatically phrased. There are some issues that don't get an editor banned but would torpedo an RFA, however in my experience the RFA community is very focussed on recent months, things from years back are relevant if they show that someone has a skill, not if they used not to have it. ϢereSpielChequers 09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's pleasant that there is some social pushback against "ancient history" votes, but does a reply like that actually change the vote? After posting a comment like that, do you see people changing their votes from "I am voting against this candidate, because I'm still holding a grudge from five years ago" to "Sure, I guess I support that editor after all"? Or does it stay with "I'm still voting against that candidate, even if WSC doesn't respect my rationale"? RFA is fundamentally vote-driven, and bureaucrats can only exercise a limited amount of discretion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I honestly can't remember any votes that I would dismiss as "holding a grudge from five years ago". But sometimes yes challenging opposes does change a individual vote, more often it sways other !voters. Just look at how this one went from April 25/26 to the end result, yes at least one oppose was struck but more importantly the pattern of voting switched and it ended as a success. On that occasion one issue was whether we judge a former admin on her previous RFA or on the many admin actions she had done after that RFA. We had another one earlier in the year where a candidate was opposed partly because some of their early articles were recently deleted, unfortunately we weren't able to turn that round before the candidate withdrew, but one of the opposers did strike part of their rationale. I'm fairly sure that the opposers in that RFA were assuming that recently having articles tagged for deletion meant recently creating articles that merited deletion, and that the RFA would have gone differently if the nominator had had access to deleted revisions and pointed out that the candidate had created articles on some not quite notable subjects years ago but hadn't objected to them recently being deleted. The later you are in an RFA the harder it is to turn it round, but I have seen RFAs collapse on day 6 or 7, and also seen RFAS that were heading for no consensus turn into successes. ϢereSpielChequers 06:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Content creation work without the tools is incredibly painful. I would happily do piles of boring admin tasks just to have them back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why? I don't see that at all. It is frustrating having to run around to find an admin but we cannot use tools where we are involved anyway, so there should be no pain due to lack of holding them. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There are lots of simple actions that you can do yourself where WP:INVOLVED does not apply because they are uncontroversial and undisputed. The most common is moving pages from your draft space to the mainspace. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Like this? - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, like that. It leaves behind a redirect. Like me, you have multiple sandboxes and intend to reuse it by overwriting the redirect with another article. But when you have multiple articles to move you have to resort to a CSD request to remove the the redirect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @Hawkeye7: That is something I have been pushing for, allowing established users to suppress redirects. Things like phab:T76266 and phab:T71162 could help, but maybe a permission for it, or bundle it with another permission? I brought it up on meta, but there wasn't any support with the way I badly worded my proposal. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Isolated cases of vandalism don't seem to be an existential threat because the problem will tend to be self-correcting — when readers notice significant vandalism, they will tend to mobilise to correct it. The biggest issue seems to be structural problems which require deep knowledge and access rights to correct. For example, AFD is kept running by some mix of templates, bots, tradition and whatever-else. I have been patrolling it for years but still don't fully understand its ramshackle structure. Today, I was reviewing the daily contents at WP:AFD/T and noticed that the list of discussions had a huge list of other stuff embedded in it. I think I've found the cause but am not sure I should interfere. Anyway, my point is that structural glitches like that pose the biggest threat because they make it difficult for the general mass of readers and editors to engage with and resolve the individual detail problems. Andrew D. (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Vandalism is a massive problem and a very serious one for BLPs etc, which extends a lot further than articles just about individual people. AfD is trivial by comparison and is also "self-correcting" in the sense that unless an article is salted, it can be recreated. In fact, it can be recreated even after salting, just not under the same title. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • One of my hopes for WP:Flow is to (eventually) replace the ramshackle deletion structures with a purpose-built workflow tool that does exactly what we want, automatically, every time, with very little need for bots and manually applied templates. (Also, if Commons' proposes to delete an image that is in use here, then I want to be able to read and participate in their deletion process without leaving the English Wikipedia.) Then we can focus on the actual content, rather than the infrastructure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• If I were a closer in a relevant RfC, I'd have to pay more attention than usual to the mountain of text already devoted to the subject, and I'd be sifting through all the suggestions to try to find where they intersect in some kind of minimal recommended change, on the "do no harm" theory. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And one more thing. (You can tell I'm a Wikipedian, I'm replying to myself.) Every time there's an RfC involving RfA, the throughput at RfA goes up ... and then drops down lower than before afterwards. So even if people are making the argument during the RfC that that month's numbers at RfA aren't worrying, the projected number of first-time admins for 2015 that I would be using if the RfC started today would be 12, because RfA has only produced 5 first-time admins over the last 5 months (along with 3 former admins who regained the tools at RfA ... that's an important number too, but it's a different number). - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• I remember when I first started diving into doing a lot of editing back in 2013, I thought about trying an RfA. I even got a little encouragement. But after looking at a few respected editors' evaluation lists for RfA candidates, I didn't see how anyone who hadn't devoted themselves to extensively editing a wide variety of areas of Wikipedia for less than 3-5 years could ever pass. And that is assuming that they haven't made a lot of enemies! And that's really weird when you look at old RfAs and find editors becoming admins after three months of editing and less than 1,000 edits.
  

I look at Oppose votes in RfAs and sometimes they are cast as a result of a single bad call at an AfD or a bad encounter between editors, especially the Opposes that come later on during the week can seem a bit random and offer no explanation. Some editors see decent, qualified editors get shot down at an RfA and decide, "Why put myself through that?" It doesn't help that a fair number of editors who are unsuccessful at an RfA end up then leaving Wikipedia.

If I could change the RfA process, I'd make editing at places like the Help desk, the reference desks, DRN or the Teahouse just as important as writing an FA. It seems to me that being an effective admin relies more on people skills than content creation. Just my 2 cents. Liz^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There has long been a concern amongst some editors that admins in general don't adequately appreciate heavy content contributors,(and thus treat such contributors less favorably than we should when it comes to deleting their hard work, or blocking them) and that the solution is to recruit admins only from those who are themselves heavy content contributors. I think this as faded a fair bit at RFA in the last couple years, but even when it was still going strong, it was possible to get through RFA without a huge amount of content work. You just needed to be a good candidate in other respects, and proactively try to address their concerns. But then very few people are perfect, coming to RFA prepared, knowing what people are going to see as deficiencies, and being prepared to address their concerns goes a long way, even if it flies in the face of the no-big-deal mantra. Monty₈₄₅ 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Liz is right. If you want more admins, then you need to stop making RFA feel like a fraternity hazing program. It's not enough to point out the irony between the "no big deal" fairy tale and the reality (which is more like "preparing for the US presidential debate" than like "no big deal"). You have to actually stop punishing candidates for applying. And if you want good ones, then you need to focus on people who have specialized skills (e.g., tech or copyright) or who are good at dealing with people and dispute resolution. It's far more important for admins to be able to deal with people than to produce brilliant prose. People get desysopped for treating people poorly, not for grammar errors or boring writing styles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We used to require at least one FA before an RfA, but when we tightened the FA requirements, it was felt that this was too tough on some editors who might otherwise become good admins. We should reinstate the requirement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The result of that short-lived requirement was a bunch of "featured portals" that nobody cared about enough to maintain. It was a pure hoop-jumping exercise, and I'm glad that the requirement was killed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845 and WhatamIdoing, I don't recall RfAs that required candidates to be "heavy" content contributors. What I remember – and still support – is the principle that admins should have demonstrable hands-on experience of finding reliable sources, defending them on article talk pages and successfully incorporating them into articles. Candidate's specialized knowledge or people techniques are irrelevant if they don't have the basic skills we look for in every editor. - Pointillist (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be everyone. If only 5% of respondents personally choose to vote against anyone without "heavy" content contributions, then those 5% oppose votes will break some candidates (and discourage even more from applying).

I wonder, though, if you've really thought through your comment about "specialized knowledge". Does a Lua programmer actually need to know how to incorporate sources into an article to be useful to us? How about a copyright specialist? For a person whose intended role is saying "Yup, another copyvio at AFC, push the delete button" a hundred times a month, does it really matter if that person can create a well-sourced article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I've thought this through plenty of times. What you are describing is an argument for unbundling in specialist areas such as copyright. Anyone who has the power to block a contributor should demonstrate that they can perform the basic tasks for creating article content. - Pointillist (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pointillist, please explain this. Imagine that I've got expert knowledge about copyright law (clearly a hypothetical scenario ;-). Imagine that I've never created an article and don't have much interest in doing so. How will my hypothetical lack of experience in writing articles impair my ability to apply WP:COPYVIO correctly, including (if necessary) blocking a user who persists in adding wholesale copyright violations to Wikipedia?

I'm not actually arguing for unbundling (e.g., so that copyvio experts can delete but can't block). I'm trying to figure out how not being proficient at writing articles would make me (the hypothetical copyvio expert) be incompetent at handing copyvio-related admin tasks, i.e., at handling an admin task that has nothing to do with writing articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, if the hypothetical expert were purely performing deletions of 100% copyvio material, without any discussion and without any blocking, it might be OK. But that's an extreme scenario. We would be giving all the tools to the expert, but trusting that he/she wouldn't use them any purpose other than copyvio deletions. It is in effect unbundling but based on a promise by the user rather than technical means, similar to Trappist the monk's RfA, where the candidate requested adminship basically on a temporary basis pending the decision about creating the unbundled Template editor user right. Nevertheless, the candidate was expected to demonstrate "clear, civil communication skills" and "articles to which they've added reliably sourced content" (see support !vote by WereSpielChequers (talk·contribs)). The thing is that it's hard to trust someone without having seen them working with other people on articles, so I would recommend that your expert show some willingness to contribute in that way. In the answer to his RfA Q2 Trappist the monk said "I have done enough content creation to know that my interests lie elsewhere". That's all we need to know. - Pointillist (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be concerned if we had an admin or indeed anyone removing copyvio without "clear, civil communication skills". I suspect that copyvio is often a "goodfaith" error made by people who need to be guided into writing things in their own words and citing them to reliable sources. So I can make a stronger case for an admin specialising in copyvio removal needing to communicate how to put things in your own words and reliably cite them than someone like me who fixes typos, deletes vandalism and actions user requests for U1 and G7 deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 17:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Entirely agree with your good faith + communication points. Personally I don't believe a purely "Yup, another copyvio at AFC, push the delete button" admin role really exists, but I was sidestepping that issue to make a wider point about single-purpose admins. - Pointillist (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that communication skills are necessary. What I don't agree is that it is necessary to create article content to be able to do the necessary things for working in this area, which are:

1. accurately determining whether or not an edit is a copyright violation,
2. deleting pages that must be deleted because of copyright laws,
3. communicating with the editors who made the copyright mistakes, and
4. (yes, actually) blocking editors who persist in flagrant copyvios despite ample education on the subject.

So let me repeat my question, perhaps more clearly: If you had an otherwise perfect admin candidate, except that this candidate had never created so much as a stub (but had made tens of thousands of edits to clean up other people's copyvios), then which of these four steps would the candidate be incompetent at?

1. The one in which he uses expert legal knowledge? Nope, that's not it.
2. The one in which he pushes a button to delete the page? Nope, that's not it.
3. The one in which he talks to people? Nope, a brief glance at ANI proves that's not it, because we have lots of "content creators" with poor social skills and many "non-content creators" who are great at dealing with editors (especially new ones).
4. The one in which he pushes another button to prevent people from continuing to cause legal problems? Nope, that's not it.

That's the end of my list. His "failure" to create articles doesn't seem to be relevant to any of these. You are claiming not only that this candidate would be bad at something in this process, but also that if he wrote a couple of GAs, then he'd suddenly have some important skills and knowledge that would help him perform these four tasks. I'd like to know exactly what directly relevant skills he acquires through the content creation process, that he cannot have any other way—what skills he does not have, but must have, so that we could justify treating this as a "requirement", even informally.

Alternatively, you could perhaps conclude, as I did, that content creation is logically not especially relevant for every single admin, and that therefore we should not speak of it as a "requirement", even informally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing writing content and creating new articles can be very different things as far as RFA is concerned. We have millions of articles that could be expanded, improved or just referenced. I vaguely recollect one oppose !vote for a candidate who had never started a new article, I've seen several oppose votes for candidates who had created new articles that were good enough for a newbie to have done but insufficient for an admin, and I'm sure there have been RFAs that have failed for that reason. So to answer your specific question, the fact that your candidate had never created a completely new article would be irrelevant. Whether or not they had demonstrated sufficient communication skills to be an admin should be easily determined from looking at their talkpage and other interactions - you don't need to have written content to have demonstrated sufficient communication skills to be an admin, and there are some very good content contributors who are not admins because of their lack of tact and diplomacy in dealing with other editors. But knowing how to explain reliable sourcing to someone who has contributed CopyVio is best judged by looking at the content that they have cited to reliable sources, and the way they have responded to people whose contributions they have removed. To pass RFA your candidate would need to convince the community that they know how to do this. An admin who specialises in removing copyvio will get lots of queries from people who want to learn how to do edits that will be accepted. Those of us who want to make the pedia a less bitey place know that candidates such as the one you described have to be checked and only made admin if they can be trusted to communicate our sourcing standards clearly and civilly. ϢereSpielChequers 09:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that I agree with this. First of all, a person need not explain "reliable sourcing" to explain "copyright violations"; copypasta and close paraphrasing aren't about the reliability of the sources. Secondly, I'd have thought that "knowing how to explain reliable sourcing to someone who has contributed CopyVio is best judged by" looking at how the candidate actually explained that subject (and more importantly, quotations and close paraphrasing) to people who contributed copyvios, rather than by "looking at the content that they have cited to reliable sources". It sounds like you're using content creation as a marker for the skill that you want, when you could be directly assessing the skill that you actually want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, I found another example that might help this discussion. In 2010, DeltaQuad's first RfA failed 65/34/12, principally for lack of content creation. At Oppose !vote #6 Kraftlos (talk·contribs) gave a vivid summary of my view: "It's not so much that you rack up experience or have certain barnstars or awards. It's just that someone who does not contribute to articles shouldn't be making authoritative decisions about content such as AfD, vandalism, or any number of other disputes that required admin attention. It is all about empathy. Besides, we're all here to build an encyclopedia. Admins should at least know how to do that." Now the reason I mention this is that in DeltaQuad's second RfA a year the same concerns were expressed but the candidate had worked so effectively in SPI and UAA in the interim that there was much more confidence in how they would engage with the community. The RfA succeeded 103/13/1. So it's not impossible for candidates with very little content experience to succeed, but only if they have demonstrated all the admin skills beyond reasonable doubt. Hope this helps - Pointillist (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So you would rather not have an admin who is an expert on copyright laws but doesn't create content, because you believe that person would not be sufficiently empathetic to people who create copyvio-filled content. I don't share that POV, but I can understand it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing copyvio cleanup is most certainly not a good example. Someone who racks up several thousand edits cleaning up copyvios does have a content creation track record. Copyvio cleanup necessarily includes rewriting, which is why the backlog at WP:CCI is now growing to 5-6 years. Merely flagging stuff with the copyvio template doesn't count as cleanup, just identification. Not that identification isn't critical, but someone who would only flag copyvios without ever rewriting a single sentence would not get my !vote, as I would be hard pressed to see any practical experience that would help guide another user towards proper paraphrasing. I should know, I got my bit in 2009 mostly on copyvio cleanup. MLauba^(Talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio can also be addressed through blanking. It's not necessary to create content (and certainly not to create GAs and FAs) to address copyright violations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't necessarily figure out how to excise and paraphrase on some CCIs and blanking did not seem like a good answer either. Some topics were obscure to me and I felt too uncomfortable trying to tackle them. After several fruitless attempts and lost time, I moved away from it in lieu of going where I might be more effective. Admittedly, the long backlog there gave me the impression that it was a lost cause. Hat's off to those who work in that arena. Correct me if I'm wrong but the admin tools aren't necessary to participate in CCIs.
— Berean Hunter(talk) 14:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that not all copyvios are best addressed through blanking, but I know you also agree that a WP:VOLUNTEER can't be forced to do what s/he feels uncomfortable doing, so it's still possible for someone to contribute significantly without creating content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

How much content experience should an admin have?

@WhatamIdoing, I do not support any suggestion that admins should have GA/FA creation experience. On the contrary, as Kraftlos recorded me saying five years ago [45] [46] "I'm not expecting candidates to have moved mountains—I just want to see some substantial edits, some real references and some collaborative discussions on article talk pages that result in article improvement... My logic is like this:

1. The purpose of this project is to build encyclopedic content.
2. Admins have wide powers that affect content and the editors who contribute it.
3. Therefore being an admin requires a reasonable minimum level of content competence.
4. Therefore admin candidates/nominators should demonstrate this competence."

I'm open to counter-arguments and I proactively offered Trappist the monk's RfA and DeltaQuad's first RfA to support your line of thinking. But I think you're wasting your efforts. Notwithstanding a few special cases like those, in general principles like mine will survive, because they summarize the feelings of most contributors and are simple enough for journalists to present in brief. If the opposite point of view is that the WMF finds it inconvenient to have so few admins then we get into a potentially divisive debate about who runs the 'pedia and how the foundation has accumulated far more cash than it need to run the servers and is now run by someone who has never made an edit. Is that where you want to go? - Pointillist (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have skipped the step, "The only possible way to acquire 'content competence' is to create, source, and discuss long-form, text-based content. No other form of contributing to the project is an acceptable substitute".

By the way, I'm here in my capacity as a WP:VOLUNTEER who has made about seven times as many edits as you. Whether or not some part of the WMF cares about RFA has nothing to do with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi WhatamI, that step sounds like a quote, is it from one individuals guide to RFA? I can think of at least one RFA where the candidate got through largely on the strength of their participation in the cleanup of unreferenced BLPs - prodding the non notable and referencing the notable ones. I don't recall if they had much experience of creating content as opposed to sourcing stuff that others had written, and as that was some years ago I wouldn't care to predict whether or not someone could squeak through RFA now on that basis. I'm one of those who considers that our admins need an understanding of our sourcing policy, and I don't know of an alternative way to demonstrate that other than by sourcing content and telling others how to source content. So to get back to your copyvio specialist; If we had a candidate who specialised in dealing with copyvio, and could show several good examples of them guiding people who had contributed copyvio to put things in their own words and cite their facts from reliable sources, then it would be interesting to see if they could get through RFA, I might even support them myself. But I wouldn't nominate them without some record of creating cited content, if only because I don't think we should encourage people to run until we think they are ready and likely to pass without serious dissent. But do you now understand why several of us have indicated that we don't regard excellence at spotting and removing copyvio as sufficient qualification for adminship, unless accompanied by the other skills that such an admin would need? ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not a quotation of anyone else's work. It is an unstated condition for his requirements to make logical sense.

As I said above, I understand where this "requirement" comes from; however, I don't agree with it. It's not actually a very complicated idea: Its proponents believe that if you are not a content creator, then you cannot possibly understand the perspective of the content creator. Furthermore, they believe that because you have not lived through that group's experience, and since you therefore can't understand their POV, then you'll never be able to deal with them in a manner that they find acceptable. If you substitute "woman", "gay person", "racially disadvantaged person", etc., for "content creator", then you will probably recognize a rather tired political argument (also one used to claim that therapists must 'match' their clients, that trans-racial adoptions must be banned, etc.).

Also as I said above, I'd be sad if the admin corps overall could not boast many content creators, but I'm more interested in a "balanced library" than a "balanced book": I want all the skills and all the experiences in the admin corps, not an admin corps that is 100% from the "content creator" subset. It's okay if you disagree with me; if you want an admin corps that is built solely of content creators, then I respect your right to hold that opinion. I hope that you will similarly respect my right to reject that opinion about what's best for a large and diverse project with hundreds of ways to contribute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not one of those who insists that all admins be content creators, I suspect many content creators wouldn't count me as one myself. My minimum criteria for adminship includes the much lower test of a demonstrated understanding of our sourcing policy, and in that respect the consensus in the RFA !voting community is with me. Those who want all admins to be "content creators" with at least a GA under their belt are a small minority at RFA, insufficient to derail the RFA of an otherwise qualified candidate, arguments from that corner do tend to include things like "unless you have a GA etc you can't understand the perspectives of the serious contributors", and only someone with audited content contributions should have the power to block an FA writer. But such arguments do not prevail at RFA, "content contributors" who also meet the other requirements for adminship often get 100% support, candidates with a similar level of qualification to myself can pass but not unanimously.

As for your race and gender analogy, the difference here is between a skill and an attribute. A good comparison would be with a local sailing or photography club, membership one would hope would be open to all, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation - just as adminship is on Wikipedia. But it would be odd if a sailing club had someone who didn't know how to sail resolving disputes in sailing contests, or a photography club committee had a member who had never used a camera. Of course there are many ways in which people can be contributors to this project, but simply being a contributor in good standing is in itself insufficient for adminship, there are other criteria, including some I agree with as well as some I consider excessive. But all the criteria are open to anyone to acquire, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. ϢereSpielChequers 10:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely arbitrary break

(TL;DR the rest of this thread) Let's look at WP:ANV now. I count 27 pending reports in the version I am viewing while writing this. 27 vandals bouncing around breaking things. I do agree there seems to be a problem. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a relatively new, semi-casual editor on the sidelines, I'd say I'd consider doing an RfA on the sole basis of helping out with some of the backlogs and other admin-related gruntwork that needs to be done behind the scenes because I just like doing that sort of thing, but I'm similarly deterred by the heavy emphasis placed on frontend content creation and avoiding squabblesome areas out of the way of mainspace... I'm not the greatest at doing more than gnomey edits and I'm not knowledgeable in topic areas that merit new articles, nor do I know enough to improve existing articles to GA or FA-- not to mention I only joined a few months ago, WP:NOTNOW or whatever, so in general there's a whole host of reasons I'd be turned down on the spot. But I just find myself void of things to do and dare I say it bored, after a couple edits and talkpage posts here and there in the articles I feel comfortable editing, which is frustrating when I know there are so many other parts of the 'pedia back-end that could use mopmeisters who are fine working backstage, but the process is so dramatic and unnecessarily latched onto things that don't determine administrative aptitude of an editor that it's not worth the trouble.

I'm pretty sure that this doesn't necessarily mean WP is "falling apart" per se, but it'll likely continue shambling along in a lumpy, broken mess unless a few things are tweaked. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 19:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think BlusterBlaster put it perfectly. I would enjoy doing behind the scenes admin work, stuff like AIV requests and move requests that need admin closure to complete. I would like to call myself good at communicating with editors and the like... Sure I may not make the most articles, and I may not have been here very long, but I think my editing history shows I have good judgement and a solid knowledge of Wikipedia policies. But if I took that to an RfA, I would get a speedy not now closure with probably less than 10% support.

Speaking as an editor who's been here a reasonably long time (I've even come up at ANI a couple of times!)...I tend to come here to do gnomeish edits as a way of helping out without getting overly-involved (for instance, I tend to avoid WP on evenings and weekends). I'd consider throwing my hat in the ring at RfA (and my User page has indicated such for quite awhile now), but it seems like I'd be inviting a huge spotlight onto myself for, at best, the chance to help out in somewhat more meaningful ways, and at worst, the chance to attract all kinds of attention that I'm happy not to have in the course of my regular Wikipedia editing. It's a shame that editors who want to help, but generally only in a fairly-limited capacity, can't be given precisely the tools they need to do those jobs; perhaps that would diminish the drama somewhat. Anyway, these comments are worth pretty much exactly the amount you paid to read them. DonIago (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary tldr break

• I'm confused on the question of how far we're falling behind in admin chores. Are some apparent backlogs not really backlogs? I don't know the best way to get at this; some kind of RfC where people could discuss problems and solutions might help, unless there's another way to get the information that isn't coming to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  What is actually badly needed, recommended, but does not seem to be ever attempted is a real analysis of backlogs with the conclusion on where we are standing now. What I see already for a long time are just random statements of the type "look, we have an AIV 24h backlog, it is horrible - No, we have a CFD backlog of 3 month, it is the end of the world". From my experience, 24h AIV backlog is indeed horrible and means vandals are effectively not being stopped at the moment, whereas 3 months CfD backlog is certainly not the end of the world - there are too few policies about categories, most discussions inevitably turn subjective, and often opinions bale to shift the consensus are still coming after two months of discussion. I am not sure how and who can perform this analysis for different types of backlogs, but I would find it difficult to discuss unbundling without these data.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed, and I'd also like to know why we promote fewer admins every year. Is it okay with everyone if I spend some time surveying recent graduates of RfA, asking them what factors caused them to wait as long as they did? I'm asking because I don't want to compromise my neutrality, and miss a chance to keep helping as a closer. I wont suggest any answers, I'll just record and present the data. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  push to talk, I see no problem with doing that, but I suspect that will be like asking people who just subscribed to a newspaper why there are fewer newspaper subscriptions every year. How about asking those who failed and those who refuse to run such as myself? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  (Btw, Guy, I didn't get pinged by that, you probably have to put "Dank" after the pipe character to ping.) I apologize, I've changed my mind, there's a risk of losing my job as closer if I do anything at all. I'm ready to help, but only in the end-stages of a relevant RfC. I can repeat here what I said at WT:RFA, though: if we do get 12 first-time admins this year, I don't imagine anyone would count on more than 3 or 4 of those, max, to be highly active after a few years. We've been losing more than 80 admins per year the past few years. There's no reason to believe that nothing can be done about this ... there are plenty of people who would like to help out in some way but don't see a role where they fit in. There are hard judgment calls to make, of course, and this is a hard subject to tackle. But the consequences of never tackling it are pretty obvious; the current trends aren't sustainable. It's hard to get everyone on board even with proposals that would make a small difference ... but hard isn't the same as impossible. Thus endeth the sermon. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  Correction: According to the figures at #Some limited data below, the number of active admins hasn't dropped over the last year. I should have mentioned that I only had figures through last November. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  To clarify: this new data suggests that, over the past 12 months, the number of admins becoming inactive or leaving equalled the number returning from a period of inactivity. It's not likely that attrition has suddenly disappeared. Before the next RfC, we really need to know whether the recently active admins came back just to edit, or whether they're having an impact on whatever backlogs we've got, or something in between. If everyone votes assuming one answer and we find out halfway through that what everyone was assuming was wrong ... ugh. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Just find something you care about, be it an article or a particular administrative task, and pour your heart into it. That way all at once you'll enjoy yourself, you'll make a difference, and you'll be making an impact such that what seemed so insurmountable will quickly prove not to be so. A few years ago I took aim at the unreferenced BLPs, and the number at the time went from 450 to 150, all BLPPRODded, in a month and change. Obviously it didn't stay that way, and it also didn't change the fact that I had a good time resolving a serious problem with 350+ articles. Don't get all freaked out if other backlogs that you aren't working on build up, just focus on yourself; if you find you want to work on one of those then go for it, and don't ever force yourself to do something you really don't have your heart set on. There's always someone to do even those things everyone thinks no one wants to do—I don't know how many people have told me I'm crazy for my interest in sorting out the absolute worst of the ethnic conflicts—and there's no sense torturing yourself on the basis that you owe something to a volunteer effort. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Personally, I'd love to help fix some backlogs; but running the gauntlet of RfA is not apppealing. Like Sitush, I spend a lot of time working on controversial topics, which guarantees loud opposition at RfA, which tends to select for candidates who've rarely annoyed any other editors and, thus, by definition, it favours admin-candidates who have had less involvement in trying to fix en.wikipedia's most pressing problems.That's the system we've chosen. bobrayner (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• RfA is really no longer as bad as it was when it was suggested in 2011 by Jimbo Wales that that it is (or was) 'a horrible and broken process' . Unfortunately there are plenty of newcomers to Wikipedia since that time who don't understand the damage they are doing with their trollish and/or disingenuos votes and IP (mostly block evasion) users. An in-depth study of RfA found that the problem is with the attitude of the voters rather than with the process itself. It was found that the vast majority of RfA participants are one-off voters and the rest of the pool of fairly regular voters is in fact, over time, quite transient. Those who were or had been voting at the time of the study who are still voting regularly are extremely few and sadly among thm are some who still refuse to allow the process to become less of an ordeal.

The voters who vote consistently but far from every RfA and who display intelligence in their voting should be encouraged to vote on every RfA - some of the people commenting in this discussion don't even do that so how do they expect serious change to take place?

That said, the bar is neither too high nor too low - it's simply set anew for each RfA depending on who turns out to vote. RfA generally does what it says on the tin and editors who have read the advice pages before they run will be clearly aware whether or not they are going to be wasting the community's time, and of course their own, and whether the experience is going to be a week of hell or a walk in the park. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps the fact that many of the current processes seem ridiculously inefficient is a factor, at least as much as the alleged gauntlet of RfA? Given the thankless admin workload, the contemptuous label 'mop' might almost have been designed to make diligent editors think twice about becoming candidates. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. From this point of view a really precipitous "downward spiral" (@Jeppiz's term) in the number of active admins could just what we need to cull (or automate) the most time-consuming sacred cows and raise the status of adminship. - Pointillist (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting discussion. I don't have much to add, except that I remember a similar recent discussion (I think it was at the Village Pump, though darn if I can't find it...) in which the subject of creating a "bot" to automate the process of helping the current Admins search for suitable Admin candidates was brought up. That I think is an idea that might be worth pursuing. At the very least, it might be good if someone would take on the task of fixing (and updating?) Snottywong's Admin score tool as that, at least, might be something that could help people interested in being prospective Admins if they are even likely to qualify at an RfA or not. --IJBall (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Snottywong's tool, while interesting, is really not very useful. The things it checks for are very minimal, and give perhaps 10 pieces of a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle. Look at User:Elen of the Roads, former arbitrator. Her score? 238. User:Hersfold, another former arbitrator; 235. Former arbitrator User:Jclemens, 265. Former arbitrator User:Shell Kinney, who hasn't edited in 4 years...275. According to the tool, "Scores over 500 are generally regarded as good". It appears the tool looks at just 4 things; whether or not a person has a user page (why does that matter towards being a good admin?), whether or not they have other user rights, whether or not they've been blocked (and how many times), and edit count. You get full points for edit count if you have at least 25k edits, yet we have 325 administrators with fewer than 25000 edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, agreed – my point wasn't just to take Snottywong's old tool and use it as is (I think it's partially broken right now anyway, as I think some of the inputs it used to look for are gone...), but to take his old tool and improve it. And I don't view that as a "magic bullet" – but something (anything) that might be able to quantify how current editors might fare in at least some aspects of what comes up in an RfA would be all to the good. Because, right now, we've seen a bunch of comments in this thread from editors saying "Well I would help, but I'd never make it through an RfA..." which might not be as true as they think – if we could somehow "quantify" their Admin RfA potential, it might convince a few more people to give it a shot. (I've had separate thoughts on this issue, that I may share later, but it ultimately comes down to the Admins themselves deciding that there's a problem and then organizing a 'working group' to reach out to prospective candidates, and possibly also to reaching out to relatively inactive or semi-retired Admins to try to restoke their interest as well...) --IJBall (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for more data, but this kind of thing has a "you get what you measure" self-fulfilling prophecy effect. This tool apparently gives full points for 25k (!!) edits - not sure what data the score was based on, but in my recent re-RfA a few people suggested a minimum standard of 10k. Empirically, that seems reasonable - I didn't look closely but I couldn't find another recent successful candidate under that number at the time of their RfA. On an individual level, nothing wrong with sticking with what works. And yet, on a collective basis, standards-ratcheting is really bad for the health of the overall process.

Many capable candidates are now getting to RfA much later in their "wiki-careers" than they used to, despite being obviously qualified well beforehand. This pattern:

1. deprives the community of months to years of admin activity by capable people;
2. deprives the community of any admin activity by capable people who aren't realistically going to keep ahead of standards inflation*;
3. selects for people with significant continuous volunteer availability, possibly perpetuating systemic bias and reducing the diversity of the admin corps;
4. results in a lack of admins with any semi-recent knowledge of the new user experience; and
5. communicates to new users that adminship is an inaccessible and bureaucratic Big Deal rather than just a way some trusted members of the community volunteer their time.

I've seen a few comments that the environment has improved since the bad old days, and I wasn't around to see the worst of it, but it does seem like you'll perceive an improved environment if the borderline cases don't run, leaving mostly clear passes and confused newbies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

*This was a joke, but there's a point there: 10k edits at my pace would take around the same wall-clock time as getting a commercial pilot's license.

So basically, getting 25,000 edits, or a full 125-something-point edit score, would take as much time as the time required to get 2.5 commercial pilot's licenses? Epic Genius (talk) ± 18:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

On a serious note, it does look like RfA needs reform. We really do not need admins who were nominated mainly because their content work was good or because they never edited controversially. What we do need are admins who can make the right choices in blocking and page protection, and admins who, hopefully, can clear the administrator backlogs that are getting bigger each year. Adminship should not be viewed as a "super-user" status, but as a status in which dirtier tasks (such as page deletions, protections, and blocks) could be done without the backlog expanding to unmanageable proportions. Epic Genius (talk) ± 18:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi EpicGenius, In that respect RFA actually currently works the way you want it to. I'm one of those who would happily support a qualified candidate who had never done anything as contentious as suggest another user be blocked, given an opinion on a page deletion or a page protection, but such an RFA would fail on the basis of "no need for the tools". I can think of various things we could usefully ask such a new admin to do, but my advice to anyone considering standing is to make sure in your answer to question one you include one or two tools you are ready to use and can be judged based on your edits in that area. Something along the lines of "based on my experience at AIV/AFD/RFPP I think I am ready to use the admin tools to block/delete/protect". Sadly there are also some arbitrary and in my view inflated criteria on edit count and tenure that limit our recruitment of new admins; but doing the right thing in controversial situations is one of the qualifications for adminship. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Some limited data

Looking at the history of Wikipedia:List of administrators, we can track the number of active administrators over time. This is not the number of administrators, but the actual number of administrators who are active. "Active" is defined as 30 or more edits during the prior two months. Data points of note:

• 26 May 2015: Today, we have 602 active administrators.
• 26 May 2014: A year ago, it was 600.
• 26 May 2013: 683
• 28 May 2012: 707 (data missing for 26 May)
• 26 May 2011: 759
• 26 May 2010: 847
• 26 May 2009: 921
• 26 May 2008: 981

There's obviously been a decline, but it is interesting to note that we appear to have reached an equilibrium for the time being. There's been no net decline over the last 13 months (22 April 2014 was the first time it dropped to 600). This doesn't say anything about backlogs of course, but it does show the pool of administrators still active on the project has remained static for the last 13 months. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting data, but I'm starting to wonder if it doesn't paint the full picture. Because what I've noticed in my poking around the last month or two is how many of the "602" actually don't do much with their tools. I mean, in just that last little while, one high profile Admin (Swarm) has seemingly thrown in the towel (but would still show up as "active" as this happened recently...) while several others have had dust-ups at places like ANI which has apparently significantly diminished their enthusiasm and caused them to become much less active. And then there is the cadre of Admins who have had the bit for ages, but whose names I don't recognize and who seemingly don't use their tools much anymore... What would be really useful data is not the total number of "active" Admins according to the List of Admins (that definition of "active" is far too loose to be useful), but the number of truly active Admins – i.e. that number that have used their actual Admin tools 'X' number of times in the last 30 days, or whatever. I did check that recently, and most the usual names came up, but I didn't actually do a "count" to figure out how many of the "602" are really using their Admin tools actively... In any case, that is the data that would be truly useful to figuring out if there's a real problem right now or not. --IJBall (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, running that tool for April 26 through today (removing bots) I find (defining 'active' as performing at least one admin action in the 30 days surveyed):

• 475 active admins.
• The top ten most active of those are responsible for 41.8% of the administrator actions (67,665 actions)
• The top 50 are responsible for 77.2%.
• If you include bots in totals (103,438 actions) and percent of totals, bots do 34% of the admin actions.
• Number of actions per active admin (burden): 142

For the same time period in 2014:

• 490 active admins.
• The top ten most active of those are responsible for 37.1% of the administrator actions (63,302 actions)
• The top 50 are responsible for 75.6%.
• If you include bots in totals (76,261 actions) and percent of totals, bots do 16.9% of the admin actions.
• Number of actions per active admin (burden): 129

For the same time period in 2010:

• 700 active admins.
• The top ten most active of those are responsible for 38.3% of the administrator actions (93,853 actions)
• The top 50 are responsible for 69.8%.
• If you include bots in totals (101,537 actions) and percent of totals, bots do 7.6% of the admin actions.
• Number of actions per active admin (burden): 134

Certainly the quantity of bot admin actions has increased dramatically over the years. Of note; the actual burden figure per admin has remained more or less static. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hammersoft,

Thank you for putting together these numbers. I'm not sure how to compare these, given the rise of the admin bot. Do the actions per admin include bot actions? How many of those older actions could have been done by a bot? If the number of admin actions taken (NB not "needed", which is impossible to measure) is more or less stable, are these actions now harder/slower/more complicated cases (because the bots did all the easy ones)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Minor point, here, but I think you and I may have different definitions of "active" in terms of Admin tools. While 476 Admins (including bots) used their tools at least once between 27 April and 27 May 2015, only 269 of those Admins used their tools 10 times or more in that month, and only 210 Admins used their tools 20 times or more. I was thinking more along the lines of a standard like that for "truly active", and I think that's the standard I'd use for comparing Admin "activity" over the years... --IJBall (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's some more limited data. I had a few minutes so I made some quick-and-dirty graphs of the statistics from the adminstats tool, comparing May 2014-May 2015 (blue) to May 2006-May 2007 (green). Result: the percent of admins taking at least 1 and fewer than 10 actions per year has greatly increased, but the percent taking over 100 actions has decreased. (Note this is admin actions, so that first category isn't necessarily just people making their obligatory one edit to avoid desysopping.) Of course, with fewer contributors, there's arguably less to do - and some formerly manual actions are being taken by adminbots - but the trend is clear enough. On the log graph you get a clearer sense that shares of the overall administrative burden used to be much more broadly distributed. We've concentrated admin actions in a smaller number of hands. This reduces diversity in administrative decision-making, increases the likelihood of burnout among the highly active admins, and makes the community vulnerable to backlogs and interruptions when those people do decide to reduce their activity levels.

There's plenty of discussion at the village pump about possible desysoppings as a solution to what appears to be a non-problem outside an isolated instance. Meanwhile the actual ongoing problem - concentration of the total administrative burden on a narrower base of editors - keeps going on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In 2006, there were admins running adminbots on their own accounts without bot flags. Technically this was a violation of the rules, but it was something of an open secret that we had both blocking and deletion bots operating. Dragons flight (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure getting more Admins (to broaden that base using Admin tools) is something that can be solved until Admins get more proactive about. As I said above (I think... or somewhere, recently...), I think if Admins really want to increase the RfA rate, you're going to have to organize a working group on your end to figure out which longer-term or higher-yield editors you want to try to coax into running and then reach out to them. (Right now, I get the impression that this process is really ad hoc, and not "planned" or "organized" to any great degree.) P.S. Thanks for the figures (esp. the first one – that is interesting data that I was not expecting...). --IJBall (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Something like this used to exist, but it turned into "RfA school". Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The figures are quite, um, interesting. Does anyone find it weird that the most active admin, who has six times as many admin actions this past month as the next admin, is a bot that blocks proxies? We've got to find a way to automate many admin processes. The top 10 admins have performed 59,000 admin actions in the past 30 days, with over half of them by that proxy bot which apparently runs on magic, but there's got to be a way that we can get more admins into Wikipedia today, even with fewer and fewer editors actively editing Wikipedia. The solution, I think, could be by having bots clear some backlogs, manually assisted of course, but the X for deletion process could probably be good places to start. Epic Genius (talk) ± 18:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Dragons flight makes a good point about the challenge of comparing current and past adminbot actions - though a lot of people would have had to do some occasional unauthorized botting in order to explain the size of the discrepancy, and the effect should be balanced by the fact that there are now ubiquitous scripts to speed up bread-and-butter non-bot admin actions that don't require technical knowledge to use.

The suggestion of increased automation raises a good point. If the problem is backlogs, do we concentrate on trying to recruit more active admins to clear them, or refocus on increasing the productivity of the existing set? My argument way above is, more or less, that there are underappreciated social costs to low RfA throughput independent of the state of the backlogs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I still find it remarkable that that out of, what, 1300 "active" admins, that top 50 admins do 3/4 of the heavy lifting. No wonder there is a problem with burnout, especially if the admin actions aren't noncontroversial and routine but involve difficult blocks or AfDs/deletions.

Unless it is just proxy blocking, I've found it unnerving to consider how many admin acts are conducted by bots. What other actions do they take, do they block editors or delete articles? Because those acts should have a human being okaying them unless a decision has been made by an admin and it's just a technicality that the bot did the actual deed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As I just mentioned at WP:VPI, whenever all of this turns into one or more RfCs, it will be perfectly okay but not necessary to repeat any or all of this in those RfCs, we'll be reading everything relevant and taking it all into account. Just a reminder ... the goal of the RfCs will be to address everyone's concerns, not to decide who wins and who loses. To do that, we'll need to know what the concerns are, so guys, when possible, don't just tell us what solutions you favor, tell us what problem you're trying to solve ... even if it's just a possible problem, even if you're not sure. Of course ... even better is data that supports a claim, or an argument or position that's acceptable to a wide range of voters - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• What is the intention with one or more RfCs? If it's not focused, it's just going to turn into a complaints forum. I do agree that problems need to be identified. Soooo many times I see people come up with "solutions" that fail to address any specific problem, but they're damn sure it will make things better because...well, because! You can't solve a problem if you don't know what it is. You might be able to contain it, but not solve it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Are votes a good idea? In some ways, but there's always a cost ... more time spent on unproductive stuff, more people who get the sense that they're not being heard or that the system doesn't work. Are votes inevitable? Yes. Are they necessary? Probably, from a closer's point of view, because consensus has clearly changed over the last year, but it wouldn't be wise or fair to make a call on how it's changed until everyone gets their say. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Related to my above comment, almost anything purporting to solve everything ends up ringing as true as Da Tongshu. While acknowledging it may be the autism and resulting severely impaired gestalt perception talking, my suggestion for improvement would be to find small things to work on. Fixating on your personal vision of the admin system as a whole isn't going to get anywhere, since everyone has their own ideas and there's no possible way they can all be reconciled in one large discussion. All the energy you save can then be put into working on something you care about, and everyone will be more satisfied for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If they are significantly affecting content, problems need to be addressed. If they are for the most point internal, they need not. Really, that is the only test in my mind. Few if any of the tourists who visit Notre Dame care about internal discussions about wages and conditions in 1322 (or whenever), what is important is ... there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, among all these discussions, the one recurring theme is that "backlogs are real". They don't happen all the time, but they definitely do happen. And, really, we need AIV and RFPP, at least, to have as minimal backlogs as possible. On my end, I sometimes wonder if the backlog issue actually relates to an uneven distribution of en Wiki Admins across time zones – has anyone even gathered any data on how many (active) Admins we have operating by time zone?! Not having enough Admins in certain timezones might be one factor as to why backlogs on the Noticeboards accumulate at certain times of the day. --IJBall (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Maybe a database report can be compiled, which finds out the time zone preferences that each admin uses. Epic Genius (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't mind me but I'm just looking at recent RFAs and noticing people are opposing for some very (IMO) petty and irrelevant reasons. The general school of thought seems to be that content creation matters most and all your semi-automated edits mean nothing, using Twinkle too much can even be a reason to oppose !vote alone which is ridiculous. Content creators aren't right for admin work, they're builders and proud of that but admins have always been maintenance workers and you don't need to know how to build a house in order to keep it clean. The whole "mop" thing? You don't build things with mops, you maintain. The job of being an admin has nothing to do with how you might !vote in an XfD or how much you've written, we shouldn't even want content creators because their strengths are better spent creating given how there's evidence that eventually they won't use those tools because they have nothing to do with building the encyclopedia as goes the prime directive for some. If you mostly spend your time in Wikipedia space then you should be seen as doing work that needs doing as an admin but we still seem to be stuck in the 2007 mindset that content creation matters in any way, editcounts matter and the more of them that are manual and in articlespace the better, none of which will matter whatsoever for an admin doing requested moves, clerking at RFPP or closing RFCs. That was then when we didn't have as much content and needed to grow so we elevated the ones making stuff to the top, that made sense then but eight years down the line and the site has matured to a state where we need admins who can clear backlogs and the lousy rote work far more than the sort of editor the old guard wanted, basically themselves. tutterMouse (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've long thought that it is important to completely unlink content creation from administration. The one and only admin power useful to content creators is the ability to impose redirects through the software when they are automatically prevented — I run to an admin a few times a year for that. It's minor. Similarly, the people who need tools for vandal fighting or new article queue maintenance don't necessarily need to be able to research and write. I personally think the answer is creating some sort of community-vetted status for advanced editing, which includes auto-confirmation of new starts and ability to redirect over the software — then people could strut their featured article stuff or whatever for validation there, if they are needy for that, and the RFA process could be more narrowly focused on the deletion and blocking tools and who is capable of handling them appropriately without any nonsense about content creation coming into the equation. My two cents. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: The primary reason content creation and becoming an admin became linked was not because content creators had greater need of the admin bit, but because there was a somewhat widespread feeling that admins were treating established content editors with insufficient empathy. So an admin who only did/does gnomish stuff, may have less empathy for the impact of deleting someone's hard work on an article at AfD than an admin who themselves had put lots of hard work into building articles, and had faced the prospect of them being deleted themselves. Monty₈₄₅ 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite, back in 2010 there was a proposal to have a new non-admin user right that could perform one-hour blocks, but only of IP addresses and unconfirmed users and purely for vandalism. More controversial blocks—of confirmed users or for longer periods, for gross incivility, edit warring etc—would still require an admin. The idea was to take content creation out of the equation for the most urgent vandal prevention tasks. What would you think of that approach now? - Pointillist (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, unbundling a tool to delete redirects with non-empty history is a good idea and may have a chance. Has it ever been discussed? As far as I am concerned it might be even given as a tool to an existing group, for instance rollbackers.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be better as a separate "right" ("Article movers"?...) – this doesn't seem to fit in well with either the existing "Rollback" or "Pending reviewer" rights. Just my $0.02. --IJBall (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is also fine with me, but I agree that keeping this only available to administrators is not a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Suppressredirects? It was discussed numerous times at WP:VP and is being discussed even now (permalink. Personally, I think article moving and the suppressredirect ability is a good idea, except it requires a very high level of trust, like template editors or edit filter managers. Epic Genius (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Just an idea that came to me as I was browsing this thread, & I'm throwing out only because it seems no one has proposed it: why not require anyone who want to be an Admin to participate at RfA? Yes, it runs the risk of making Adminship a closed group accessible only by being co-opted in. However, it could effect some moderation in the discussions by diluting the usual voices who simply oppose candidates for bad reasons, from grudges against specific persons to trivial objections to tall poppy syndrome -- which seem to be why the environment there is so toxic. -- llywrch (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of RFA candidates do participate in a few RFAs before running their own, and I'd recommend that anyone considering a run starts voting there. But I'm uncomfortable adding another arbitrary hurdle to the process, I'm pretty sure we have recent admins whose only RFA involvement was their own run and I wouldn't want to make things more difficult for people like them. ϢereSpielChequers 08:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The "toxicity" extends across much of Wikimedia, from the biggest projects (eg this one) to the smallest ones (eg Wikispecies). It is an inherited trait from the earliest days of Wikipedia and is unlikely to change soon. If you participated in the recent Board elections, you may have noticed that they have a very different format, essentially getting you to click radio buttons expressing either support, neutral or oppose without being able to see anyone else's !vote. I'm not going to make allegations but I think the board are aware of potential comments that might be made by the more "politically active" users. I very much doubt such a system would be accepted here though. Green Giant (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Some RfAs are indeed toxic without benefit in any respect, but many of the RfAs that have aroused strong opposition--leading often to rejection or withdrawal--have been those where real problems have been identified. for most candidate popular enough to be nominated for Admin, there will be a rush of I LIKE THEM comments at the start, and in fact RfA is the only enWP venue where such an argument is in considered acceptable. (though it is usually more discreetly worded as Trust rather Like). Any admin planning to be active in anything but trivial matters is going to run into people who are strongly hostile to them, and the ability to deal with them politely without getting upset is a necessary condition. Similarly, the true basis of the requirement to have some experience with writing articles is that unless you have yourself have had the experience of submitting articles and seeing them run into objections, you will not have the understanding to deal properly with new editors in the same situation. The need of WP to continually attract new editors is much greater than the need for more administrators--enough good new editors, and the admin problem will solve itself. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The board elections are very different to an RFA, far more people take part and there are multiple candidates going for a limited number of places. The radio button feature means you can oppose without giving a reason, personally I think that makes the process more snarky - you might be opposing simply as a tactical matter, if your sole reason for participating is to support one candidate then your most effective vote is to support them and oppose all others. By contrast the Oppose section at an RFA does require you to give a reason for your oppose, if the reason is that you have unusual standards for RFA, including older incidents than most RFA voters would consider then your oppose will usually have little impact. If however you present a diff supported case as to why that candidate is not ready for the mop then your oppose might well be the one that swings an RFA - though there are over a hundred participants in most recent RFAs I suspect that only a small minority seriously check the candidates contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 08:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin-bots as proxies could lighten the workload

When used in obvious/no-brainer cases, many "admin" tasks require little or no thought. However, the tools are wisely are not availalbe to most editors because they can be abused.

A lot of these simpler tasks can be offloaded to experienced, trusted non-admins through the use of proxy admin-bots.

For example, experienced vandal fighters and other editors in good standing could be added to an authorized-to-use-the-bot list that allowed them to call on a speedy-deletion admin-bot which, under certain conditions, such as "1) newly created page by a relatively new editor, 2) at least 1 hour has passed since the initial request by an authorized editor with no edits since or (except for the article's creation) no edits in the last 5 minutes, and 3) at least 2 authorized editors have requested speedy deletion," would delete the page.

Another example would be an "AfD close bot" for clearly-non-controversial DELETE-closes. Such a bot would delete only if, say, 3 people on the bot's user list who did not participate in the discussion said "yes, delete this," none said "no, don't," AND there were no more than, say, 1 "keep" !votes and at least, say, 5 "delete" !votes. Note - due to to longstanding En-wiki tradition and/or long-ago declarations from ArbCom and/or the Foundation, access to this bot would likely have to go through a community-approval process similar to RfA. However, community approval for an editor to be added to the "AfD-bot use" list is much more likely than approval for full adminiship.

These are just an examples of the kinds of things editors with experience in a given area and who are in good standing can do through an admin-bot acting as their proxy, without having to know everything they need to know to be a good admin. Bots such as these will free up admins to do things that require the broad experience, good overall judgement in all areas (not just in one specialty), and other factors that make a good admin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Most editors that would be trusted enough by the community to hold one or more admin tool, even by "proxy admin bot", would be close to or even beyond the threshold for adminship, as the tools can be easily misused in moderately-experienced editor's hands; so this would just add one more unnecessary layer to RfX. Esquivalience ^t 01:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• We have a problem with over hasty deletion, many RFAs have been derailed because it emerged that the candidate had been heavy handed at speedy deletion tagging. I would agree that automation could reduce our admin shortages, but aside from certain types of U1s and G7s I'm not convinced that deletion is an area where we could or should lower our guard. An edit filter that warned people before they breached 3RR would be brilliant though and would make the pedia less bitey whilst reducing our need for admins. Also Admin bots would be useful to identify over looked candidates for Autopatroller and possibly Rollbacker. If someone is willing to write such a bot to find I would be delighted to use it. ϢereSpielChequers 13:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this a RFA or not?

Yet another RfC backlog thread.

Currently, there are RfCs waiting for closers that were posted 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 59, 59, 64, 65, 66, 69, 76, 77, 79, and 81 days ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and close them, Guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.183.210 (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy is not an admin. He can't do them all. Epic Genius (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon, who usually signs with "Guy Macon", is not an admin, but User:JzG, who signs himself "Guy" is. BMK (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Especially the one I posted... (smile) Seriously, though, some of these really do need an experienced admin to evaluate the consensus and make a ruling. In many cases that alternative is same editors who cannot agree on the article talk page now being unable to agree about the outcome of the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, hang on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Currently, there are RfCs waiting for closers that were posted 85, 83, 73, 68, 60, 58, 57, 54, 52, 52, 50, 49, and 45 days ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Situation seems to have improved in the last 24 hours or so – I've gone through and marked a number of these as "done=yes", etc. as Admin Guy closed a number of these on June 10. And one of the one's that's left doesn't seem to be a valid RfC in any case. ----IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Same applies as last time: anything old, with few participants, on a matter of no importance, can be non-admin closed as stale. I have no idea why some are even listed, they are not templated RfCs. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Closer needed for likely RfC

The #On the brink of collapse thread and others above suggest that there will be an RfC at some point. There's some discussion about that at WT:RFA. So far, Dave and I have offered to close. Anyone want to put their hand up? I'm asking because some of the tougher RfCs of the last 3 years have taken months to close, while closers tried to read and respond to everything and coordinate their schedules; I'd rather we be caught up on our reading and ready to go by the time the RfC is winding down. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I just got an email suggesting that we really need to get the perspectives of people who don't consider themselves RfA regulars ... yes, I completely agree, outside views are very welcome, and would provide some balance. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Depending on the time frame these closes are needed and assuming a non-admin would be welcome, I could jump in. I'm going to be largely able to be quite active here from the end of June until mid-to-late August other than a particular week in July (vacation away from computers). Then I crawl under a rock again for 10 months wrt Wikipedia (work is fun!). Hobit (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and for reasons of limited availability during the school year (among other reasons), I will not be asking for the bit anytime the the foreseeable future. Also, not sure if I count as a non-regular at RfA or not. Hobit (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK RfC

This RfC has been closed, anyone care to change the layout of Template:Did you know accordingly? Eman235/talk 23:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Urgent attention required

Cyrus Pallonji Mistry

Search feature not working

118.160.164.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Tiptoethrutheminefield TBAN or Indef block?

Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Previous ANI threads

• Problematic editing
• Combative editor: WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DE and WP:BLP concerns

Arbcom sanction

• Placed under 1RR Arbcom sanction for 3 months by Sandstein

Sockpuppet Case

• SPI case archive (degenerates into him calling a another clerk incompetent, I AGF'd and blocked IPs but did not make a definitive decision to block Tiptoe despite my suspicions and another clerk's belief that he was socking)

Talk page highlights

• Warned by admin - responded "I have done no such thing - and you complete lack of diffs proves I have done no such thing! Please leave my talk page alone and cease your harassment."
• Blanked warning for hounding
• Blanked warning for hounding #2 one month later
• Blocked in December ("Personal attacks or harassment: hounding another editor; egregious personal attack")
• Warned in April by an admin to stop refactoring talk page comments. Responded "Nothing will be avoided in the future because there is nothing needed to be avoided."
• Blocked again in April ("Disruptive editing: Edit warring, battleground behavior, refusal to acknowledge opposing statements, BLP violations") to which he states "There are plenty of reasons to appeal - but I won't waste my time appealing it since that would give administrators the delusion that I respect them and would contribute to the sense of authority that appeals give them." Talk page access revoked.

• Most recent block for two weeks which I placed ("Disruptive editing: combative refactoring of talk pages, nationalistic edit-warring"). This personal attack is still on the talk page where he invokes a variant of Godwin's law. Clearly, since I blocked him I must be a racist.

I believe that this editor A.) may not be here to contribute in which case he should be blocked indefinitely or B.) if he is allowed to continue editing that a permanent topic ban needs to be placed which prevents him from editing anything related to Turkish/Armenian subjects broadly construed related to Armenia, Turkey, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted. (Language updated for less ambiguity) Thoughts?
— Berean Hunter(talk) 14:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC) updated 14:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a ban from "Turkish/Armenian subjects broadly construed", because it's ambiguous. Do you mean "from Turkish subjects and Armenian subjects, broadly construed" or "the subject of Turkish-Armenian relations, broadly construed"? As long as your proposed ban has a clear scope, I don't have an opinion; I just want things to be unambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clearer. I would suggest language borrowed from a Arbcom motion of a similar conflict area dispute with a wording designed to quash disruptive editing...so I would suggest "related to Armenia, Turkey, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted." I believe this was crafted in a second case precisely to prevent people from skirting the previous ambiguous language. If you feel that this has room for improvement, I'm open for suggestions.
— Berean Hunter(talk) 23:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's nice and clear: I have no suggestions for improvement, and no wording-based objections, but again, no opinion on the idea you're proposing. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts are to be found on your talk page, where another experienced editor has told you in no uncertain terms that your block was wrong. There's no need for any of this. Tiptoe has contributed positively to the encyclopaedia and a WP:NOTHERE indef block would be a serious misstep. Tiptoe has not pursued an agenda, so I don't see why he should be topic-banned from Turkish/Armenian articles, either. I also question the soundness of the April block. Alakzi (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That experienced editor made assumptions and reached their conclusions too hastily. I laid out a timeline on my talk page concerning behavior.
— Berean Hunter(talk) 13:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Admins certainly do have discretion to deal with nationalist editing on Turkish or Armenian topics via WP:ARBAA2. This comment is a gem: "Your final comment reveals you are a racist little cunt too, it seems.." and doesn't bode well for his courteous participation in the future on these articles. Tiptoe's block record so far in 2015 doesn't look good. His article edits are frequently OK but his talk comments can be awful, and he can't resist removing others' comments from talk pages. He can practically set the standard for battleground editing. (Those not familiar with his record can look at the block summaries of all his blocks so far in 2015). I'd agree that an indefinite block is justifiable. Give him the option of requesting unblock in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A ghostly sockpuppet

Returning disruptive editior

hi their wikipedians

Retired administrators

New Twinkle block module!

Hello admin community! I am pleased to announce the deployment of the new Twinkle block module. Over the past few months I've worked with several admins and Twinkle's maintainers to bring this module to you, geared toward productivity. I am confident you all will come to enjoy this update but it may take some getting used to. The major change that will affect you is that block templates are no longer issued from the Warn module, but from the new Block module. Just uncheck block to issue only the template. If the module is used as intended, you'll almost always be blocking and issuing the template at the same time using Twinkle.

Allow me to briefly demonstrate what would be a common scenario and the intended workflow with Twinkle:

• You want to block User:Example
• You go to either Special:Contribs/Example, User:Example or User talk:Example and click Block in the Twinkle menu
• If the user has been blocked before, you will see a message in red that reads "This user has been blocked in the past (block log)". Clicking the block log link will open it in a new tab. Use that to determine the duration you want to use
• Choose your options accordingly. You'll almost always choose a preset and then adjust only the duration if necessary
• Execute the block and be amazed! (hopefully)

So the idea is that you'll never have to go to Special:Block again, and that letting JavaScript do both the blocking and issuing of the template will save you mucho time.

Please share any feedback that you may have. I'm actively working on this and will try to be as responsive as possible in addressing your concerns. Below is a list of known bugs that will be squashed no more than 12 hours from the time of writing. Thank you! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Known bugs and to-dos

• See User:MusikAnimal/twinkleblock

Discussion

• Won't this be an issue when trying to template users who do not yet have a talkpage? (pinging Drmies who brought it up) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  It should create the talk page if it doesn't exist. The issuing of the block template should function the same as it did when it was in the Warn module, except for that bug with the duration mentioned above =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  Alright, I tested it on User talk:Sandbox for user warnings and it worked just fine. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• It was a problem the first time, but the second time I tried it it worked fine. Funny thing is, MusikAnimal, I've been meaning to ask some smart person to make something like this--blocking and notifying in one go--but never got around to it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Doc, that smart person created it long before you thought of it, it's at User:Animum/easyblock.js, though I'm guessing you won't need it now. —SpacemanSpiff 21:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes some will still use EasyBlock, as it serves a different purpose I believe. Twinkle block is more of a full-control interface rather than quick and dirty vandal-blocking tool. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• I still use EasyBlock for some things, and the Twinkle module for some other things (I have been using the Twinkle module for about a month). They both work well. Also echoing Chillum below. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for this most useful tool. Chillum 19:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Looks very useful, thanks for the work. Just came across it now - I blocked as normal, then agonized for a while that the block option was missing from TW's warnings popup. When I found the new menu item I quickly chose a template and this notice was posted. In these (rare, I assume) cases, can it say "until" instead of "for a period of"? —SMALLJIM 08:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  @Smalljim: Did you have this functionality before with the Warn module? I don't see a way to change the wording with the {{uw-block}} family of templates. However, I am going to release an update that will allow you to omit a duration parameter, so it will read "you have been blocked temporarily". Would that work for you? — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  In the rare case of just issuing a block notice (i.e. if the "block" tickbox is cleared) the expiry param in the template should be blank (like the old TW block option did), so that the template then fills in "blocked temporarily", rather than getting something like "blocked from editing for a period of Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:27:53 GMT", as I did. I think I understand why it happens - if posting the template after the block was issued separately, the original block length parameter ("31 hours" or whatever) is no longer available since it's been converted by the system to a block-expiry timestamp. But per my reply to your 2nd comment, I don't expect this to occur often. I've issued a few blocks today using the full system and it's looking good.(*) —SMALLJIM 17:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  (*) Not sure about having the page name included in the block notice by default though - that's not how it used to work. —SMALLJIM 17:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  I can make that happen. When issuing only a template, leave the duration parameter empty. Thank you for catching that! Smalljim About the page name: I assume you mean how the linked article is supplied when vanarticle parameter is present in the URL. I believe this is default-functionality (I don't think I added it), and you should see the same when issuing any other warnings. As far as I know this vanarticle URL parameter is only set when an edit is reverted with Twinkle and the user's talk page opens up in a new window. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  1). Great! 2). After rolling back a vandalism edit, I'd go to the user's talk page to check the warnings: if appropriate I'd warn again (the vanarticle param being useful), but if it was appropriate to block, I'd use Special:Block to do so, then go back to the UTP and use TW to issue the block notice: the link to the "vanarticle" param would therefore be lost and it wouldn't appear in the block notice. Most block notices don't include it and I don't honestly think it's appropriate in most cases (unless the vandal has only worked on that one page). Don't know what others think, but I think it should be omitted, if possible. —SMALLJIM 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  Got it. This makes sense to me... if there was really a single article that was the target of disruption you can simply put it in yourself. The script should not assume that. I just looked at the code and this is easy enough to remove, so consider it done — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  That would be excellent, thanks. I'll let you know if I come across anything else in the next few days. It's proving very useful so far :) —SMALLJIM 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  Also let me note that moving forward you can use Twinkle to perform the block and add the template at the same time, and it will correctly add "31 hours" or what have you in the template. If you are in fact opting with adding a timestamp instead of a duration, you may wish to use the "exclude duration in template" option that I've mentioned above, which I hopefully will have deployed for you sometime today. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  I get that - see above. This was just the first time I came across it without knowing of your enhancement. —SMALLJIM 17:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, this is already proving useful. However, blocking with talk page access revoked does not hand out a template with notalk=yes. MER-C 12:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  @MER-C: Interesting. I tried out several templates in my sandbox, such as {{uw-block notalk=y}} and it didn't see to note anything about talk page access being revoked. There is however an option to do a "Generic block with talk page access revoked". This will use an appropriate template, but it should be fixed to have the same block options as the normal "Generic block (custom reason)", which I can do. Would that preset suffice for you moving forward? Or could you share which templates accept the notalk=yes parameter? — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  Addendum: I was using notalk=y and not notalk=yes. This is a great idea and I will implement it so that if "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked" is checked the script will append the notalk=yes parameter. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that this has partially broken Timotheus Canens' SPI helper script since block notices aren't being issued.
  — Berean Hunter(talk) 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  @Berean Hunter: Hmm, how does this script have a dependency on Twinkle? I see in the code where it generates the block notices. Are you saying you were using Twinkle to issue block notices? — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  Works for me. T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay, odd. When I did this case earlier, it didn't tag so I manually tagged and then found the thread at WT:Twinkle which lead to this thread. I went back and tried tagging again just now and it works. (shrugs) Happy that it is working.
    — Berean Hunter(talk) 17:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Spelling mistake: Preset - Extended reasons - "Possible comprimised account". Should be "compromised". —SMALLJIM 13:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know if it's possible but {{schoolblock}} shouldn't be subst'ed – see Template:School block). —SMALLJIM 15:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks Smalljim! I should have all of these updates out soon (tonight hopefully!) — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Smalljim and MER-C: Thank you for your feedback! I've updated the module and fixed all the aforementioned bugs and added a few other things (options to exclude duration parameter from template and option to add notalk=yes when issuing only a template). This has been tested thoroughly on testwiki and I tried a few things over at WP:NAS and all seems fine, but please let me otherwise. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• User:MusikAnimal How come I got User talk:90.219.210.96 an indefinite template for a 24 hour block? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  @CambridgeBayWeather: With the old Twinkle I believe you could not issue {{uw-spoablock}} without it being for an indefinite duration, and now I see why. That template apparently does not conform to the stewardship of WikiProject User Warnings (doesn't accept the time= parameter), and has it own system of parameters to distinguish the sockmaster from sockpuppet.

  Instead, there should be two different templates conforming to standards. One would be the indefinite one for a sockpuppet and the other for the sockmaster which would accept a duration. I will post at WT:UW and see if I can't make these templates myself.

  In the meantime, you should probably reserve {{uw-spoablock}} for sockpuppet accounts, and use the generic block template for the sockmaster, manually typing in the block reason. However for IPs I would use the block evasion template and not a sockpuppet-related one at all. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Small spelling correction to make per this edit summary, block ==> blocked.
  — Berean Hunter(talk) 13:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

LTA and NOTHERE

• @MusikAnimal: Could you add block reasons WP:Long-term abuse and WP:NOTHERE to the new system? They are available in Special:Block, and I've just noticed their absence. —SMALLJIM 21:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  @Smalljim: NOTHERE is in the "common reasons" at the top. Is there a corresponding template for long-term abuse? If not, which template should we use? — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. In the preset common reasons in the new TW, I've got "Anonblock" and "Anonblock - likely a school", "School block", "Generic block (custom reason) - IP", and "Vandalism". I'm sure NOTHERE's not there! Nor should it be, because it isn't a common block reason. But I can't see it in the rest of the list either.

In Special:Block, LTA and NOTHERE appear, one above the other just before "Revoking talk page access", the last entry in the "Common block reasons" section. {{Uw-nothereblock}} is available for NOTHERE, but I don't think there's one for Long-term abuse. I think Long-term abuse may have been added to Special:Block fairly recently, and it may be that the intention is not to template the LTabuser's talk page. I'll see if I can find any discussion about it. —SMALLJIM 22:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've struck most of the above because I've found NOTHERE - I was looking at it with an IP selected, not a registered user. Sorry about that! I'm still not convinced that it should be one of the common reasons though. Regarding Long-term abuse, is it necessary to have a template for it to be added? —SMALLJIM 19:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Smalljim: (let me know if I should stop pinging you) I admittedly am going off of my own practices in putting NOTHERE as a common reason, but this seems to be fairly popular for the anti-vandal admins. The idea being if you've got a blatant vandal that made but a few good edits, NOTHERE would be most fitting indef template. On a typical day I use it several times. I'm of course happy to adjust the ordering on whatever consensus supports. Which brings me to your next question: I can definitely implement a special case where the long-term abuse preset will uncheck the issuing of a template, but since default behaviour with Twinkle can influence actual practices, I'd like to see others showing support first. In my opinion it makes sense, sort of a WP:DENY scenario. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

For LTA user accounts I would support denying recognition. However in my experience most LTA IPs are only using the IP briefly. For them a the likely audience of the template is the next person to use that IP, often not long later on a cell phone. Chillum 20:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(Yes, MusikAnimal, no-ping is fine for now) I agree that WP:NOTHERE can be a very useful block reason. My concern is that its home, WP:HERE, only has the status of an information page. I'd suggest that it's OK to have it tucked away towards the bottom of the list of block reasons, but not up top with the policy-based ones. Personally I'd like {{softerblock}} above the scroll because I use that one a lot at present – maybe the list order could be customisable? I agree with Chillum regarding LTA. —SMALLJIM 10:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:VOA is also an information page, but undoubtedly one of the most common block reasons on a day to day basis. For the purposes of the script it's more about usage than what block reason entails. What I am going to do I think is create a tool to rearrange the list in Twinkle preferences. This is the only mention of wanting to move NOTHERE but I've had requests to rearrange other items, so sounds like people want control, so I shall provide it :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, so it is! Though it is solidly based on current policy: "Vandalism is prohibited". Anyway ... I'm not going to argue about if you can make the order customisable – that would be ideal. Should we continue any further detailed discussion at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle? —SMALLJIM 21:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This entire thread probably should have been at WT:TW to begin with, but I guess I wanted it geared toward the admins, as this noticeboard is. I've got nothing more for this topic in particular. If you're okay with a customizable dropdown than I am too! I'm also convinced LTA can be added and by default unchecks adding of a template. It may be a bit before this update happens, just so you know. Hopefully within a week's time. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Looking at the way the Twinkle preferences panel works, it is not going to be easy to implement custom ordering. By any stretch of the imagination. I'm afraid this will have to be on hold. What am going to do is produce actual usage statistics of which types of blocks are the most popular, and I will reorder based on that. Right of the bat I see that "disruptive editing" should be in the common reasons. Anyway sorry if I got your hopes up :/ It's still on the backburner, though! — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A question about Revdel vs Oversight

A user reveals personal information in their summary or edit contents, an administrator notices and decides to revdel the edit out of courtesy. However the interface for revdel says FOR USE BY OVERSIGHTERS ONLY, when suppressing privacy and defamation for the criteria User edited while logged-out, revealing IP address and Revealing of non-public identifying or personal information. If the admin is not an oversighter, does that mean they cannot revdel those types of edits? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Good question. If I ran across an edit that needed OSing, I would be inclined to REV DEL then contact OS, to first get it out of the public eye (regardless of rationale I used in the interface), but not sure if that is some new change or what. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And the policy seems to contradict itself on this, because it lists material that could be suppressed as Revdel that is elsewhere implied to be the sole domain of oversight. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've tended to break the rules: I'll G6-delete the article and then restore it minus the offending edit(s) before requesting oversight. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• @FreeRangeFrog: What I've been told about those is that the interface uses the same list of rationales for oversight and for revdel. Those rationales are intended to be used as rationales for oversight only; they're not intended as rationales for revdel--if nothing else, the oversight rationales don't have any links to the revdel policy, which obviously isn't an issue for the private oversight log but is for the public revdel log. You're welcome--encouraged, in fact--to revdel edits that you send to oversight; you should just use one of the more generic revdel-oriented rationales to do so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#HIDINGBEFORESIGHT for policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• If I can chime in with my own experience: of the very few times where I accidentally edited while logged out, I RevDel'ed the info but did not request OS -- personally, hiding it from "the public" was sufficient for my peace of mind and I did feel like suppression from admins was necessary. If I had, I would've similarly RevDel'ed + requested OS. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Thank you for the clarification. Here's the 64K question though, what happens if I revdel, contact oversight and then they say no? I assume I have to go back and make the revisions visible again? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking, no; oversightable edits are a strict subset of revdelable edits. So, if you've deemed it worthy of sending to oversight, you will have already deemed it worthy to revdel, and since there are edits that warrant revdel but not oversight, the oversighter's decision on OS doesn't have to override your admin decision on simple revdel. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 22:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, keep in mind Oversighters are also admins -- if they think that even RevDel was too much, they have the tools to deal with it, or at least talk to you about it (and/or can refer clear misuse of RevDel to ArbCom). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(As an OSer) Everything above is correct. Interface uses the same reasons which is why there are both RevDel and OS reasons there. As it says at WP:REVDEL I'd encourage admins to use the RevDel reasons if they want to delete before sending to Oversighters as it draws less attention and if an OSer declines to Oversight there's no need to change the reason (from an OS reason to a RevDel reason). The exceptions I can think of to Writ Keeper's comment above are editing logged out and revealing personally identifying information about yourself which aren't covered by the RevDel policy AFAIK so if an OS declines to suppress (very likely) it might need to be un-revdel'd. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Thank you for the clarification. Just one question here, irrelevant to the situation that made me raise the issue in the first place. You're saying that if I mistakenly edit while logged out and I'm worried about my privacy, you would deny my request to oversight my IP address? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc and FreeRangeFrog: Removing IP addresses is covered by RevDel. "RevisionDelete can be used to hide any privacy breaching and/or defamation posts while waiting for Oversight." And on the linked page, "This includes hiding the IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses. Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this information." --NeilN^{talk to me} 21:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:: No not at all that would definitely be suppressed. I was thinking of a scenario like this: person vandalises with IP and is sitting on lvl 4 warning, then logs into their account and requests suppression - that would probably not be granted as it would be trying to avoid scrutiny. @NeilN: Yes definitely can be revision deleted before suppression, but if suppression is declined then it puts it in a limbo of not really being covered as it's no longer waiting for suppression (but depending on the circumstance you might be able IAR and keep it revision deleted). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Aaah, I completely misunderstood that one. Agree that would not be a valid revdel or oversight, of course. Thank you again! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Getting back to the heart of the matter, the suppression reasons are red flags that tend to attract attention if they are publicly visible (it's okay to admit that even administrators get curious), and that is why they're marked "for use by oversighters only" - our logged reasons are not publicly visible when doing suppressions. If an administrator was to use the same reason, it will be publicly visible. Keep in mind that not everything gets revdeleted or suppressed as soon as it occurs; it may not be noticed until hours, days, months, and sometimes even years later, so there is always the chance that the edit in question will be "findable" in one of the site dumps if someone is motivated enough. I can remember there used to be a thread or two on Wikipedia Review just pulling out "oversighted" edits, and for all I know there is a non-public one on WO or even some public ones on other off-wiki criticism sites. So, yeah. No point giving them free material - we're doing those suppressions for a reason, most of them pretty obvious. Risker (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• The suppression and revision deletion interfaces are the same interface in the software. Although the software supports conditionally displaying the suppression tick box, it doesn't seem to support conditionally displaying customised suppression messages in the dropdown. It probably should. I filed phab:T102581 to track that request. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock of Jaam0121

Jaam0121 (talk · contribs) was blocked at the end of last year for edit-warring and had a declined unblocked request on 7 January. He's now appealed his block and has pinpointed to specific articles he wants to write about, in perfectly acceptable English in my view. I realise the standard offer says 6 months, not 5, but I think this meets the spirit of that essay, and that's what's important. I'm happy to unblock (per basic conditions such as any more 3RR violations will get a indef) - does anyone have any objections? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds acceptable to me; good call. All the best, Miniapolis 22:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Perfectly acceptable English" is something of an overstatement, but I've read worse. Sounds good to me. Huon (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to be difficult, but I would have serious problems in accepting this user's unblock. I feel that his standard of English is unsatisfactory, and would invoke competence issues. I am certain that there are other language wikipedias in which he would be more comfortable.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with the esteemed Mr. Bradbury and others. CIR due to language skills. The odds of this becoming a problem in the future are closer to 1 than 0. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• I'm also concerned about the user's English language proficiency. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• For example:

  Greetings to the entire community making life wikipedia article. I dirigo to plant a drawback orginó an edit war, in which the user User:DonBarchanga DonBarchanga (talk · contribs) added DonBarchanga article modifying information supported by official figures and very safe source. The problem is the figures for Venezuela, which according to the National Statistics Institute (Single demographic entity, governmental and able to provide data of this kind in the country) it is clear with the percentage of the population, which ignores the user. Venezuela is a very racially mixed nation. Research in 2001 on genetic diversity by the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research (Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, IVIC) in which the population was compared to the historical patterns of the colonial castes. According to the last population census in Venezuela conducted by the National Institute Estadististica (INE), the population in the country afrodescendienten represents 2.8% of the national total, which is 181 157 result in the number of Venezuelans with black racial characteristics[55]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the user modifies the figure exaggerated, standing at 8.7 million, which is obviously false. The reference points [56] which is the year 2009, while the INE 2011 is also such reference is to the embassy, and the place is the Venezuelan government. I think it is clear, unfortunately I found myself involved in an edit war by trying to restore the information because despite trying to dialogue with the user I never received a response or Animos discuss here by the user, which is unfortunate. Currently, the issue is for the user, and can not be reversed because the article was protected in view of the edit war.. I hope to intervene in this discussion, although I sincerely doubt it does. Thank you very much, greetings.

  Sorry, that just doesn't cut it, and looks very much like it was mechanically translated. BMK (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  It may indeed be translated from a machine, as some of the untranslated words are Spanish typos. --TL22 (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with others here that the language is just too poor to fully function on the English Wikipedia...I believe the block must stay. only (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• In this post [57] Jaam0121 explicitly states that he is using translation - presumably software. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• There's a time and place for the use of mechanical translation. I've used it to translate articles from other language Wikipedias, which I then use as a basis for an English article, after more research and extensive re-writing -- but as a means of communication on talk pages it truly sucks, and if you can't communicate with other editors in English, you shouldn't be editing here. I wouldn't think of editing on French Wikipedia, for instance, even though I know just enough French to make simplistic edits such as Jaam0121 describes in the diff provided by AndyTheGrump, and I wouldn't edit there because I would have no way of communicating with other editors. As English Wikipedia, we have enough problems with different varieties of English and the conflicts that arise from them, we don't need more problems from people whose command of English is not sufficient to edit and communicate in more than a sub-rudimentary way. BMK (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry but the English isn't really understandable ... at all - I know this has been mentioned above but it'd be like me editing on for instance a Dutch Wikipedia and using a translator to help .... It just wouldn't work and ofcourse I'd end up being blocked especially if I were writing on talkpages and unfortunately in this case with him it doesn't work .... I have to agree with everyone above keeping the block seems the best option here. –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have to oppose an unblock as well. There is a fundamental expectation that editors be able to communicate effectively in whatever language they are contributing in. Blackmane (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not having a problem understanding what they're saying, though I can see that others might and the potential for mistranslations is certainly there. I'd be willing to support an unblock if they could show that their understanding of English would not get in the way of making changes to articles by giving us some example changes. They've said this on their talk page, but maybe I've missed something, so, unless their English skills were previously an issue, they were blocked for edit warring, not poor English. There's no reason to think a problem that didn't exist before will suddenly pop up, surely they didn't forget all the English they knew in the few months they've been blocked. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• PhantomTech - I think I can get the gist of what Jaam0121 is tying to say after several rather laborious read-throughs of a passage such as the one I posted above, but I'm far from certain that I am correct, and such uncertainty usually leads to misunderstandings which can, indeed, end up in edit wars. In any case, it is irrelevant that the original block was for edit warring, we're now considering their overall capacity for editing here, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. That a lack of proficiency in English wasn't noticed before is perhaps interesting, but it's not a salient point, nor is their "I'm only going to do X" statement. If he's reinstated, is someone going to dog his edits to make sure that he only does "X"? No, he'll be just another editor until a problem pops up again, and he cannot cogently express himself to explain what's going on. BMK (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to have to trust their promise to stay in a certain area of editing, looking at their contributions shows that that's all they've ever done. I know that we're now considering other problems that they may have when editing, my point was that they've always been contributing with the same (or worse) level of English and if it wasn't causing a problem then, there is no reason to believe it would now. That said, while they seem to have been very active in keeping information up to date and their English did not seem to interfere with the changes they were making, as I skimmed over their contributions, I started to notice issues in places where their edits were contested so it does seem that problems simply went unnoticed instead of not existing. I have to agree then, that contributing to the English Wikipedia is likely to just cause more problems. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd certainly support encouraging the user to contribute to their native language Wikipedia instead. Sam Walton (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• There is no criteria for how fluent or proficient someone is in English in order to edit. We do, however, have a policy about disruption. If this editor's contributions end up being a net-negative then we have to assess on those grounds. It may be unorthodox but I don't think they're helping, not until they improve their written English and stop using a translator. The Spanish Wikipedia was created for those who are fluent in other languages to contribute. I think it's also important to note that this editor was blocked for edit warring -- not poor English. Mkdw^talk 17:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It is true that the block was imposed for edit-warring, not for competence issues; but this is irrelevant at this point in time. An admin considering an unblock is expected to consider not only the original reason for the block, together with the comments made by the blocked editor about his block, but also in more general terms whether an unblock will or will not be of apparent or expected benefit to Wikipedia. Consideration of competence in this case is therefore entirely relevant and appropriate. I have commented on the competence issue above and will not, to avoid giving an impression of piling on, do so again. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I would also note that "competency" isn't an issue of character or mental stability. For instance, I wouldn't make a competent surgeon, so two weeks ago I had a real surgeon work on my knee. It does have to do with an individual's ability to assess their own limitations. I've gone in on foreign language Wikis and made changes and corrections, but I know the limits of the translator and limited myself to changing geographical features or measurements, and I didn't try to write long passages of prose. I know my limits, he doesn't. That is what makes competency an issue, an inability to recognize that his actions overreach his skill level. Wikipedia isn't a good place to practice your English skills, as you just cause more work for others. We have many editors with similar English skill levels who contribute here but limit themselves to small stuff, thus it never becomes an issue. They understand their limits. Again, he doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Lachlan Foley genre warring

• Lachlan Foley (talk · contribs)

Leading up to March, the editor was making disruptive edits to music articles, genre warring specifically, and after this revision to an album article, they were blocked. I noticed a few days ago they had continued genre warring when a number of album articles I have on my watchlist showed similar changes, including some of the same articles they had been warned for disrupting in the past.

• 01:08, 12 May 2015 at Daydream Nation
• 01:11, 12 May 2015 at Sister (Sonic Youth album)
• 01:12, 12 May 2015 at Sonic Nurse
• 01:12, 12 May 2015 at Murray Street (album)
• 01:12, 12 May 2015 at The Eternal (album)
• 01:52, 15 May 2015 at Human After All
• 01:56, 15 May 2015 at Discovery (Daft Punk album)
• 00:00, 16 May 2015 at The Fat of the Land
• 03:33, 16 May 2015 at Blow Up (EP)

I suppose because these articles receive little-to-no attention, the editor's changes were not noticed by anyone else. Dan56 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The only diffs that truly bother me are the last few. The first five are petty genre warring that I would probably just ignore unless they were part of a long-term issue. The sixth and seventh ones removed a reliable source and replaced it with original research. The eighth looks like edit warring to maintain original research. The last one looks like it removed a dead link in violation of WP:KDL. The review is archived at the Internet Archive, which he should have checked before removing it. Although WP:INFOBOXREF discourages citations in infoboxes, that does not mean that you can strip out citations and replace them with original research. Personally, I'd be satisfied with a statement that he's not going to genre war any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, the first few are part of a long-term issue; see "general update" to Daydream Nation on 5 December 2014, this revision to Sister (Sonic Youth album) on 19 March 2015, "general update" to Honi Soit (album), "general update" to Helen of Troy (album), "general update" to Vintage Violence, "general update" to HoboSapiens... there are numerous instances of providing a false edit summary while genre warring. Dan56 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This editor has continued genre warring, veiling their edits as style/format changes in a lame attempt to revise genres in an article's infobox (11:00, 14 June 2015, 11:52, 14 June 2015, 11:54, 14 June 2015, 11:56, 14 June 2015, 11:57, 14 June 2015, 11:58, 14 June 2015, 12:00, 14 June 2015, 12:10, 14 June 2015, 12:21, 14 June 2015, 12:44, 14 June 2015... all their edits the past few days have been like this. They deserve a block at this point, @NinjaRobotPirate: Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Dan56: please notify Lachlan Foley of this thread. Also, has there been any discussion or acknowledgment on his part of this issue? I have seen where other editors have raised the issue or warned him on his talk page but I do not see that he has replied anywhere. I would like to know if he has engaged with any other editors.
  — Berean Hunter(talk) 02:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I did a month ago (User_talk:Lachlan_Foley#ANI_notice). He was blocked before for genre warring and ignores any of the warnings given to him. Dan56 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lachlan Foley:Dan56 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Dan56, notifying means following the instructions in the big orange box: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I've done so for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe a solution to the genre warring which is likely to continue in many articles by many users into the future is to display a notice such as in the 'Genre' section of the infobox (ideally written into the coding).

I will do my best to remove all uncited genres. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, after making the above promise in vain, this editor continued making genre changes to articles, thinking they're slick with edits like this (00:16, 17 June 2015‎, 01:26, 17 June 2015). It's pathetic how no administrative action has been taken against this editor, whose edits are strictly unexplained and unsourced changes to the genre parameter of the infobox in album articles (WP:GWAR). In this edit, they removed genre which are clearly cited within the article, but genre warriors tend not to read the actual articles. Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Kind of like how you didn't search those articles just then for references explicitly supporting claims on which genre the music is? That there is merely prose about what genre an album pertains to isn't enough.

I left "big beat" in the Chemical Brothers initially as I assumed big beat was that artist's established genre on Wikipedia, but in hindsight no genre should be listed that isn't explicitly referenced in-article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Could an actual admin look this over and do their job! Anyone?? @Kww:, @Berean Hunter:? Dan56 (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This editor had the nerve to genre war at this article on 10 June, removing clearly cited genres in place of unsourced genres, remove them altogether claiming they are not sourced (well DUH dude, you added them), and then reverting ME when I restored the cited revision from before he edited the article ([58]) Dan56 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't clear to me because I can not find a policy, guideline or consensus that lends particular support to back up one way or the other. I see this thread at WikiProject Albums which really doesn't give any guidance on dealing with genre warring over referenced vs. non-referenced genres in the infobox. I would suggest that you get a discussion going over there with an intent on forming a more solid guideline. This guideline is vague.
— Berean Hunter(talk) 12:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Genre warring is a particular peeve of mine, so this discussion is of great concern to me. From the diffs, it appears that Lachlan Foley has been genre warring, signaled by the removal of cited genres, and the presence of WP:NOR-violating personal determinations as seen in the edit summary "I think this is mainly a big beat album, maybe with influences of other electronica, but alternative rock is really quite inappropriate here."[59] Genres should be cited in the article body, and if they are not, then they should be cited in the infobox. As well, disputed genres should be cited in both places in the same manner as controversial facts being cited both in the article body and the lead section. In no case should editors be making their own determination about what is the genre of a song or album, nor should they be shoving aside published genres that they do not agree with. Lachlan Foley is a productive editor in other ways but it would be very helpful to hear an affirmation that genre warring behavior will cease. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a block would be out of place at this moment. Checking Lachlan Foley's recent edits, I see him adding sources to unsourced genres (example), not causing problems as before. If he's now following our guidelines, a block would prevent him from improving Wikipedia (so I'd be violating the IAR policy by imposing it), and it would also be punitive: nobody would benefit, and the articles and he would suffer. If he's still violating standards in other edits, come back and show that I've overlooked those edits. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

PS, regarding the article that Binksternet links, Lachlan Foley today edited it to remove the genres entirely — they weren't cited in the infobox, and as far as I can see, the genres weren't even mentioned in the body. Unless I missed something, today's removal was thoroughly appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The interpretation by Lachlan Foley is wrong about what is found at WP:INFOBOXREF: the guideline does not absolutely forbid references in the infobox but Lachlan Foley is telling editors otherwise by way of hidden comment: "In order to add genres to an infobox, they must be cited in-article by reputable sources." The hidden comment is misleading; the guideline allows for citations to appear in the infobox but encourages editors to make more of an effort to put the information into the article body with a citation to support it. Unfortunately, the genre parameter is a battleground of a host of editors who have no intention of putting well-cited information into the article body – they care only about the genre. Lachlan Foley is apparently trying to foil the genre warriors, which is a fine sentiment, but the effort is based on an incorrect reading of the guideline. I would like to see a stop to this misleading hidden note placed by Lachlan Foley. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit on Battle for the Sun to remove the genre would go against WP:COMMONSENSE. The band alt rock, therefore their output must be alt rock. If they did release something that wasn't alt rock, then I'd expect a source. WP:BLUE springs to mind too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been following this, but I've just blocked Lachlan Foley for a week for disruptive editing to stop his outburst of reverting. One would have thought that an experienced editor would know that discussion is the correct way to proceed. If consensus here is that the block is wrong, feel free to change it without consulting me. —SMALLJIM 08:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring is wrong, but why was Lachlan Foley just blocked when nobody else was? He doesn't think that references are prohibited in the infobox: this diff, which I linked above, he simultaneously adds the comment and adds a copy of an existing citation to a genre. His point is correctly that we mustn't have a genre in the infobox unless there's a citation for that genre somewhere in the same article. So...in other words, why was he-and-only-he blocked for yesterday's actions when the only thing he did was participate in an edit war with others who weren't blocked? Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

PS (I'm probably going to edit-conflict with Smalljim!), the "this diff" was just yesterday, so it's not as if he had time to change his mind. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I didn't block him for anything he did yesterday, or for anything to do with the rights or wrongs of the genre question. I blocked him for the mass reposting, from 0751 GMT this morning, of his html comments without any attempt (that I can see) to first discuss whether they should be there or not - WP:BRD. As I said, if the consensus here is that the block is incorrect, someone please change it: I made it a week following the principle of escalating length, based on his two earlier blocks which appear to be for similar issues. —SMALLJIM 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand; my question is why he deserves sanctions and Binksternet doesn't, or alternately (since I don't think Binksternet should be sanctioned) why he should sanctioned for it? There's nothing wrong with putting such a comment in the infobox, and actively removing it seems mildly problematic to me; the only problem I see here is the potential of edit-warring, and one revert on a bunch of pages doesn't seem to be a big problem. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. Can we check that we agree on the facts? Early today (starting with this edit) FL Boldly added over 100 html comments to infoboxes. Binksternet Reverted them and left a note here to explain why he thought they were inappropriate. Instead of Discussing, FL was rapidly adding the disputed html comments back again when I blocked him for doing so. Now since it seems that we're the only two admins in this thread (and I was only passing through!), if I've got the facts wrong, or you think it was inappropriate to block for failing to follow BRD (in view of his previous blocks), or if you think that he's served enough block time, then feel free to unblock him. He won't do it again, will he? —SMALLJIM 18:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I approve of the effort to put a hidden note into the genre area of the infoboxes of songs, albums and musical artists, but the wording ought to be hammered out at the albums wikiproject, stripped down for the clearest reading. Something like "all genres must be referenced". Ideally the agreed-upon text would become part of the infobox standard template. The problem I had with Lachlan Foley's wording is that it could be misinterpreted too easily, and it was being implemented unilaterally on a widespread basis without having the power of consensus behind it. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting ban for a long-term vandal

A very persistent vandal has been editing the article Cabbit since 2005 (diff of what I think is the first vandalism) to claim that Cabbits are real creatures. The user also refactors comments on the talk pages to make it look like others support that position or to disparage the people who point out the vandalism (e.g., [60] for the latest round of vandalism). The article has had several lengthy semi-protections ([61]), and I've requested another at WP:RFPP. The user always returns to the article once semi-protection ends, even after semi-protections of a year or two (the latest round of vandalism includes [62]). They don't seem to do anything other than vandalize (which occasionally includes other articles, e.g., [63] where they were complaining about the Canadian International Air Show). I'm not exactly sure if site-banning an IP user is normally done or is of any benefit in doing so, but given that this user has been very persistent at vandalizing for almost a decade now, I was hoping they could be site-banned. Calathan (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Range of IP's would be difficult(impossible) to hit with an actual block or ban as they keep shifting every batch. Might just be easier stick a long wave on protection on the page. Amortias (T)(C) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have requested indefinite semi-protection for the page, but I wasn't sure if anything else could or should be done beyond that. If nothing else can be done, then I guess protecting the page again will have to suffice. Calathan (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected per your request. But we can still ban people who use IPs; one IP even got its own arbitration case. We just have to implement the ban differently. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the page, Nyttend. If banning the user would provide any benefit, then I support it. Calathan (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

SpamUserPage gadget

For admins who often find themselves deleting spam/vandalism user pages and then blocking the user: I've just finished writing User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage, and it might save you a lot of work. When viewing a spam/vandalism user page, it can delete the page, block the user, and issue the user with a block notice, all in one click. Plus, it's highly configurable, so you can use your own custom templates etc. with it. Please test it out and see what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli personality

Uhm... hey guys, I just wanted your noticing of my little concern about the very recent (mini-)event (hopefully a non-event at all) at Haneen Zoabi - just after I earlier posted a small alert here that's been somehow overlooked or unseen, we're now witnessing the fact that your care for the matter (preventive, arbitrative or whichever) might be really required. In a nutshell: Someone's attempting to modify the intro in an article about an Israeli-Arab politician in the way that's describing her as rather "Palestinian" thereby obviously introducing non-factual personal/political sentiments in intro's very first phrase where only most neutral definitions are supported. We have many articles on Israeli-Arab politicians and the definition as an Israeli Arab politician has remained same for pretty much all of them in the intros. So it's easy to notice there's an attempt to start a 'precedent' in just this one. This person was born within Israel (not in the Palestinian territories adjacent to it) and I guess we should work to leave intros devoid of identity projection plays; in any case, her Palestinian identity is already mentioned rightfully in the paragraph "Political views and opinions", which covers the identity matter; that should be the place and not the intro. Kindly follow this issue. Thanx. 5.102.207.49 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC closure challenge

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

Anonymous user 103.6.158.193

• At User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Moving 72 subpages the anonymous user 103.6.158.193 has dumped a big-multiple move request on me, but what is his status? User talk:103.6.158.193 is largely composed of queries. (This is on top of a suddenly revived queried big-multiple move request at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#John D. Rockefeller Jr. and others.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Pending revisions at Mississippi

Could we please get someone to please take Pending Revisions off at Mississippi, which is not a sensitive BLP but rather a general historical article? Semi-protect it if you must, but this is not PR material... Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @HJ Mitchell:, the protecting admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note that Pending Change Protection is not restricted to BLP violations, and per WP:PCPP may be used to combat persistent vandalism. Based on the history of the article, the only question to me is whether it should stay with PC1, or be raised to semi-protection. Monty₈₄₅ 00:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Tim et al, an article like that attracts a steady stream of edits, some more helpful than others. The advantage of pending changes, in my personal opinion, is that it still allows the edits to be made but without readers seeing any rubbish added in less-than-helpful edits. The IP/new account edit rate is not overwhelming, so I think semi-protection would be overkill, but it's persistent enough that it needs something. That's my two cents anyway. If another admin feels strongly that it should be semi'd or unprotected, that's their prerogative. HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think Mississippi meets the threshold of "heavy and persistent vandalism" mentioned at the Pending Changes information page. Pending changes is intended for certain extreme cases, I believe — certainly nothing as mundane as a general page about a US state with a more or less ordinary vandalism rate. Carrite (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Many U.S. state articles seem to be under PC1 these days, and that may be warranted than you think – I can't speak to Mississippi, but I've been surprised at how many generally unhelpful edits I've come across PC reviewing the Kansas article, for example... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles Stay Red

I've been seeing this problem a lot where an article will be written, but in another article that had a hyperlink the article stays red and doesn't link. In one case, it was this way for days. Is there a method to get the Internet to update and link the two articles? -O.R.^Comms 13:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you offer a few examples? I'm not sure of any general issues that would cause this except for a different spelling in the red link. Liz^{Read! Talk!} 14:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any current examples, but it looks like I found the answer. It has to do with Wikipedia:Purge. The page doesn't get updated somehow on a particular computer. Thanks for your offer to help! -O.R.^Comms 14:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's a cache issue. The links should still work, but will appear to be red until the cache is either manually or automatically purged (the latter can take a while). Now you know! ansh666 00:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's true: after article creation, the red links directs to the newly created article but the red colour remains red. I had to edit the same code to enable blue.Cosmic Emperor 09:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

hello i have complaining

Popular Front of India POV pushing by User:Huhshyeh and User:Human3015

@Sitush:, @Vanamonde93: and @Kautilya3: knows Human3015 is a POV pusher.Both Human3015 and Huhshyeh are engaged in POV pushing , needs to be topic banned. Huhshyeh is an old user. he knows which source is reliable. He wants to show PFI as good organisation. He removes reliable sources and adds semi-reliable sources like muslimirror which will give positive reviews of radical Muslim outfit like PFI.--72.10.168.89 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

convicted

student murder

chopping hands

terrorist camp

terrorist link

murder

terror camp

3

riot

guilty

72.10.168.89 (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Who are you, the Indian Popular Front? Splitter. Guy(Help!) 22:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure who all will get that, and not sure how appropriate it is, but I did laugh out loud. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Look on the bright side of life, I say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• In all seriousness, the claim here itself is a bit of POV, and the links are just articles that put PFI in a negative light, seemingly do to their own actions. Perhaps worthwhile links in context, maybe not. But the argument presented here is difficult to take action on as there aren't any specific examples. You are asking us to go way back and start from the beginning on a bit of a wild goose chase. If you want people at ANI to take your claims serious, drop your own hyperbole and present diffs of them doing questionable actions in editing. That is something we can look at. If the issue is simply one of WP:WEIGHT, then the article talk page is the solution, or WP:DRN if that doesn't work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: @JzG: and @Anythingyouwant:You administrators must check the details. This time i am giving you differences, and in details. i gave you links from reputed sources, so that administrators will know PFI is radical Muslim outfit. I am not POV pushing if i give links which show the truth. No reliable source is availbale where they talk positive about PFI. Read thisstatement by Kerala Chief Minister V. S. Achuthanandan in 2010. At that he was CM. 2. 1- Huhshyeh removing reliable sources from Deccan Herald

2- Huhshyeh adding unreliable sources from pro-Muslim website mumslimmirror and coastaldigest , note-muslimirror is owned by PFI members.

3- Adding unreliable muslimmirror

4- muslimmirror coastaldigest(both controlled by PFI

5- adding original research look at it carefully: He added first link from muslimirror, second link from reliable source timesofindia. He states that PFI donates bloods. In the timesofindia source he added clearly mentions "Usually we involve in blood donation campaigns in summer, but this season we are busy with the election campaign. We have postponed our blood donation campaign now. We are addressing only emergency cases," said Ahmed Idris, district president, Popular Front of India.

Some Muslim outfits do donate blood. Those Muslims outfits are not Popular Front Of India.

6- he says no thing official about it Now look at the sources i mentioned that Dennis Brown termed as POV pushing. He is fully aware of those news. I am sure he has some relation to PFI.

7- another attempt by Huhshyeh to create a positive image from unreliable sources unmid and twocircles.net are also Muslim mouthpieces. Twocircles.net is not controlled by PFi but they are abit biased in favour of Muslims. They publish unconfirmed stories which are never published by mainstream Indian media. If a Muslim terrorist will say I am innocent they will write he is innocent without verifying details. Read this declaration by twocircles. Two Circles

8- clear pov pushing

9- collects unreliable reference for personal POV pushing

10- POv pushing continues from unrelioable sources. And there are many more If you are still not satisfied, then go through all his edits

@IJBall: @Beyond My Ken: I request User:Huhshyeh to be topic banned. He is here mainly to promote PFI. This is the what you will know about Popular Front Of India. If reliable sourves claim they are fundamentalist, don't blame me. Only unreliable sources which are Muslim mouthpieces twocircles.net and Muslimirror.com speaks unconfirmed positive things about PFI. 74.120.223.180 (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's above my pay grade, 74.120.223.180 – only Administrators can block users (and only for reasons of Policy). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, we administrators don't rule on content disputes. Dispute resolution is down the hallway. Guy(Help!) 11:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a storm in a tea cup. However, there is a larger issue that we might think about. Popular Front of India and its associated Social Democratic Party of India, are new Muslim organisations in India whose advert represents a growing Muslim reaction to the rise of Hindu nationalism over the last few decades. Muslims have traditionally supported the Congress party with a secularist ideology. With the decline of the Congress party, they have lost their political voice. It is difficult for them to do much other than to make noise because, in most parts of India, they constitute only 10-15% of the population and, in a first-past-the-post system, they get no representation at all. There is no doubt that some elements of these organisations are extremist but it would be wrong to paint the entire organisations as extremist. Reading the mainstream press however gives one the impression that they are extremist organisations. The counterpoints are provided in community outlets such as muslimvoice.com or twocircles.net which are not considered reliable sources by us. So, how do we provide the needed balance? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You might be talking about All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, All India United Democratic Front and Indian Union Muslim League which are political parties and they made an impressive debut in Maharshtra assembly polls, Assam elections. They have become a voice for Muslims. I disagree with you that mainstream media will suppress any atrocities against Muslims. You might remember Shiv Sena MP force feeds fasting Muslim: A curious case of communal chapati. If Popular Front Of India is indeed full of good people then I hope you can give references from South based English newspapers as The Hindu, Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle, Malayala Manorama. News channels like NDTV , Headlines Today, Aaj Tak have always highlighted the plight of Muslims and given voice to the Muslims. Do you have any reliable source that Indian Media is biased against Popular Front Of India and it's leaders.Underplaying Chopping off a teacher's hand, Murders of innocent people is not right. And this organization don't have any recognition outside Kerala and some parts of Karnataka. Uttar Pradesh Muslims support Samajwadi party. West Bengal Muslims support TMC. Jammu and Kashmir which is India's only Muslim majority state didn't vote for Popular Front Of India, or did they? Coming to this post; The IP accused two users but later on changed his tracks. Cosmic Emperor 13:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is also not the right noticeboard to discuss this. Cosmic Emperor 13:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the content issues of the kind you are bringing do not belong here. The point I am raising is not content, but rather the need to accommodate community sources that are not normally reliable sources by our policies. I have nothing but admiration for twocircles.net, for examples, whose articles have been referenced in scholarly articles.^[1] - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 You are right. Twocircles is a reliable source. But others which are used by Huhshyeh are not at all reliable. Looking at Huhshyeh's editing pattern; do you see him following WP:NPOV, as that's the original debate. ?Cosmic Emperor 03:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I take it as a given that all editors bring to Wikipedia their respective points of view, especially in IPA pages and those dealing with religious issues. Genuine neutrality among editors is very hard to find. The question then is whether people are listening to each other in the talk page discussions or whether they are being tendentious. If someone is being tendentious (such as repeating themselves without listening to what the others say, trying to hammer their point etc.) then they should be taken to ANI. If it is a content dispute, then it should be taken to DRN. The subject of this page is a relatively new one, and there aren't enough scholarly sources that can provide a balanced perspective. However, I did find a few sources and added them to the Further Reading list. It is not clear if any of the editors have looked at them. That would be the first step in my opinion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed banner campaign to save Freedom of Panorama in Europe

There's a proposal for a banner alert campaign, to draw awareness to the vote threatening Freedom of Panorama on 9th July in the European Parliament.

More info at WP:VPM Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Two_weeks_to_save_freedom_of_panorama_in_Europe, including RfC here

Would any admins like to take this in hand, and make sure it's a bit more visible and properly organised, perhaps along the lines of these equivalent pages on de-wiki, including the impressive action-discussion page there ? Jheald (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC threaded comments

As some here may have noticed, there are a couple of particularly contentious open/recently closed RfCs at Request for Comments and at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

In each of those RfCs I posted some "ground rules" including

"Previous discussions have generated large numbers of comments, so no replies will be allowed in the support sections. This is the best way to make it clear who supports what. Please keep all threaded discussion in the threaded discussion section.:

and

"If you reply in the support sections your reply will be moved to the threaded discussion section with a "@Example:" added at the start of the comment."

This has worked out well so far, but I now have some editors who have chosen to post threaded replies in the support sections. I have posted polite requests on their talk pages that they voluntarily move the comments. My question is this: if I don't get anywhere with the request would I be out of line moving the comments to the threaded discussion section? I just want to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO threaded comments are for discussing the RfC itself, and replies in line are legitimate when a !vote is based on an invalid premise. But what do I know. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what the purpose is in banning comments from within the !voting section. It's supposed to be a discussion, not a vote and moving the discussion to a less-prominent section doesn't seem to be a great way to do that. And as a side note, from reading this RFC, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Are you debating whether countries with state atheism should say "atheism" in the infobox for their "religion" or are you debating whether countries like the United States that have no state religion at all should say "none"? --B (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose is this: As I designed the RfC, everyone gets to make their point once in the !vote section, and to add as many comments as the wish in the threaded comments section. If we allow threaded comments in the !vote section, some people get to make their point twenty or thirty times, and the reader is faced with a wall of text consisting mostly of comments by the most aggressive editors.

My original question remains: how much leeway is the author of an RfC allowed when writing and enforcing ground rules for the RfC? I would note that not a single person challenged or questioned the ground rules, but instead a few editors simply ignored them, thus allowing their POV to have multiple comments from one editor in the !vote section while everyone who follows the rules only gets one. That hardly seems fair. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a curious non admin question, what policy, guideline, or even essay controls what ground rules an editor may place on a RFC? AlbinoFerret 18:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like an answer on that too - there may be a case for 'enforceable ground rules' in an RfC, but to my way of thinking, it shouldn't be a party to the dispute that is doing the 'enforcing' (or possibly even coming up with the rules). Even if done with the best of intentions, it runs the risk of appearing partisan, and making things worse rather than better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent analysis, as usual. I think you are right about enforcement, but when I post an RfC I have to write the thing. Generally, as seen in these two RfCs, if someone objects to the wording and (as was the case here) they have a good point, the RfC ends up being modified. The problem I have with just ignoring the ground rules (as opposed to objecting to them) is that it puts those editors who follow the ground rules at a disadvantage. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think for "ground rules" to be enforceable, they need to be agreed to beforehand, not unilaterally suggested by the opener of the RFC. For example, if a previous RFC was derailed by lots of arguing that made it impossible to tell what the consensus was, then maybe it makes sense to try again, but with only simple !votes and no inline discussion. But at least one problem with jumping straight to the !vote with no inline discussion method is that "Bob" might have a !vote and the reasoning that he offers might be completely wrong and completely refuted by "Sally", but if "Sally" is confined to the less prominent discussion area, then nobody is going to know about it. --B (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"My question is this: if I don't get anywhere with the request would I be out of line moving the comments to the threaded discussion section?" Depends, if they object (or revert) then no, I don't think there is anyway to enforce your process, as WP:RfC does not seem to give the proposer any such power (the proposer can only propose the format). I see why you want this and it may even be a good process but it's just not something people are required to accede to (under current policy). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• I pulled off a restricted format a few years ago at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012, but I knew it would be needed and planned for it ahead of time, recruiting a team of three admins to be already on hand to run and close it, and the structure was open to review before it even started. That gave it some legitimacy and people pretty much did play by the rules. This is the sort of pre-planning one should do if making a major policy proposal. Not sure these particuar discussions require such elaborate, restricted structuring, but (warning, shameless plug ahead) I do have an essay on the subject at User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal that I recommendto anyone planning a big RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• I think the status quo, where the requests of the RFC creator regarding special rules don't have any formal backing, but where they are generally obeyed, works quite well. If the rule makes sense, or even better is well justified, the community will often enforce the rule, and if its not, people will disregard it and we just end up with a regular RFC. Its also important to consider in each case whether enforcing the request/rule will cause more disruption than the violation did. In the instant case, a couple 1-2 reply deep threads in the !vote sections doesn't really cause much harm, whereas if it developed in to 20 reply deep debates over a comment, moving it to its own section would make a lot of sense. Monty₈₄₅ 14:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Donovan delaney

Huon and Mike V are restricting free speech

File upload wizard broken

FYI, apparently the WP:File Upload Wizard is currently broken, due to a change in MediaWiki's Javascript support. See thread on WP:VP/T#File upload wizard broken for technical details. I hope to see this fixed soon; in the meantime, could admins please keep some extra eyes on the Upload logs, since editors are currently thrown back on the old unguided upload form and there are large numbers of files with missing or bad file descriptions coming through. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Request Admin Attention at Global Positioning System

There has been edit-warring at Global Positioning System, and now admin User:TomStar81 has temporarily locked the article. It appears that progress is being made, and that the editors may be able to work out the content dispute, but admin attention is requesting just in case there are personal attacks or other disruptive behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Organized Tag Team working in India-Pakistan related discussions and Edit War

Where is Poland?

Arbitration enforcement, the limits of WP:INVOLVED, and (inevitably) Eric Corbett

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia:Freedom of Panorama 2015

I'd like to bring the above issue to the general attention of admins since it involves the site-wide notification. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following motion has passed and been enacted:

1. Technical 13's indefinite block is converted to an indefinite ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Technical 13 may appeal this ban at any time to the Arbitration Committee if he wishes to return to editing.
2. Technical 13 is limited to one account, and may not edit through any account other than "Technical 13". He is explicitly denied the right to any sort of clean start.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 closed

Possible suicide threat by an IP

Sockmaster seems to be out of the drawer

CosmicEmperor UTRS ticket 13876

I want my UTRS ticket to be cancelled. I have deleted my E-Mail and have changed my password by copy pasting a sentence from a news website(without reading the line properly) to make sure i don't remember the password. I will never be able to login even if I want. If you have doubt, you can ask a check user, whether this account is mine or not. No need to waste any Administrator or Check User's time on that ticket13876. Block this account also.--Close the UTRS ticket 13876 (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Mike V • Talk 05:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ban proposals for Tirgil34 and Cali11298

• I trust, then, that if an editor deletes edits made by these two miscreants on sight, as they would be allowed to do if they were banned and not blocked, and some admin decides to block the editor for those deletions, the blocked editor can count on Nyttend to unblock them, based on his closing comment above? BMK (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

BMK, the "miscreants" part of your post gave me the giggles; thanks for that. As for the question directed toward Nyttend or others, I revert Cali11298 on sight when I recognize him...if I feel like doing so or the need to do so. But, in one case, I was criticized for repeatedly reverting him because I hadn't yet filed a WP:Sockpuppet investigation and the account was not officially confirmed as his. Indeed, repeatedly reverting a WP:Sock when you know it's a WP:Sock can get you blocked if you haven't yet provided any evidence of the WP:Socking. But as NeilN stated in that aforementioned discussion, common sense should also come into play. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If an admin deletes edits because they're made by a banned user's sock, it would be thoroughly out of place for another admin to block the first one. Or perhaps you just mean "removes edits", e.g. reverting the changes? In such a case, it would still be a very bad idea to block on those grounds alone. Either way, the reverter/deleter should be judged on whether the account's really a sockpuppet, whether it were reasonable to consider it a sockpuppet, etc. If the editor's allegedly a Tirgil34 sock, there's no reason to treat the reverter/deleter differently from what you'd do if the editor were allegedly a sock of Grawp. To answer your question, I'd at least be tempted to unblock on sight. If the behavior were something appropriate for fighting a Grawp sock, and the block was just for that (as opposed to that-with-something-else problematic), I'd readily accept an unblock request. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I appreciate your taking the time to do so. BMK (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mediation

Can anyone speak to how quickly we could get a mediation going for Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War? It seems to me that most editors on that page are acting in good(-ish) faith, and would be able to come to a reasonable conclusion.

However, the situation changes frequently, so I'd hate to have to wait a few weeks to get a mediator unless absolutely necessary. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:DRR to choose the right place? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It shows that the two most plausible procedures for mediation will be the dispute resolution noticeboard for light-weight mediation, and Requests for Mediation for formal mediation. In view of the number of editors, amount of discussion, and existence of discretionary sanctions, I would suggest a formal Request for Mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Herald-Express

The title of the above article should be Los Angeles Herald-Express because the newspaper did not use The in its title. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to move the page, but this photo shows the paper was actually called "Los Angeles Evening Herald and Express". -- Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Newspapers were prone to adding or subtracting "Evening" or "Morning" depending on circumstances. Look at the images here, and I think you'll see that the "standard" name (before it merged to be the Herald-Examiner in 1962) was simply "Los Angeles Herald-Express" with no "The" and no "Evening". BMK (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I must be getting a different assortment of images, here in the Great White North. Most of the ones I get are not even for the right newspaper, and all the ones that are, show "Los Angeles Evening Herald and Express" or "Los Angeles Evening Herald Express". Perhaps the word "evening" was omitted on the morning edition? Not sure. Regardless the word "The" is not present on any of the photos, so I have gone ahead with the move. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, on some of the Herald-Express images, the word "Evening" can be found hidden somewhere. I don't know the history of the paper well enough to know if they started with the "Evening" and then backed away from it, or what. I do know that my favorite newspaper merger was here in New York City where the "World, Telegram and Sun" merged with the "Journal-American" and the "Herald Tribune" to become the "World Journal Tribune", one newspaper representing more then 7 previous papers (because each of the component papers had gobbled up other papers in their history without adding their names to the title). It didn't last long - the only thing that came out of it was "New York" magazine, which began as the WJT's Sunday supplement before going independent. It was where I read Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, before he expanded it into a book. BMK (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Brunodam's prolific sockpuppets

Hi all, just a FYI. I've just found and tagged lots of pages created by two BDA's sockpuppets. In the next weeks/months I expect he to be back recreating them with almost the same contents, so please have a look at them, ty. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Jackson Vroman

Autocorrect on search bars

Apologies if this is the wrong place to bring this up.

Could you please add autocorrect="off" to the search fields in Wikipedia? Usually people come to look up proper nouns, and iOS devices constantly try to "correct" them. It's maddening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastFootnote (talk • contribs) 15:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving this over to WP:Village pump (technical). Ivanvector (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:User page and HTTPS

On Template:User page (which is fully protected), it directs you to the HTTP version, which Wikipedia then changes to HTTPS. Should the template send you directly to the HTTPS version? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point – somebody just needs to adjust the text in that one. An easy job for any Admin... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

AFAIS it used a protocol relative link, but the text said "http:". Now switched to HTTPS though. Done Legoktm (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

FOP 2015 Ok, so majority is in support. Now what?

Can we move forward with the banners? There only are 9 days for it to matter. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone has explained what to do on the talk page, but you appear to have mistaken it for a request to protect a page. I think if you carefully re-read their remark you will know how to proceed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone explain to me why my watchlist is being destroyed by a giant banner advocating for a particular political viewpoint? RGloucester — ? 21:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  The initial banner was missing a closing </div tag so it broke pages. Should be fixed now though... Legoktm (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  @RGloucester: I didn't participate in the discussion, but the banner says "A proposal in the European Parliament would require removing thousands of images of modern buildings and sculptures from Wikipedia." - That doesn't appear the be advocating anything. The page it links to does, however. Dustin (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, my answer to "now what" is delete WP:NPOV since obviously it doesn't apply any more. We're a political advocacy organization, not a neutral encyclopedia. --B (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always advocated free content. This is not new. Guy(Help!) 22:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: It is one thing to say, "free content is a good thing". It's another thing to say "call your politicians now and tell them you want free content". Political advocacy has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. --B (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Standing by while free content is made unfree, would be an abrogation of the project's ethos. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just noting that apparently this banner is rendering Mobile unusable; this needs to be addressed promptly, please. Risker (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Was just looking at my mobile watchlist and didn't have a problem. Could be because I already collapsed it on desktop though. Ivanvector ?? (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It was reverted about 34 minutes prior to your posting here. Killiondude (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Further question: wasn't this only supposed to be displayed to users who are actually in the EU? Ivanvector?? (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The banner has been reverted temporarily due to the layout issues. See MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice#Freedom of Panorama 2015. Sam Walton (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • How about leaving it permanently off unless/until the purveyors of this message figure out how to make it only show up in Europe? The proposal that was approved was for a EUROPE-ONLY banner. I am in the US and I saw the banner. The discussion on sitenotice seems to be that sitenotice doesn't have the geolocation capability. A motion was passed that promised the banner would only show up for European users. No banner has been authorized by any discussion that will show up worldwide. --B (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • For the record, I'm fine with having it show up on my Canadian screen if it means that it's showing up in Europe. I just meant to point it out in case there was a problem and nobody realized. Ivanvector ?? (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • A CentralNotice option is being looked into, which has geolocation. -- KTC (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• I'd like to remind the time constraints. Today is the last day for amendments and 9th is the day to stop the problematic text. Putting the banner up too late is the same as not putting the banner at all. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 08:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• The new banner is set for all users from the 28 nations with seats in the European Parliament, both logged-in and anon, desktop & mobile. -- KTC (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected file titles that have been created at Commons

I did not have anything to do and browsed Special:ProtectedTitles to see if anything interesting would appear. Apart from tons and tons of HAGGER, I noticed that some file titles are protected here but have been created at Commons and I wondered whether administrators would like to know about them so that they could either unprotect them or request their renaming at Commons. I found these:

• File:Maome.jpg
• File:Edit-this-page-large.png
• File:Ashley.jpg
• File:Mickey.jpg
• File:Checker-16x16.png
• File:Transparent.gif
• File:Grimace.jpg
• File:Royal.jpg
• File:Wiktionary-logo-en.png
• File:Tournament.jpg
• File:Wittenberg Schlosskirche.JPG
• File:Aa.jpg
• File:John ireland.jpg
• File:UK Royal Coat of Arms.svg
• File:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg
• File:WikipediaTechnical.png
• File:Flag of Kosovo.svg
• File:Triads.jpg
• File:Deepika.jpg
• File:6.jpg
• File:Rick Ross.jpg
• File:Mainlogo.jpg
• File:Arc.png
• File:Icon.jpg
• File:SJ.jpg
• File:Plan.gif
• File:Symbol.jpg
• File:24DNTV.svg

I have to admit that I cannot easily make out why some of these titles are protected, particularly the Wiktionary logo, the British Coat of Arms and the Kosovo flag.--The Theosophist (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I randomly looked at a few of them. In one case - File:Triads.jpg, the file that existed here had nothing to do with the file that now exists on Commons and it was protected to prevent someone from uploading a completely unrelated image used for vandalism. In the case of File:Deepika.jpg, people have repeatedly uploaded copyvio images and the title was protected to stop that. In one case - File:Wiktionary-logo-en.png - I was actually the one who protected it because it was getting re-created with test edits or junk. I believe that the software will stop non-admins from blocking a Commons image with a local one, but it won't stop someone from creating a local description page. So if someone is either vandalizing the local (non-existent) description page or is incorrectly thinking that the local page is the place to put content (e.g. File:Edit-this-page-large.png), then it potentially makes sense to protect the local page. --B (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for spending time to investigate. OP's issue reminds me of WP:FENCE. Killiondude (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Request to reopen (or more specifically , unhat to correct the form ) an AE request

Temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

The Arbitration Committee requests that restoration of adminship for Scott requested at the bureaucrats' noticeboard be suspended while the Committee communicates with him.

Supporting: Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, Courcelles, Salvio giuliano, NativeForeigner, Euryalus, Doug Weller, Yunshui

Recusing: GorillaWarfare, Roger Davies

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

This is now marked as "Request temporarily suspended following formal request of the Arbitration Committee" on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

block: Kurdistantolive (talk · contribs)

This user have been blocked permanently on ar. wiki. check here after finding out that he is a socket puppet. Check my talk page and u'll find his last message, its full of insults and curses for me and ar. wiki. I can translate what he said, or you can use google translate and u'll get the message. Anyway, this user is a trouble maker and he already proved that on ar. wiki (even writing poetry insulting other users . Thanks in advance--???? (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I tried Google Translate and I'm pretty sure the second one is calling you 'spineless', but the output doesn't make a lot of sense grammatically. Can you translate here for us so we can use a translator tool just to verify what you're saying? KrakatoaKatie 17:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have informed the user of this dicsussion, and warned them for personal attacks and for not communicating in English. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Got a reply [76]. It's not much but hopefully no further action is needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, here is the translation:

Arabic: ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??????

=English: You are arrogant and cocky. You wouldn't answer my messages. You think you are of such importance now, shame on you. You don't fear God, you are always abusing users on Arabic Wikipedia, along with this Abbas character (another admin). You both are arrogents and you'r saying i'm a troll, i swear you are the troll, its just that my manners are better than yours, you'll always stay small (no body) in your thoughts and mind.

Arabic: ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??????

= English: I messaged you here because you blocked me perminantly without anyreason on ar. wiki, but i don't care cause my manners are better than yours, and i have full confidence in my self, not a weakling such as you, you unjest silly lebanese. I don't care even if you complained againsted me in English Wikipedia, i don't care about wikipedia anymore anyway since it has varmints such as you.

Sorry for that . Anyway, i did answer him several times. check here, although we found out he was a socket puppet and gave him another chance despite him cursing here for example. Apart from him cursing me, i thought the english wikipedia community should take notice if he is active here, cause he might repeat what he is doing. Thank you--???? (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please permanently delete this edit

Please permanently delete this edit. Thanks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits can't be permanently deleted, except in extremely strict circumstances and that requires the the WMF to delete it from the datebase. (e.g. posting images of child pornography, court order, etc.) The revision doesn't meet the criteria for revision deletion, so we can't hide it from public view. Best, Mike V • Talk 18:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your summary is overly restrictive. Privacy concerns are explicitly mentioned in CRD, and birth dates are a BLP concern. (And yes, I know you're on oversight and all: ie, clarify, please.) Choor monster (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

For the information of the original poster, while it is nearly impossible to permanently delete an edit, there are two mechanisms that can be used to hide an edit. The first is redaction, commonly known as revdel for historical reasons, which is available to administrators, and hides the edit from everyone but administrators. The second is suppression, commonly known as oversight for historical reasons, which is available to an even more restricted group of functionaries known as oversighters, and hides the edit from everyone but oversighters. My guess is that the original poster was requesting that the edit be redacted. I agree with Choor monster that a case can be made that it qualifies for redaction as a BLP privacy issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that the official website of Kristen May's band lists her birthdate on their official website on the first page of their Frequently Asked Questions and given that WP:DOB explicitly states that Wikipedia uses birthdates from "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" I'd argue that not only should the birthdate not be given the extreme version of deletion, but shouldn't have been deleted from the article at all. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I edit conflicted saying the same thing CoffeeCrumbs, so long as it is properly referenced however. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

ec as well, I deleted the edit for a few minutes to check (it's best to remove, then restore with potential BLP issues) and came to a similar conclusion to User:CoffeeCrumbs. I'm not putting it back into the article, but the claim is validly sourceable. Keegan (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I sourced the birthdate, added the cite. Primary source, but this is basic information. Also helps defuse any argument that this birthdate was made public without permission. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Keegan (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Jax 0677, why did you do this revert? [77] You claim it is a "fan site" but it surely looks like the band's official website. Can you provide some info as to why you think it is a "fan site" and not their official site? Otherwise, it would make sense for someone to revert you for inaccurate summary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, that site does say fansite in the box in the bottom left corner. Hard to read :) This is their official site. Keegan (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. The fan site looks as good as the real one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly fooled me. Wish Jax had just said that we were finding a convincing fan site if he already knew instead of just reverting! Still don't see a pressing need for redaction, but an admin can worry about that. 20:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeCrumbs (talk • contribs)

Jax first removed the non-cited DOB, then he did say "fan site" in his edit summary when it was added. Choor monster (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply - If I remember, WP:DOB says that date of birth should probably not be shown in an article unless it is widely publicized. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

DOB can be included if it is either widely publicized in secondary, verifiable sources (in other words, can't just be in one issue of Spin) or self-published by the subject in a credible place like their own website. If contested, it's appropriate to just make it the birth year and leave out the day/month. Regardless, you are correct: this is a fansite, doesn't count under the either or the or of WP:BIO and should be excluded for now. Deleting the revision does remain excessive IMO. All in all, we seem to be done here after the confusion has been sorted :) Keegan (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I agree, RevDel/OS not required, after that, it is a WP:V issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

An admin needs to move this page already...

There's a merge discussion at Talk:Geographical_name_changes_in_Greece which overwhelmingly favors merging the article to another article. The merge is long overdue. Would appreciate it if an admin can help out here. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, I've finished the merger. I protected the page to prevent edit conflicts (a likelihood because you advertised it in a prominent place), but that was just a convenience factor; no admin tools were necessary to finish the merger. If I'd done a history merge (which does require admin tools), it would have made a big mess in the page history. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, thank you for taking your time and energy into looking into this. I believe, however, that the article's name should be changed as well to that effect. I think it's also understood that the article should now be entitled: Former toponyms in Greece. A redirect can always be placed from Geographical name changes in Greece to Former toponyms in Greece. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The whole proposal was that of merging Former toponyms into Geographical...Greece, not the other way around. I think it would be better if you used the formal requested moves process or informally chatted with the other merger participants about a name change. I'll be happy to move it if people agree to move it. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I'll ping all those who voted at the TP and let you know the results. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:66.143.32.19

Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania

Please delete

Count Iblis' voluntary restriction from the Ref Desk

Proxy range block

Watchlist notice

Kosovo

Over the past days we have had a lengthy debate on how to present the opener for Kosovo. There was an RfC in which a clear majority voted in favour of sovereignty but we also agreed to keep "partially recognized" and "disputed territory" as close as possible to the first line and I feel I did this in a VERY generous manner, one that could even accuse me of being POV for the minority voters. Lots of space devoted to the points defended by the losing side. Can I ask for the article to be protected for a while and as quickly as possible, even to the stage that I myself may not edit the article. Its regulars need a Wikibreak anyhow and I say this even for those with whom I saw eye to eye over the RfC. Thanks. Newquartermaster (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• The place to ask for page protection is WP:RFPP, but we aren't supposed to protect pages preemptively, so it isn't likely to happen either place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Request review of close at AE

Retiring

I will be retiring on 18 July 2015. -- Gadget850 ^talk 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope that means you are moving on to something joyous and exciting. You've contributed a lot to Wikipedia and I thank you for your efforts. Dragons flight (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

10 years to the day, which can't be a coincidence. Reminds me of the Beatles. Whatever you from here Gadget850, we wish you well and want to thank you for over 100k worth of edits on Boy Scout related articles and more, plus your service as sysop. God speed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Good luck in all of your future endeavors! Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI closure review requested

Proposed remedy