|
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Contents
- 1 Requests for closure
- 1.1 Requests for comment
- 1.1.1 MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr
- 1.1.2 Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections
- 1.1.3 Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else
- 1.1.4 Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality
- 1.1.5 Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML
- 1.1.6 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size
- 1.1.7 Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption
- 1.1.8 Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control
- 1.1.9 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead
- 1.1.10 Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed?
- 1.1.11 Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation
- 1.1.12 Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article?
- 1.1.13 Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing
- 1.1.14 Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun?
- 1.1.15 Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011
- 1.1.16 Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine
- 1.1.17 Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article
- 1.1.18 Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams"
- 1.1.19 Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts
- 1.1.20 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The word "like"
- 1.1.21 Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
- 1.1.22 Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Request for comment: How to deal with this article
- 1.1.23 RfC: Should the events be removed?
- 1.1.24 Talk:Time Person of the Year#Rfc: Elizabeth II
- 1.1.25 Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close down Possibly Unfree Files
- 1.1.26 Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#RfC: War faction or country infobox?
- 1.1.27 Talk:Sea Mither#Simple
- 1.1.28 Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video
- 1.1.29 Talk:The Salvation Army#RfC: Should the language of this British organisation be in British English
- 1.1.30 Talk:English Democrats#RfC: Far right
- 1.1.31 Talk:Hindu_philosophy#Requested_move_21_March_2016
- 1.2 Backlogs
- 1.3 XfD
- 1.4 Administrative
- 1.5 Requested moves
- 1.1 Requests for comment
- 2 Closure of RfC by uninvolved admin requested
- 3 Revdel requested
- 4 Backlog at MfD
- 5 Backlog at WP:UAA
- 6 ip closes
- 7 My possibly flawed reasoning
- 8 Request for edit filter manager permission
- 9 Shawn Loiseau IP range vandalism
- 10 A post-review would be good
- 11 Social work
- 12 req?
- 13 Ja⍰alif
- 14 Opinions on ANI thread
- 15 Vandalism
- 16 keep contents remove resources
- 17 Cloning an article
- 18 Advance notice: deprecation of several JavaScript functions
Requests for closure
- These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
Requests for comment
MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 107 days ago on 12 December 2015)? —Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- This was going to be no consensus or consensus against, but discussion has renewed for a solution that will satisfy the opposition, so this should not be closed yet. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 108 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
On hold There is an open sock investigation of one of the RFC participants for voting irregularities relating to this article. It it results in a block then I believe it may be appropriate to strike their !votes before evaluating a close. Alsee (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee: please provide status update or follow up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist, it looks like SPI is probably backlogged. See the sock investigation link I gave. It's still listed as open, with no response yet from any admin, clerk, or checkuser. Once it's resolved anyone can remove the "On Hold" and close it. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee: please provide status update or follow up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else
It was redated once and it's been ongoing for 54 days now, but discussion has pretty much died down. All of the monitors of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics voted for a third option, "often": 1, 2, 3 and 4. Current article lead hasn't existed for very long so nothing is yet "stable". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done, discussion is closed. no result. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- I apologize for not explaining well enough but the point was to finally assess concensus as either or, not just closing it. I'll undo the closure in await for someone to actually decide either or. If there is no result it shall just be redated and reopened and the discussion and RfC continued because that is the proper procedure if there is no result yet, not closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else (Initiated 59 days ago on 29 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Correction: It was actually initiated on 28 November 2015, but redated a few times for the RfC bot. I'd also like to specify that this request was asked for to finally get an "either or" result, and not just "no decision". There was a request for closure of this discussion already above, but because of the discussion at the talk of this very project page I'll briefly mention this here for now and if the one above is returned I'll remove this bit. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 105 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- not done as further edits seem to have overtaken the last participation in the RfC so as to make formal assessment unnecessary unless a participant requires. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:
1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?
2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?
- Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:
Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Initiated 106 days ago on 13 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- This should run for another week or two, as it was not properly advertized and got insufficient attention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done - discussion has recently picked up again with a drive for more participants. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size (Initiated 290 days ago on 12 June 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption (Initiated 57 days ago on 31 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control (Initiated 63 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead
We need an experienced editor to assess the discussion in the above link. The difference of opinion lies in whether an article about a train station, or railway station, should begin with simply the name of the station (for example, "Culver City") or whether it should begin with the title of the article, like "Culver City station." Discussion has tapered off; recent remarks have simply repeated the arguments made earlier. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 35 days ago on 22 February 2016)
Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed? (Initiated 52 days ago on 5 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation (Initiated 47 days ago on 10 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article? (Initiated 62 days ago on 26 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing (Initiated 63 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun? (Initiated 49 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011 (Initiated 55 days ago on 2 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine (Initiated 53 days ago on 4 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article (Initiated 48 days ago on 9 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams"
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams" (Initiated 64 days ago on 24 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts (Initiated 64 days ago on 24 January 2016)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The word "like"
This needs an accurate analysis before a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 47 days ago on 10 February 2016)
Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? (Initiated 42 days ago on 15 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that one of the editors in the discussion has requested admin closure, by someone who is familiar with MFD [1]. Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Request for comment: How to deal with this article
IMHO, this Rfc's options have been unintentionally worded in a non-neutral style & therefore, the Rfc should be closed. Note I've opened up a new Rfc, which presents the same options, but rather in a neutral style. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 42 days ago on 15 February 2016)
- Comment: This RfC should not be closed in isolation - there is also an associated merge discussion ongoing, and the two are closely related. (For example, a couple of votes in the merge discussion are apparently based on reasons presented in the previous RfC.) In my opinion, the new RfC simply adds to the considerable unnecessary verbiage on the page. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: The first Rfc has expired as no consensus for any of the 3 options. Furthermore, I've closed the second Rfc (that I had opened), per StAnselm's point, about "unnecessary verbiage".:) GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Should the events be removed?
I'm requesting an admin or an experienced user to assess the consensus at the mentioned page. (Initiated 38 days ago on 19 February 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Time Person of the Year#Rfc: Elizabeth II
This Rfc has reached its 30th day. We need an administrator to close it & make his/her own interpretation of the results. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close down Possibly Unfree Files
Consensus is fairly obvious to close down PUF and merge it with WP:FFD. The closure should be uncontentious, but the enacting of the results will require some work. Posting this here so if anyone wants to go through the grunt work of closing down and marking "historical" the PUF process and then redirecting users in the relevant documentation to WP:FFD, they can get started on that. Also, someone will have to move the backlog of cases from PUF (or clear them) as well. Thanks for any help! --Jayron32 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 7#Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge could potentially be referenced for most necessary steps that need to be taken for this merge. The only major differences between the referenced section and the PUF to FFD merge are that no venue is getting renamed and the changes that will need to be made to AnomieBOT's function are slightly different (the bot will have to stop making daily subpages for PUF after the merge has been finalized.) I made some attempt to work out the NFCR to FFD merge, so feel free to ping me with any questions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#RfC: War faction or country infobox?
This RfC expired a week ago, but was never closed. A formal closure is needed, as involved editors are starting to make a bit of a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Sea Mither#Simple
Per WP:SNOW, but the primary editors of the article refuse to acknowledge consensus. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video
This RfC has been open since 14 February has seen no activity for about 10 days. Since this deals with a contentious issue that is certain to come up again, it would be helpful if this was closed by a previously uninvolved admin (or possibly more than one). before closing this RfC, it would be useful to read through the discussion below and to have a thorough understanding of how embedding files works on Wikipedia. Right Hand Drive (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:The Salvation Army#RfC: Should the language of this British organisation be in British English
Could an admin take the appropriate closure action here and change the page notice on the article? A decision to force AmEng on the article last year was done so on a false statement on the original variant of English used, and the current consensus reflects the truth of the matter. – SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:English Democrats#RfC: Far right
Expired RfC does not appear to let the actual article remain on a consensus version without official closure. I think it is possible to determine consensus and close it, so I am requesting it here. LjL (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Hindu_philosophy#Requested_move_21_March_2016
Would an experienced user or Admin, assess the consensus and move the page if deemed so?VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Backlogs
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 170 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. — xaosflux Talk 23:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion
This discussion forum has a typical backlog with approximately 20 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 25, 2016. (14:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC))
- Please note that there's a discussion at WP:ANI#MfD end run GAME. Furthermore, previous deletions have been based on modified policy. If someone could do a damage check, it'd be appreciated. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves
We currently have 89 discussions in the backlog, and it's growing every day. Several of them date to January 2016.--Cúchullain t/c 21:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
Unclosed discussions from 2015 December 4, 2015 December 7 and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 December 29. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging @Explicit: and @TLSuda: as the most active admins in the FFD/PUF area both of which need a bit of attention.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
XfD
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg (Initiated 169 days ago on 11 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Steel1943 relisted the discussion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sargun Mehta/1
The subject GAR is open for community reassessment since October 2015. Need someone to conclude it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 8#Shenae
Listed for a month individually, and started as part of a batch on 14 February. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Administrative
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment? (Initiated 24 days ago on 4 March 2016)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic Ban. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#User:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment
I'm requesting an admin to assess the consensus at this thread. Besides multiple other uncivilities by the nominator (such as when he told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis") he did not refrain from making further attacks by saying "your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong". After reporting it, he surprisingly repeated his attack on the ANI page! I have explained in detail how many times he had been warned by admins to resolve his major civility issues. Thank you. (Initiated 19 days ago on 9 March 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Requested moves
Closure of RfC by uninvolved admin requested
The RfC I started to gather input about the inclusion of a hardcore pornographic movie in A Free Ride has been closed by User:Francis Schonken. Since this RfC deals with a contentious subject, and since Francis Schonken was involved in earlier discussions, I would like to request that the closure be undone and re-closed by an uninvolved admin. Francis Schonken declined to revert their closure when asked. I have no comment about the closure itself, I simply wish to avoid future argument by ensuring that this closure is procedurally solid. Note that there is an RfC about a similar situation on Debbie Does Dallas, so the question of consistency will undoubtedly be raised soon. Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't even looked at the close or at either article or talk page recently, but I strongly and completely agree that only an uninvolved admin should analyze and close these contentious debates. Softlavender (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also see User talk:Francis Schonken#Please undo your closure. The issue has been discussed to death and Right Hand Drive (talk · contribs) is still an SPA who is wasting community time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- That may be so, and I do not agree with RHD's position on any of the issues involved (as witnessed by my !votes), but he is 100% correct in my view that only an uninvolved admin should be closing this and similar RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why an admin only? The involved I get of course. Hobit (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Because it's very contentious, and the RfC stands to affect dozens of Wikipedia articles by association. (Ideally, there should be a site-wide RfC on the subject of hosting full-length hardcore porn films on Wikipedia article space, but apparently to my knowledge no one has created such a sitewide RfC yet.) Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why an admin only? The involved I get of course. Hobit (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- That may be so, and I do not agree with RHD's position on any of the issues involved (as witnessed by my !votes), but he is 100% correct in my view that only an uninvolved admin should be closing this and similar RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I concur.OVERTURN CLOSER WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE RFC! (per second expanded comment below) I find it baffling that User:Francis Schonken closed the RFC after participating in an (informal) debate about it elsewhere. Alsee (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Expanding my above comment. I'll acknowledge I was involved - however I'll note that the "no consensus" outcome is effectively in my favor. When people raise concerns with a close that's already in their favor it strongly indicates there's something wrong here. A reclose could potentially go the other way. The closer literally cited Their own prior debate of the issue as the basis for his close. They linked to their own arguments on Jimbo's talk page, which they made while the RFC was in progress. I also find it problematic that they failed to address the strong policy arguments raised by the majority side in the RFC. The close merely hand-waved that both sides were somehow equal. WP:Concensus Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And WP:Close says to discard arguments: that flatly contradict established policy. If a minority is flatly contradicting policy then you can't hand-wave it as "equal". And if the minority weren't contradicting policy then the close should give at least some hint why the majority were wrong about it being a policy issue. (Ping BMK to note additional info.)Alsee (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Expanding comment: Francis Schonken was involved in the RFC! The close includes the strange statement "This includes the arguments regarding this article made at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 203#Debbie Does Dallas." The closer presented arguments in that discussion. The closer took the bizarre step of literally inserting their own !vote INSIDE the RFC at the same time they closed it. And one of the arguments they made in that discussion was that they wanted to "refocus" the debate OFF of policy examination. Policy Consensus says a closing MUST be viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. So they were involved, and they failed to address the policy arguments at all. Alsee (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- If the terms of the close are accurate, properly describe and evaluate the discussion, correctly apply Wikipedia policy, and the closer was uninvolved in the RfC, it makes no difference whatsoever if the closer is an admin or not. It seems to me that this complaint is not at all motivated by it being a non-admin closure, but by the OP disagreeing with the close, and if an admin had made exactly the same close as Francis Schonken did, the OP would be here complaining about the close for some other reason altogether. Unless the OP can show that Schonken's close was inaccurate, improper, wrongly applied policy, or that Schonken was "involved", then they have no legitimate beef here. BMK (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you may be confused. I have stated why I believe Francis Schonken shoudl be considered involved. I have also stated that I am strictly commenting here on a procedural aspect of the closure. I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is. For the record, I did not vote in the RfC. Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, let's clear up some of that supposed "confusion". Do you agree with the results of the close or not? BMK (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which part of "I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is" are you having trouble understanding? Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- The part where you refuse to say why you started the RfC and what outcome your desired. We all are supposed to accept the outcome of properly-worded and properly-closed RfCs, so saying that you'll accept it is meaningless. You clearly started it with a desired outcome in mind, and your refusal to say what that was only underlines what I said above.
There was nothing wrong with the close, an admin is not required, FS was not involved in the RfC, that should end the discussion. BMK (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- BMK, Francis Schonken was involved in the RFC! See above. Alsee (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I see the problem now. You want me to answer questions that you haven't asked instead of the question that you have asked. It really doesn't matter, since your only purpose in posing questions is to assert completely false things like that I "refuse" to say what my desired outcome was. My desired outcome was to gather input from other editors on whether or not there should continue to be a hardcore pornographic movie embedded in A Free Ride, which has been embedded in that article since 2012. I started that RfC because the article came up in discussions about Debbie Does Dallas. That article had an embedded movie for several months (I was not the editor who originally embedded it, but I restored that embedding) until it suddenly became a point of contention. There were many arguments put forward which were not based on policy or rebuffed the current practice of embedding public domain films in their articles. So I have embarked on a journey of discovery. It will be hard for you to understand this, but I am using the available Wikipedia mechanisms to solicit input from other editors to determine what the community thinks we should do in cases like this. I believe some people call this "collaboration". This contentious issue will probably (definitely) come up again in the future, so it would be sensible to make sure that it is handled properly now. Francis Schonken should not have closed the RfC because they were involved in the issue. Now please stop being rude and obstructive. Right Hand Drive (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- The part where you refuse to say why you started the RfC and what outcome your desired. We all are supposed to accept the outcome of properly-worded and properly-closed RfCs, so saying that you'll accept it is meaningless. You clearly started it with a desired outcome in mind, and your refusal to say what that was only underlines what I said above.
There was nothing wrong with the close, an admin is not required, FS was not involved in the RfC, that should end the discussion. BMK (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which part of "I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is" are you having trouble understanding? Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, let's clear up some of that supposed "confusion". Do you agree with the results of the close or not? BMK (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you may be confused. I have stated why I believe Francis Schonken shoudl be considered involved. I have also stated that I am strictly commenting here on a procedural aspect of the closure. I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is. For the record, I did not vote in the RfC. Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Just clarifying something: Whereas a contentious AfD should only be closed by an admin, a contentious RfC has no such explicit requirement per this RfC from a couple years ago, and linked to from Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. Any close can be contested, but that a non-admin did it can't be the sole reason. So the non-admin part is just kind of a distraction in this thread. That said, RHD has been pretty clear from the start that he/she objects to Francis's previous involvement with this issue, even if the non-admin part confused things. I don't think this fishing expedition of trying to get RHD to say what his goals really are or speculating as to what his actions would be if someone else closed has much of a point -- RHD is more or less an SPA and not a neutral party, but other people have raised the same objection. That Francis didn't participate in that RfC doesn't mean he wasn't involved. He took part in the discussion on Jimbo's talk page and the discussion at VPP, both of which took place just before this RfC and concerned the same basic question. Personally, I think this RfC was wrong-headed from the start but it did draw decent participation so merits a sound closure from an uninvolved party. (disclosure: I participated in the discussion, too) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, I do not regard RHD's preference for a closing result as being ireelevant. In fact, I think it's highly relevant, and that RHD's refusal to say what close they preferred is simply a tactic, knowing that if they said they preferred X, and FS closed it as Y, it would cast a bad light on RHD's attempt to revert the close. I'm not buying the tactic. RHD's refusal to say why they started the RfC and what close they preferred isn't a "fishing expedition", it's an attempt to determine RHD's motivation in bringing this to the noticeboard. In the light of RHD's repeated refusal to comply with what is a very simple and natural question, I have no choice but to see the attempt to overturn the close as RHD trying to get what they want by foul means.
As for FS's involvement, participation in a different discussion in a different place about a different film may bring them to the borderline of involvement, but as long as the evaluation of the RfC in the close is accurate, and the application of policy is correct, it really makes no difference. Remember, even with admins, if an involved admin takes an action which, it is agreed, any other reasonable admin would have taken, the admin's involvement is deemed to be irrelevant. I can't see why it should be any different for a rank-and-file editor.
In short, any application for overturning the close should be made on the basis that FS did not correctly evaluate the RfC or applied policy incorrectly. Both the admin/non-admin and "involvement" arguments are red herrings and should be rejected, especially in the light of what appears to be RHD's machinations to get a preferred close. BMK (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I left you a lengthy explanation above of what I was trying to get out of this RfC, but you have again falsely stated that I "refuse" (now "repeated refusal") to answer your question. You have your answer already. If it wasn't clear, let me say it again. I want to have a result that is not likely to be challenged in the future when this issue comes up again. I will accept any result, but as far as I am concerned, the RfC has not been properly closed. I do not know if an uninvolved admin will share Francis Schonken's opinion on the RfC or have a different opinion, so asking for this closure to be overturned can hardly be called "machinations to get a preferred close" (or maybe I'm just a complusive machinator). So far, User:Softlavender, User:Alsee, and User:Rhododentrites have expressed agreement that the RfC should be re-closed by an uninvolved admin. Are you willing to go along with that consensus? Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Simple question, doesn't require a wall of text, or wikilawyering of any kind: what close did you want from the RfC, oppose or support? BMK (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have an opinion about how I think the question should be resolved, but I quite deliberately did not participate in the RfC because I wanted to gather input from other editors, not argue for my own views. So long as I am willing to accept what result, it really makes no difference what result I would have preferred. I'm really quite puzzled by your insistence that I have some secret agenda. I didn't vote. I'm not advocating a particular closure. If I have some secret agenda, I'm not doing a very good job of pushing it, am I? Now please stop badgering me. Right Hand Drive (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- So, I'm left with no choice but to reiterate that this request for re-closing is simply an attempt by RHD to get the result he or she wants, which I have to assume is not the current result of the close. There's been absolutely no criticism of the terms of the close itself, the admin/no admin and involvement questions are non-issues, so, no re-close is necessary; but perhaps RHD should be warned for WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM. BMK (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- BMK, IDHT? There has been criticism of the close. The closer admitted they copy&pasted their own !vote into the RFC, the !vote they copy&pasted into the RFC was that the close should not be made based on policy, they proceeded to disregard the policy arguments, and they failed to discard those that flatly contradict established policy. The closer was directly involved, and they failed to apply policy. Alsee (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- That is criticism of the closer, not of the close itself, especially since you don't mean "established policy" you mean prevously established editing norms and guidelines, since there was no policy involved. Since norms and guidelines are not mandatory, there was no requirement for the closer to ignore those people who disagreed with them. Only policy is mandatory, and only comments which advocate violating policy should be thrown out. If this was not the case, there would be no way for editing norms to evolve or change. BMK (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- BMK policy was involved, and several people were advocating flat out violation of policy. As was noted in the RFC, anyone who dislikes policy and wants it changed needs to present those arguments on the policy page. Alsee (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- If someone goes to David_(Michelangelo) and says the lead image should be removed and the sole argument they present is Wikipedia is not a porn site and should not be hosting porn, then under policy that rationale is invalid and should be discarded. Alsee (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- That is criticism of the closer, not of the close itself, especially since you don't mean "established policy" you mean prevously established editing norms and guidelines, since there was no policy involved. Since norms and guidelines are not mandatory, there was no requirement for the closer to ignore those people who disagreed with them. Only policy is mandatory, and only comments which advocate violating policy should be thrown out. If this was not the case, there would be no way for editing norms to evolve or change. BMK (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm left with no choice but to wonder how far one can shove one's head up one's own ass, but I begin to suspect that there is no limit for some people. Right Hand Drive (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- BMK, IDHT? There has been criticism of the close. The closer admitted they copy&pasted their own !vote into the RFC, the !vote they copy&pasted into the RFC was that the close should not be made based on policy, they proceeded to disregard the policy arguments, and they failed to discard those that flatly contradict established policy. The closer was directly involved, and they failed to apply policy. Alsee (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- So, I'm left with no choice but to reiterate that this request for re-closing is simply an attempt by RHD to get the result he or she wants, which I have to assume is not the current result of the close. There's been absolutely no criticism of the terms of the close itself, the admin/no admin and involvement questions are non-issues, so, no re-close is necessary; but perhaps RHD should be warned for WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM. BMK (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have an opinion about how I think the question should be resolved, but I quite deliberately did not participate in the RfC because I wanted to gather input from other editors, not argue for my own views. So long as I am willing to accept what result, it really makes no difference what result I would have preferred. I'm really quite puzzled by your insistence that I have some secret agenda. I didn't vote. I'm not advocating a particular closure. If I have some secret agenda, I'm not doing a very good job of pushing it, am I? Now please stop badgering me. Right Hand Drive (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Simple question, doesn't require a wall of text, or wikilawyering of any kind: what close did you want from the RfC, oppose or support? BMK (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I left you a lengthy explanation above of what I was trying to get out of this RfC, but you have again falsely stated that I "refuse" (now "repeated refusal") to answer your question. You have your answer already. If it wasn't clear, let me say it again. I want to have a result that is not likely to be challenged in the future when this issue comes up again. I will accept any result, but as far as I am concerned, the RfC has not been properly closed. I do not know if an uninvolved admin will share Francis Schonken's opinion on the RfC or have a different opinion, so asking for this closure to be overturned can hardly be called "machinations to get a preferred close" (or maybe I'm just a complusive machinator). So far, User:Softlavender, User:Alsee, and User:Rhododentrites have expressed agreement that the RfC should be re-closed by an uninvolved admin. Are you willing to go along with that consensus? Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Debbie Does Dallas RfC needs closing
Despite four editors from different "sides" of this issue agreeing that Francis Schonken's closure should be overturned, no one seems willing to brave the muck that assorting monkeys are throwing. The good news is that the RfC on including a hardcore pornographic movie in debbie Does Dallas has now finished and needs closing. I tried to suggest that particular RfC be postponed until the A Free Ride issue was settled, but my efforts were met with rudeness, name-calling, and harassment. I would advise anyone thinking of closing the Debbie Does Dallas RfC to take a moment to understand how embedding works and to review earlier discussions (about WP:NOTREPOSITORY for one). Good luck! Right Hand Drive (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
CLOSER HAS BEEN BLOCKED
I went to the closer's talk page to see if he would reconsider his close based on new information, but I found the closer has been blocked.[2]
Three of the people in the RFC presented arguments based on NOTREPOSITORY, however this policy RFC firmly established that those arguments as invalid. That very likely changes the outcome. As the closer is now blocked and obviously can't address this issue (in addition to the issues cited above), can someone put a close on this discussion authorizing a new closer? (Preferably an admin.) Alsee (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The closer was blocked on March 21. This request was filed on March 11. That gave the closer 10 days to decide to undo the close, which the closer clearly did not choose to do, as they were editing Wikipedia the entire time. [3]. That the closer is now blocked is therefore irrelevant. You have your answer: the closer does not wish to undo the close. It will take an admin deciding that the close was improper, and if you haven't gotten that is 11 days, you're unlikely to get it now. I suggest that this thread be closed and archived. BMK (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Revdel requested
Please can you revdel this as pure vandalism? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Done Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I take it this was an egregious personal attack, rather than "pure vandalism". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC).
- It wasn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't a personal attack, but it was "pure vandalism" that rose to a level of disruptiveness that meets RD3 in my opinion -- basically replacing the entire page's content with hundreds of signatures a bold text. When the bite-size alone is enough to crash browsers, protecting unsuspecting users behind a RevDel isn't very controversial. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I take it this was an egregious personal attack, rather than "pure vandalism". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC).
Backlog at MfD
Duplicate entry, see above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Backlogs. — xaosflux Talk 03:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good Tuesday admins! Cordially inviting you to spare a moment for WP:MFD, where a backlog of 21 threads open under "old business" going back as far as January 26 are waiting for fairly simple but admin-necessary closes. Please take a look. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Backlog at WP:UAA
Just wanted to give you fine admins a heads up on the backlog of usernames listed at WP:UAA. Looks liek some request go back to the 14th, and there's quite a few on the page currently. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
ip closes
Have we ever had any discussion about whether an ip can close anXfD? DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I remember one from 2015. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#AfD closures by IP users seems to be the one I'm thinking of. The result was a change to WP:XFD to explicitly state IP editors are barred from closing deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
My possibly flawed reasoning
Could someone please check my reasoning here:
Many thanks,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can not fully agree with you. For example, User:Barack Obama (we used to have such user, but they were forcibly renamed because of the SUL issues, but we still have User:Barack Obama is Satan!) was a clear impersonation of a famous person just because of the username, even if they never edited Obama-related articles and never claimed any relation to Obama. In fact, if Barack Obama themself wanted to edit Wikipedia under his own username, we would likely require an OTRS permission. I am not sure whether Michael Cane and Pankaj Choudhary raise to a comparable level of fame, but the requirement to rename the user might be an overrreaction (and as such it is debatable, I guess there might be tons of Michaels Cains walking around), but I would certainly not reject it outright.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi Ymblanter. :) True, and good points. But... "...If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided...." That says "sometimes". To me, that suggests that if the editor is User:Michael Caine editing Hollywood articles, a precautionary block would make sense. But this is User:Michaelcaine346 editing an Indian police officer article. Wouldn't the following more aptly apply: "...please note that editing under a username which represents an individual cannot be a violation unless they appear to be impersonating a notable living person..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know 2 Michael Caines (neither of which was born Maurice Micklewhite) its not that uncommon. The key word above is 'impersonating'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thank you, Only in death does duty end. In the spirit of the law, would Michael Caine, his people, or anyone who knows of him, actually think this might be him? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Does he write slowly? That's how you know it's him. (Old Phil Hartman or Dana Carvey joke from the SNL audition archives.) 166.171.120.121 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say that "Michael Caine" is a common enough name that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's an impersonator, unless they're editing pages related to Michael Caine the actor. That doesn't mean there's not necessarily other problems with that account. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC).
- Does he write slowly? That's how you know it's him. (Old Phil Hartman or Dana Carvey joke from the SNL audition archives.) 166.171.120.121 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thank you, Only in death does duty end. In the spirit of the law, would Michael Caine, his people, or anyone who knows of him, actually think this might be him? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know 2 Michael Caines (neither of which was born Maurice Micklewhite) its not that uncommon. The key word above is 'impersonating'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Ymblanter. :) True, and good points. But... "...If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided...." That says "sometimes". To me, that suggests that if the editor is User:Michael Caine editing Hollywood articles, a precautionary block would make sense. But this is User:Michaelcaine346 editing an Indian police officer article. Wouldn't the following more aptly apply: "...please note that editing under a username which represents an individual cannot be a violation unless they appear to be impersonating a notable living person..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Request for edit filter manager permission
Hello admins, please see Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Request_for_edit_filter_manager_permission for an active request for a non-admin access to this tool. Please comment on the EFN to keep the discussion in one place. — xaosflux Talk 16:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Shawn Loiseau IP range vandalism
Shawn Loiseau was protected, it's been a couple hours. Future reports can go to AIV or WP:RFPP, depending on circumstance. Keegan (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several IPs with the same first 7 digits are vandalizing Shawn Loiseau. I thing we need a range block on them. CLCStudent (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Those same IP addresses are now attacking User:E0steven. CLCStudent (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A post-review would be good
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
--QEDK (T 📖 C) 12:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose dragging that thread out any longer. Exactly the wrong direction the (now reopened) discussion needs. Let's keep this on one noticeboard for now, and then relocate the overall discussion to someplace where we can work on policy rather than trying to use sanctions to end the dispute. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Social work
The talk page of Social Work has codified anonymous editors IP's as all the same editor and in talk page history cited as rogue. I have two edits in it - but I find choosing to add continuously any IP's for personal pleasure of sorts goes within the boundaries of Wikipedia:Harassment and Bullying/Bite.(Do wikipedia have an Anti-bullying policy) Any edits that made are reverted or disrupted using policies. Further more there also seem to be a matter of ego or something else going over materials which have clear and genuine citation. Page protections are used extensively to avoid discussions or making any changes. I am at my wits end how to respond to these when it comes to Ego and Content Contribution. I am of the opinion both these shouldn't gel together.117.215.192.154 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, the reality is Wikipedia is full of rules and rules, and if you edit a higher profile article you'll be expected to figure 'em out or listen when the regulars try to explain them. My suggestions would be to find other articles to start with -- there are oodles in which somebody thought it would be a good idea to slap a this is wrong but I'm too lazy to fix it tag on top, and ask for help at teahouse, where the friendlier Wikipedia folk help out. NE Ent 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
req?
Hi, pls @admin/s put texts Araz (musical group) in User:Samak/Araz.--SaməkTalk 20:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Ja⍰alif
Can you please let me create the page Ja⍰alif? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zasewteru (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Opinions on ANI thread
Can we have some eyes on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#MfD end run GAME? I did suggest a topic ban and any progress on the issue on sluggish and barely non-existent. Not to mention, it might just hit 36 hours too. Any opinions there are encouraged. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism
Vandalism should be reverted or reported at WP:AIV in the first instance. Details of Wikipedia's other contact processes, including an email address to report vandalism, is available at Wikipedia:Contact us - Readers Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is someone vandalizing a Wikipedia page -- I am not familiar with Wikipedia, or it's use. But I do see vandalism in action. what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu1984123 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Assuming that the page is not protected and the content is cleary vandalism you could remove it youself without any issue.--67.68.210.65 (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Lulu1984123: what page? SQLQuery me! 07:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Protected Page
Is there a way to protect a page so it cannot be corrupted with vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu1984123 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is, but without the page name - we cannot do anything. SQLQuery me! 07:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
message Privately
Hello! I am not very familiar with all of the ways to operate Wikipedia. Is there a way for me to respond to a message with someone privately? As I am messaging about vandalism, I am nervous to draw more attention to the name in a public forum...
Thank you so much for your help!!! I can see when I receive messages, is there a way to send you a message privately, I don't know how to reply. Also I could not undo the changes the vandelizer made.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu1984123 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
keep contents remove resources
hi
do you know why persian version of wikipedia is like a disaster? it is because your amateur admins remove all reference to any website and claim that are advertising. they keep the content and just remove references. I do not know is any content without reference useful for you? do wikipedia want to claim it has generated all contents! it is shameful and I think you should revise your regulations! nobody would share its knowledge when they see you are removing their references and just using contents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdimalekii (talk • contribs) 08:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mehdimalekii, this is a matter that you must take up at the Persian Wikipedia. The community at the English Wikipedia has no authority over the Persian Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia, and cannot help you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Cloning an article
- Yesterday someone, faced with a history attribution problem caused by splitting off a daughter article Y from an existing article X, wanted me to "clone" an article Y from the existing article X, and (so he seemed to think) at once Y's history would display a copy of all of X's editing history. If (for example) the original single article was about cows and sheep, after cloning, the matter about cows could be edited out of article X and the matter about sheep could be edited out of article Y.
- I explained that (as far as I knew) this "cloning" was impossible and that he would have to copy-and-paste or partially cut-and-paste from X to begin Y and then put a history note in Talk:Y .
- He said that this "cloning" was common and sometimes compulsory in the German Wikipedia. (I have never edited in the German Wikipedia.)
- Please what is the true situation? Is this "cloning" a new feature that I had not been told about? Or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Cloning the history? Never heard of it, Anthony. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I wonder if this could be done by importing the history elsewhere, and importing it back to the desired location (Graham87?). Whether it's a particular good idea, or permissable, is another question. –xenotalk 11:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Xeno: It could, but I don't think it's a good idea, as it would make people's contribution histories seem really weird, among other things. I first noticed this request at the requests for page importation page. Graham87 12:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is the Special:MergeHistory tool which can duplicate page histories, but the content of the current revision stays the same - as it would with importing, unless you imported a newer revision). Because of how the software works, it isn't possible for either of those methods to actually add partial content to the current revision. Dewiki might have a separate tool for doing so, but I haven't heard of it. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- As an example of the "Don't try this at home" effects of imports see User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037a and User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037b. The edits were only literally made on "A", but now appear in both "A" and "B" and the contributions appear in the contribution logs as if they were made in both. — xaosflux Talk 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Notice my other account's contributions in both. — xaosflux Talk 17:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- This could be accomplished locally if we added ourselves as a transwiki source, bascially creating a Special:Fork tool - as Graham87 says, this would be "weird" at least at first. — xaosflux Talk 18:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- As far as the user that wants a split, you can refer them to the existing processes for documenting attribution for split pages at Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution. — xaosflux Talk 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hey everybody, as the one who asked Anthony Appleyard for article clones, I'd like to point you to de:WP:IU where articles from both international Wikipedias and the own, German Wikipedia may be nominated for import. The duplication process is equivalent to what we do at WP:IMP (or what xaosflux did with User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037a and User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037b. It is roughly explained in de:H:AIA#Lizenzkonforme Auslagerung durch Duplikation, where it is stated that this is the required process for article splits, wherever reasonably possible.
I'm also inviting Doc Taxon, who is the admin overseeing imports in de.wikipedia, to weigh in here. Doc Taxon, I just noticed that the second-best, alternative procedure has been used more often in the last weeks – if you found the time to shortly explain both the procedure and the pros and cons to all of us, that would be awesome! :)
Just another remark: Note that for me, this isn't in any way about my latest cases at all, and I'm fine with either decision. I think it was a great idea by Anthony to introduce this question here – it might indeed be interesting for us to (re)discuss all available options for attribution in such cases. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)- Please note, the don't try this at home example I have above is not available directly on enwiki right now, it should have the same results (except for an extra log entry), but required bouncing it off another project. — xaosflux Talk 04:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- PanchoS Thank you for working with everyone and taking care to ensure that attributions are maintained for content. We may need to revisit this topic to determine if there is community consensus to change the enwiki processes. — xaosflux Talk 23:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Xaosflux At least I think it's worth considering, but Doc Taxon's input would IMHO be key to assessing the de.wikipedia process as an option. Before even trying to obtain consensus, we should probably work on the tools, ensuring that it wouldn't unreasonably add to our administrators' workload. As for the restriction currently allowing only full clones, I can imagine a tool that filters a page history by sections involved should be possible. Corner cases might be difficult to solve and might need much testing, but I'd be ready to help with that, and I can imagine there would be interested admins at a number of major Wikipedia locales. Cheers, --PanchoS (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- In an article as it is edited, often sections come and go, and in some edits but not all, topics are mixed in one section. I do not hold with altering the texts of past edits :: that is gross falsification of editing history. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- As far as mechanics go, past edits wouldn't be changed in this process, some or all edits would be copied as-is to a secondary page. — xaosflux Talk 11:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Anthony Appleyard Pls rest assured that nobody wants to rush into any new, half-baked process – at least I don't. All of this would clearly need extensive discussion and testing, plus there's no urgency as we currently do have a halfway working process. The only process worth being introduced might be one that works considerably better than any of the currently existing ones, including the one in de.wikipedia. --PanchoS (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Advance notice: deprecation of several JavaScript functions
Several legacy JavaScript functions built into MediaWiki are being hard-deprecated with the release of MediaWiki 1.27 in April; for more information, see this mailing list post. These functions are listed at WP:VPT#Breaking change: wikibits. Any user script, gadget or other JavaScript file that uses these functions will stop working sometime within the next month. Please check your personal JavaScript pages and refer to mw:ResourceLoader/Legacy JavaScript for details on how to refactor your code to accommodate these changes. If you need help, please ask at the Technical Village Pump. MER-C 12:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify, it's not that it won't work, it's that the library containing importScript (mw.legacy.wikibits) is no longer loaded by default, and you have to load it youself, or switch to mw.loader.load(). I recommend the latter, as the wikibits will be removed in November.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
21:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)