Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard |
---|
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
|
Open tasks
V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 1 | 0 | 20 | 91 | 130 | 242 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 17 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 |
- 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 7 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 11 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 10 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 40 sockpuppet investigations
- 15 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 3 Fully-protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 8 requests for RD1 redaction
- 79 elapsed requested moves
- 17 requested closures
- 99 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 41 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Don't forget to sign your loyalty pledge for the WMF!
The Meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines are up for ratification in the near-future, and if they go through, "all advanced rights holders" will be "required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct:". This will likely be required as a precondition for becoming an admin, and it's expected that all current advanced rights holders make this affirmation at some point. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 21:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- It also seems to be saying that all admins will have to undergo compulsory training about the Code of Conduct. That's going to go down well. Hut 8.5 08:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- "The goal of preventive work is to make users of public Wikimedia Foundation wikis and others under the UCoC aware that it exists, and promote voluntary adherence to the code." (bold is mine) seems to be conflict there. VS "should be required to affirm". You can't have something that is both voluntary and required. Jeepday (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to see it spelled out somewhere what parts of normal admin behaviour (threatening people with blocks unless they do what we tell them, checking people's contributions for problems) are going to be outlawed by the UCoC. So far I understand that Fram wasn't allowed to do that, but that T&S functionaries were allowed to do that to Fram. Any "training" should go through the Fram example in detail so we can all understand the UCoC. —Kusma (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Kusma: I am very confused by your request. The UCoC enforcement guidelines apply equally to T&S staff and enwiki admins. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- @MJL: I guess I am the one who is confused. I truly do not understand who (if anyone) would have violated the UCoC during the Fram saga, where I asked what hounding is. I still don't know whether the Fram case involved hounding. I do know that a lot of people left. So I would like to understand what happened in the light of whether UCoC could have help prevent any of it. —Kusma (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Kusma: Go to "Enforcement by types of violations". Then read "On-wiki UCoC violations" and specifically the part that mentions "Single-wiki UCoC violations". –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, hounding is defined by the UCoC as
following a person across the project(s) and repeatedly critiquing their work mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them. If problems are continuing after efforts to communicate and educate, communities may need to address them through established community processes.
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)- So those of us old admin don't have to sign a loyalty oath. Golly gee, that makes it all better.... First, they will eventually force every admin to tattoo 666 on their forehead or similar or they will lose their bit. The Foundation has a long history of encroaching on the community, examples are easy to find. Ask Fram. Second, I'm not so selfish to only be concerned about ME. I'm against forcing any editor to do so. I was selected by this community, I serve this community, when this community thinks I've outlived my usefulness, I will step down. I don't serve or work for the Foundation. They are supposed to serve the Community, but that's a laugh. The Universal Code of Conduct is about exerting control over the community. Things like hounding, etc are already covered in policy here. I will not, under any circumstance, sanction someone based on enforcement of the UCoC. Period. If they want to bit strip me as an office action for saying so, then screw them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, hounding is defined by the UCoC as
- @Kusma: Go to "Enforcement by types of violations". Then read "On-wiki UCoC violations" and specifically the part that mentions "Single-wiki UCoC violations". –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @MJL: I guess I am the one who is confused. I truly do not understand who (if anyone) would have violated the UCoC during the Fram saga, where I asked what hounding is. I still don't know whether the Fram case involved hounding. I do know that a lot of people left. So I would like to understand what happened in the light of whether UCoC could have help prevent any of it. —Kusma (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Kusma: I am very confused by your request. The UCoC enforcement guidelines apply equally to T&S staff and enwiki admins. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hut 8.5: Since the WMF has not clarified what your mandatory political indoctrination will entail, I thought I'd grab some examples from the closest equivalent in the meta:Anti Harassment Program at meta:Community Development/WikiLearn/Identifying and Addressing Harassment Online. They offered this training as a pilot program for the large-scale UCoC training that is soon to be implemented. While the WMF didn't post those materials online (wonder why? they said they would on the talk page), here's the notes the French Wikipedia users took on the training: w:fr:Projet:Lutte contre le harcèlement/Formations WMF. Microsoft Translator has given an interesting quote, such as stereotypes including "bias towards young people (considering that a young person is too immature to contribute or become an admin)".
- I wonder if !voting at RfA that a user is too immature to be an admin will be in violation of the UCoC? Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 21:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)- Merely suggesting that a core concept within sociology/social anthropology actually describes "meaningful distinctions among people" would appear to be a violation of UCoC, as it currently stands. [1] The document is a badly-worded and contradictory mess, and regardless of what it is supposedly trying to 'enforce', nobody who cares about elementary logic or the English language should endorse it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump: I completely agree with you that the section you mentioned is very poorly worded (for me it implies that things like "caste" are meaningful distinctions one could make among people). However, the enforcement guidelines were written by a separate team of people. Sadly, the community is solely being asked to vote on the guidelines here. Voting against them won't change anything in the UCoC proper. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- In which case, the only appropriate response is to refuse to participate in any vote which might be seen as giving 'UCoC proper' legitimacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump: I completely agree with you that the section you mentioned is very poorly worded (for me it implies that things like "caste" are meaningful distinctions one could make among people). However, the enforcement guidelines were written by a separate team of people. Sadly, the community is solely being asked to vote on the guidelines here. Voting against them won't change anything in the UCoC proper. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Merely suggesting that a core concept within sociology/social anthropology actually describes "meaningful distinctions among people" would appear to be a violation of UCoC, as it currently stands. [1] The document is a badly-worded and contradictory mess, and regardless of what it is supposedly trying to 'enforce', nobody who cares about elementary logic or the English language should endorse it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to see it spelled out somewhere what parts of normal admin behaviour (threatening people with blocks unless they do what we tell them, checking people's contributions for problems) are going to be outlawed by the UCoC. So far I understand that Fram wasn't allowed to do that, but that T&S functionaries were allowed to do that to Fram. Any "training" should go through the Fram example in detail so we can all understand the UCoC. —Kusma (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. While I think the header of this post is certainly cute, it's very much misleading. I've just made a substantial comment about the matter here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is not going to end well if they genuinely expect me to sign an affirmation pledging my undying love of the WMF in order to continue volunteering my time to help them. Without naming names, many are jack-asses and the group as a whole is dysfunctional except when it comes to preserving their own jobs. I didn't mention names, so that's not a personal attack, right? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: (not sure how serious you are being here) As far as I am aware, no one is suggesting anyone sign an actual pledge to the WMF. There is talk about making an affirmation acknowledging you'll enforce the UCoC, but that basically doesn't apply to current enwiki admins. [putting aside the matter of the training] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- To answer your question: very serious. I'm not the only one who feels this way, I'm just more willing than most to say it publicly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: (not sure how serious you are being here) As far as I am aware, no one is suggesting anyone sign an actual pledge to the WMF. There is talk about making an affirmation acknowledging you'll enforce the UCoC, but that basically doesn't apply to current enwiki admins. [putting aside the matter of the training] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Loyalty oaths, including the Pledge of Allegiance have a long, ugly history. It’s enough to publish an objective yardstick for conduct and inform everyone that this is how they will be judged. No pledges are required. Unfortunately our codes of conduct frequently contradict policies designed to protect our content, and they are subject to actualization that is much further from perfect than it should be. Is this a social media platform or a broad compendium of facts? The code was written by master socializers who have less clue about content. Jehochman Talk 12:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't get why some people present "it currently only applies to new admins, not to existing ones" as if that is somehow a good argument. The organisation taking all the credits and money they can get from the Wikipedia content and brand (which they recently tried to claim for themselves as well), the organisation making a living from the work of unpaid volunteers and giving very little in return (server maintenance and perhaps the work of the growth team seem to be the exceptions), now want to get the people keeping those Wikipedia sites functioning (not on a server level, but on many other levels) to sign a pledge to uphold a policy they haven't asked for or decided upon, and to force these same people to follow hours of some undefined training on how to uphold that same unwanted policy and to get some certification before they would be allowed to function as admins. Instead of supporting the Wikipedias, they are reducing the pool of potential admins even further, and alienating the WMF further from the editing and adminning communities. Fram (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fram: I don't think
"it currently only applies to new admins, not to existing ones"
is necessarily a good argument, but it is factually accurate as far as the affirmations go. I point it out because many current admins keep saying variations "I'm not signing a loyalty oath" despite them clearly not having to (and that assuming you think enforcing the UCoC is the same as unconditional loyalty to the WMF, I guess). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fram: I don't think
- In other collaborative projects (e.g. open source software) it's normal to ask all contributors to agree to a code of conduct. In my job I regularly have to affirm that I've read and will abide by ethical guidelines before attending conferences, submitting papers for publication, etc. And we already have everyone agree to the Terms of Use, which includes many conduct rules, on every single edit. I don't see how asking only admins to affirm, at some point that is to convenient to them, that they'll follow the UCoC, is a big deal. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, as soon as the sentence "The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people" is explained, and Para 3.3 is rewritten so that it's not confusing gibberish, then maybe. Though, as others have mentioned, the WMF can whistle if they think I'm providing my real name to them, as I wouldn't trust certain parts of the Fundation to tie their own shoelaces, let alone administer reliable data protection. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that that's poorly worded. Has it been discussed anywhere, apart from the talk page section AndyTheGrump linked above? – Joe (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: It's not just poorly worded, it's actively offensive. The fact it doesn't appear to have been discussed apart from Andy's section probably tells you how few actual editors have read this. Which also suggests that the UCoc is going to be thrown at millions of unsuspecting editors. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've read over the UCoC and it strikes me as anodyne, as these things go. How we're getting "loyalty oath" in people's mind's I don't know, aside from habitual determination to prove that the English Wikipedia is ungoverned and ungovernable. I agree with Joe Roe, it is normal (if controversial among the ill-disposed) to have a code of conduct in open source projects. If you think that's going to be used as a weapon then that speaks to governance, but the existence of such has become standard as people recognize that communities, as they grow larger, cannot govern themselves without one. I would also say that there's a developing expectation that projects have one, as that speaks to the project's priorities regarding its contributors. As a contributor to the English Wikipedia since 2003, I can say that the level of toxicity toward other users condoned here has no doubt driven off many people who would otherwise have been good contributors. I think any number of us have internalized it to the point that we don't notice it, and that doesn't speak well of the community. Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think para 3.1 (apart from the race/ethnicity sentence I mentioned above) is actually the least problematic part of the UCoc, but it begs the question as to why it couldn't simply have been merged into Para 4 of the ToU, rather than creating yet more layers of WMF bureaucracy. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- "
To keep the Terms of Use readable and concise, some information is separated out into other documents. For instance, the Licensing Policy and Commons Licensing Policy are included as links. Agreeing to the Terms of Use means agreeing to those documents as well. The separation of the Universal Code of Conduct will allow it to be more detailed if necessary. It will also make it simpler to update based on our changing needs as a movement.
" – what §18 of the UCoC FAQ says. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)- Yeah, except that from personal experience of administrating large systems with widely geographically spread users, you really don't want your "rules" spread over more than one document. You're lucky if your users can manage to read one, let alone two. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just mentioning this, not endorsing it. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- "
- Just an observation and a question: I work quite a lot with law-texts and court-rulings, especially from German and, to a lesser extent, French law, but also have to look at English and US court rulings from time to time (it comes with my job). What strikes me here is, that, afaics, despite being named "Universal Code of conduct", imho the whole structure and use of words, the legalese if you will, is tilted towards those two mentioned last, with an emphasis of using US ways of formulating law texts/contracts. Those as a rule don't translate well into other languages, and have a different underlying philosophy to boot. Does anyone know if law-experts were heard, and if yes: where did they come from? If the answer is somewhere on Meta, I beg your pardon, but the whole over there is tl.dr...reminds me of this :). Lectonar (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Thank you for your answer, and yes, that's what I thought. But if I understand correctly, they will just translate the UCoC into other languages, and have it applied it to whatever Wikimedia project they are supporting, even if the project isn't based in the US. So calling it universal is at least hubris, imho. Not to talk of all the legal problems which might arise. Lectonar (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to see this as a non-issue, given that many open source projects with participants in multiple jurisdictions have codes of conduct, unless there is some reason why Wikipedia/the WMF is special? Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- One might mention the sheer size of Wikipedia, so yes, I see a difference there. But as for a hammer all problems are nails, I just look at the (legal) problems and implications that might arise. And I am not comfortable with the way this is going, but that's just a gut feeling. Lectonar (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- The more people refer to UCOC as "loyalty oath" and training as "indoctrination", the more I look forward to voting to ratify. Some folks seem to have forgotten about the community consultation phases and the makeup of the drafting committee. Levivich 12:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Considering that the WMF have mde it clear that they're going to be re-running the vote with minor tweaks to the policy until they get their desired result, I'm unsure that it really matters anyway. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- You're just making that up. Levivich 19:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich: I think you'll find that I'm not. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do WMF sometimes make startlingly boneheaded decisions? Yes. Are they the Evil Empire? No. They are a corporation in 2022 trying to deal with a culture that was originally primarily developed by young white men, and in 2022 that culture can occasionally cause problems, some of them very damaging. The reason that sounds familiar is because a lot of other organizations (and in a few cases entire industries) are dealing with the exact same thing. valereee (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I have realized once again that misunderstandings and lethargy can cause more going wrong in the world than cunning and wickedness do. At least, those two are certainly less common.
(von Goethe, J.W., The Sorrows of Young Werther, [2]) WMF is well stocked with misunderstandings and lethargy. You are right that there is a real problem, but let's be skeptical that they've found the solution. It is quite possible they will make things worse. Jehochman Talk 14:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think precisely zero people commenting here are unaware or indeed opposed to dealing with the problems that you mention. However, one could argue that the way it is being done is precisely the ham-fisted way that the WMF regularly conducts its work. Now, yes, partly this is because the Foundation is trying to create a one-size-fits-all-wikis model which means it is trying to cope with issues that enwiki doesn't have, such as articles being "fixed" to a particular political view by a ruling Arbcom or cadre of admins (there are specific examples of this). However, partly it is because is trying to strictly codify what editors cannot do, and that inevitably ends up with disruptive elements saying "well, it doesn't specifically say I can't do this" (just look at the introduction and the first three points of Para 3.1 - they're full of holes). Not to mention, in 3.3, Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view, which is pretty much a description of thousands upon thousands of edits per day, both is DS areas and outside them. That's not workable. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm just obtuse, but couldn't Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view be interpreted to prevent us from keeping WP:UNDUE material out of a series of articles? Would pushing one scholar's views into a footnote because of due weight as a result of Talk:CSS Baltic#New Albany? be "manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts" because it was decided to de-weight Bisbee's view? Hog Farm Talk 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure this is well-meaning, but given the WMF's tendency to foul up everything they touch, it makes me nervous. This will either be weaponized or ignored more than the speed limit. Maybe I've been listening to the hourly radio news too much, but this makes me think, given that I'm one of a shrinking number of open conservative-leaning people here, and that I primarily write in a subject matter area (American Civil War/Confederate stuff) that isn't on the popular side of political stuff right now, that I'm probably gonna be forced out for political reasons in another year or two. And for those who say there's no inherent political bias on Wikipedia, imagine the difference in community reaction for a new user who created a page saying "I love Trump, make Trump king" vs one who created "I love Obama, make Obama king". I am NOT endorsing either politician, just using this as an example Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I do not understand all that is involved here. But this seems to be handing over to someone other than our local community of editors the right to determine, for example, who can and cannot be an admin. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul August (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- 🙄 No. Levivich 19:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- If WMF thinks that I am going to sign some "loyalty oath" or take unpaid training classes, well—I'll let Lily Allen respond to them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: Why is loyalty oath in quotes? It's not actually in the proposed guidelines. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not in those exact words, no. I would hope I do not have to explain the use of scare quotes. That aside, I will not "pledge allegiance to the UCoC" (yes, hey, those exact words don't appear there either; please don't bother telling me that). I will promise to follow and enforce the standards of conduct that the English Wikipedia community has reached a consensus on; that and nothing else. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, so nothing you just said is incompatible with the enforcement guidelines (forgetting the training thing which I am not going to talk about right now). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, let's not "forget about" that; it's part of the proposal. And are you then telling me that if I refuse to sign such a pledge, or to take any such training—what happens then? Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: From my individual perspective, it is unclear what would happen to you if you didn't take the training, so I can't exactly answer that question. I'm still waiting to get a response from someone via email, so I don't feel comfortable talking about it until I receive one.
As for what would happen if you refused to sign the affirmation, nothing. While I am just a single member of the committee, and the draft was made the whole, I personally can't see any other way to interpret that section. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: From my individual perspective, it is unclear what would happen to you if you didn't take the training, so I can't exactly answer that question. I'm still waiting to get a response from someone via email, so I don't feel comfortable talking about it until I receive one.
- Well, let's not "forget about" that; it's part of the proposal. And are you then telling me that if I refuse to sign such a pledge, or to take any such training—what happens then? Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, so nothing you just said is incompatible with the enforcement guidelines (forgetting the training thing which I am not going to talk about right now). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not in those exact words, no. I would hope I do not have to explain the use of scare quotes. That aside, I will not "pledge allegiance to the UCoC" (yes, hey, those exact words don't appear there either; please don't bother telling me that). I will promise to follow and enforce the standards of conduct that the English Wikipedia community has reached a consensus on; that and nothing else. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: Why is loyalty oath in quotes? It's not actually in the proposed guidelines. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Non-admin editor here. I really don't understand the pushback from many of the editors above. The policy is clear and easily understandable to me. With only one bit of what could maybe be read as virtue signalling; the note on race and ethnicity, overall it strikes me as something that you'd see in many employment handbooks or open source projects in 2022. Though I know signing an affirmation on this is only required for certain advanced permissions beyond the typical editor set, I would be more than happy to sign it as a regular editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you're the sort of person that thinks "virtue signalling" is a thing, and you think that sentence is an example of it, I don't think you've read the objections to it very well. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I said it could be read as virtue signalling, not that I read it as virtue signalling. There is after all a difference between saying "I think X is Y" and "I see how someone else could think X is Y". As for the objections, I've read them repeatedly over the last few days as this discussion unfolded. As I said, I don't understand the pushback on it as the code seems pretty standard for codes of conduct you'd expect to find in modern employment handbooks or open source software projects, and nothing that has been written here has explained why some editors/admins are against it other than the surface level "this is a bad idea" or "this is badly written". If I could be so bold Black Kite, instead of biting at someone who doesn't understand your concerns, perhaps you could explain them beyond that surface level. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't really a bite, even though I believe that the use of the term "virtue signalling" as a negative is completely illogical. The WMF's statement says The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people". Forgetting "race" for a moment (that's a completely different argument) many people do take their ethnicity as a meaningful dstinction between themselves and others - and when you think about it is obviously one - it is major part of many people's self-identity. So for the WMF to say that they don't endorse ethnicity as a meaningful distinction, they're actually doing the very opposite of "virtue signalling" - they're telling people that their ethnicity is irrelevant. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- But ethnicity is irrelevant...when it comes to UCOC and its enforcement. Come on, you're an adult, you understand perfectly well what that means is that we don't discriminate based on race or ethnicity, and you're not opposed to that, you agree with that, obvi. Maybe it's not well-written, and that's a reason to go over to Meta and suggest better language (cuz that's what the evil WMF overlords want from us now... our feedback! The bastards!). It's not a reason to oppose the ucoc or ucoc enforcement. It's a complete straw man to argue that this line is somehow not respecting peoples ethnic identities. Levivich 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- C'mon, you must understand the problem with that paragraph. Even if I believed that is what the WMF meant (and I strongly suspect it was written by someone who believes that race and ethnicity are the same thing, but whatever), then since ethnicity is clearly a part of many people's self-identity, why single it out like this? Why not include gender, sexual identity, sexual orientation, age, religion etc, etc? It specifically picks out those two as something the WMF "doesn't endorse". It makes no sense whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ethnicity being a major part of a person's self-identity in their personal life? Sure, I agree that it's an important thing for many people. But equally for many people, including myself, ethnicity is absolutely meaningless. While I may have citizenship of two countries because of my birth, I have no care for the arbitrary lines on the map that make up those countries. Though straying into FORUM territory, my perfect ideal for this planet is that anyone can live their life freely anywhere they want. Countries kinda get in the way of that. However when taken in context, by my reading, that is not why that statement is there. That statement is there because there are a subset of people who use ethnicity (and race) purely in a derogative manner. It is clear to me from the context of that subsection, it is only targeting editors who would use any such identifier in a derogative manner. The reason why I said it could be read as "virtue signalling" was precisely because it was not needed. The WMF could have left ethnicity and race in the list of unacceptable differentiators, without comment and without making what can be read as a political statement on whether or not those are valid distinctions to make. It fulfils the criteria of "virtue signalling" because objectively it has no effect. To use another editor's ethnicity in a derogative manner is a violation of the UCoC regardless of whether the WMF believe or do not believe it to be a meaningful distinction. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- And most of that I agree with. But see what I wrote in reply to Levivich above. Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I just don't like that "note" because it seemingly implies that
intelligence, appearance, religion (or lack thereof), culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, sex, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, etc.
are all meaningful distinctions one can make amongst people. I feel that alone is enough case to just axe that parenthetical statement. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I just don't like that "note" because it seemingly implies that
- And most of that I agree with. But see what I wrote in reply to Levivich above. Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't really a bite, even though I believe that the use of the term "virtue signalling" as a negative is completely illogical. The WMF's statement says The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people". Forgetting "race" for a moment (that's a completely different argument) many people do take their ethnicity as a meaningful dstinction between themselves and others - and when you think about it is obviously one - it is major part of many people's self-identity. So for the WMF to say that they don't endorse ethnicity as a meaningful distinction, they're actually doing the very opposite of "virtue signalling" - they're telling people that their ethnicity is irrelevant. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Someday Wikipedia might have to fire WMF and replace them with something better. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I said over at Meta, there's a big difference between supporting the UCoC itself, and supporting the enforcement guidelines, which are a clear overreach. No other volunteer role on these projects has mandatory training mandated by the back office, or a forced pledge of loyalty to a document. I've seen some trying to deny that this is an attempt to force every single admin on every single project to do this "affirmation" as they call it, but the enforcement guidelines state pretty clearly say that it will be expected right away from new or renewing holders of advanced permissions, and eventually from existing ones. So, for example, if an admin takes a break from being an admin for a few months, 'crats would now be required to ask for proof of "affirmation" to the UCoC before restoring the flag. Failure to do so means the 'crats are now in violation of the enforcement guidelines and subject to removal for not following the UCoC. This is not ok and it will adversely effect this project. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. Hate speech is not the biggest issue at en.wiki, but formally banning hate speech is very welcome, especially at Wikipedias in other languages (anyone remember Kubura?). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- The exact wording about existing admins is "
This may be changed on review after a year following the ratification of these guidelines.
" Call me cynical, but I think this is a code for "We know there will be a revolt if we try to impose it on everyone immediately, so we will wait until it is well established first." Zerotalk 11:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Emergency captcha enable
Given the ongoing severe botnet disruption. Emergency captcha mode has been enabled. Seddon talk 02:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- This has now been disabled 🙂 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 16:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I guess this is about mw:Extension:ConfirmEdit#EmergencyCaptcha_mode, which requires unregistered and non-autoconfirmed users to solve a captcha for every edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: Indeed it was—should note its off again now -- TNT (talk • she/her) 22:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks! :D ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: Indeed it was—should note its off again now -- TNT (talk • she/her) 22:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Seddon Do you maintain Wikipedia? Just wondering how you can change the base settings here. Who enables captcha mode? You or someone else? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- In this instances the WMF's Site Reliability Team oversaw the deployment of the config changes, but the decision was made by a cohort of admins who requested their assistance in dealing with the situation. Seddon talk 23:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Seddon And who are in this reliability team? Are you in it? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Itcouldbepossible:, very roughly this is the SRE team. I know that page is out of date, because it has Seddon in the advancement team (fundraising, amongst other bits), which is no longer correct. Seddon isn't SRE, I believe, but as a staff member and long-term volunteer, likely stepped in to help as a go between Nosebagbear (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Itcouldbepossible: In this instance I was acting in my capacity as an admin here @ enwiki, along with a number of other admins who were responding to this situation from Thursday-Saturday. As @Nosebagbear references, as well as an admin here at enwiki, I am also a software engineer with the WMF although not a member of the SRE team. I've got experience with situations like this, was also a former community liaison and so was facilitating and assisting both fellow editors and staff members through the situation. Seddon talk 15:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear@Seddon Thanks to both of you for your reply. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 10:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Seddon And who are in this reliability team? Are you in it? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- In this instances the WMF's Site Reliability Team oversaw the deployment of the config changes, but the decision was made by a cohort of admins who requested their assistance in dealing with the situation. Seddon talk 23:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal (Grandmaster)
There is clear consensus that the TBAN should not be overturned. Additionally, as there were multiple comments unhappy with the speed of the appeal, this TBAN should not be appealed at AN/AE for an additional six months (22nd August) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to appeal my indefinite AA topic ban per this report: [3] The reason for the ban was that I posted a link to a news site article in a talk page discussion. While I agree that the link that I posted was not a reliable source, I never used it in the article, nor did I propose to use it. It was only posted in the Threaded discussion, and you can check that discussion here: [4] The discussion was an RFC about the usage of the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" with regard to the city of Agdam, and I only posted that link to demonstrate that the analogy with nuclear devastation is used by sources outside of Azerbaijan, since it was claimed that the term was a propaganda by Azerbaijan. I admit that I should have paid more attention to check that the news article was a share of a post on Facebook. But everyone can make a mistake. I don't think that indefinite topic ban is an appropriate punishment for simply posting a link in a talk page discussion. The case was finally closed today by the enforcing admin himself after almost a month of deliberation. I would like to ask the community to look into this issue, and see if the topic ban was an appropriate action in this situation. Of course, I promise to be more attentive when posting links in talk page discussions. Thank you. Grandmaster 17:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Could a steward remove death threats from my azwiki page? [5] Grandmaster 00:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Seems to be BaxçeyêReş a sockpuppet. Reverted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose You were completely deaf to all arguments to the contrary. Your modus operandi is to deny, divert, deny, abuse, divert and deny again. Frankly I think that you should be slapped with a wider ban. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- responded here –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- For the record: Laurel Lodged is not among administrators. Brandmeistertalk 20:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- And why does that matter? The guide for appealing arbitration enforcement bans states that they can be lifted by
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
. There is no requirement that commenters here must be an administrator - if they want the ban to be reviewed only by admins the request should be made at WP:AE. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)- Laurel Lodged is not uninvolved editor. Grandmaster 22:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am uninvolved in this case. I did not participate in the AN case that imposed the ban. I am participating here because I have experience of Grandmaster and his Azeri-spinning tricks. Wiki is better off without him. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- That does not make you uninvolved, and your uncivil comments are not helpful either. I hope admins monitoring this page will pay attention to them. I've been waiting for you to respond to my comment at Talk:Fuzuli International Airport since November 2021 to explain why you removed the link to Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh [6], while Fizuli town was considered occupied by UN SC resolutions, OSCE, PACE, and the rest of the international community. You clearly not a third party here, we have had previous involvement. Grandmaster 10:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Was that contribution supposed to prove how dispassionate that you have become since the ban and that you no longer hold on to positions like a dog with a stick? If so, it's failed. I think that you just scored an own goal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- That does not make you uninvolved, and your uncivil comments are not helpful either. I hope admins monitoring this page will pay attention to them. I've been waiting for you to respond to my comment at Talk:Fuzuli International Airport since November 2021 to explain why you removed the link to Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh [6], while Fizuli town was considered occupied by UN SC resolutions, OSCE, PACE, and the rest of the international community. You clearly not a third party here, we have had previous involvement. Grandmaster 10:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am uninvolved in this case. I did not participate in the AN case that imposed the ban. I am participating here because I have experience of Grandmaster and his Azeri-spinning tricks. Wiki is better off without him. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Laurel Lodged is not uninvolved editor. Grandmaster 22:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- And why does that matter? The guide for appealing arbitration enforcement bans states that they can be lifted by
- Oppose : You got banned by a consensus of uninvolved administrators for showing biased editing based on ethnicity, pretending to regret biased tendentious editing warring hours after being sanctioned for it is not convincing, courtesy pinging @Rosguill: as original sectioning admin. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- This looks like another comment from a user who is hardly uninvolved, as manifested by their very recent involvement in an AA2 topic on a BLP noticeboard. Parishan (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose an easing of the ban at this time. I didn't state an opinion in the Arbitration Enforcement but did mediate a dispute at DRN with Grandmaster and another now-banned editor. I can and could see that Grandmaster is an editor who focuses on one battleground border zone of the world, the war zone between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The appropriate response to the topic ban would be to edit in other areas for six months, and then appeal the topic ban. Appealing the topic ban the same day as it was finalized seems to show that they are not interested in any other area of encyclopedic coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I edit mostly Azerbaijan related articles, since I know this topic very well, and there are very few editors from that country here. But I also edit articles that have tangential connection with my main topic of interest. For example, in the last few days I created articles about White Russian officers who were briefly involved in the battle of Baku in 1918. Lazar Bicherakhov and Georgy Dokuchaev are both DYK nominated, but I need to make minor fixes to pass the nomination. Am I allowed to do that now? I have no idea if those are considered AA related. Also, I edit not just Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict related topics, I contributed pretty much to every notable Azerbaijan related article. For example, I have recently largely rewrote the article about Gobustan State Historical and Cultural Reserve, which is a world heritage site, and was in a very bad shape. Over the years, I have made tens of thousands edits to Azerbaijan related articles. So I don't think my contributions should be seen in a narrow context. Grandmaster 01:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I edit mostly Azerbaijan related articles, since I know this topic very well, and there are very few editors from that country here.
- Grandmaster forgive me for being blunt, but you were the organizer of Russian Wikipedia's pro-Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination list, official ArbCom case. It included 26 users, mostly Azerbaijani, all of them got blocked I think for various lenghts. If I'm not wrong, most of the people in that list have English Wikipedia accounts as well, two of them actually commented in this very case. Please don't make such statements again, I almost fell of my chair. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Russian Wikipedia is a separate project. What happens there has no concern to other language projects, including English Wikipedia. And that was 12 (!) years ago. Also, you are not uninvolved editor either. Last time we crossed our paths at the same BLP board, and it was only a couple of days ago. [7] Grandmaster 07:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by “separate project”, I think my comment was clear enough and directed to your specific statement. And where exactly I claimed I was “uninvolved”? That doesn’t limit me of the right to comment. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- You know very well that editors don't get sanctioned across different projects for what they do in any one language chapter. Yet you keep bringing up that more than a decade old case in every discussion involving me. For the record, I'm still a regular editor to the Russian wiki, and still contribute there with no sanctions and limitations for over a decade. Anyone can check my contribs there. And I believe reinserting slanderous claims with nonsense sourcing to a BLP article is a lot worse than posting a link to an anti-war article on a talk page discussion. Somehow one gets sanctioned, and the other does not. I have probably chosen a wrong place to appeal, as this place attracts also those who have axes to grind with me for preventing their BLP or other violations. My understanding was that only uninvolved editors will get to decide on this. Grandmaster 09:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- There is no merit in you listing the areas that you have worked on that are unrelated to the topic ban. It's not like you had much choice. What would help your case would be examples of you curbing the excesses of editors with an Azeri bias. For example, if you had demonstrated that you observed an editor doing the same things that got you banned and gently suggested to that editor that he desist from such activity, that would help this appeal. But you have adduced no such evidence. Probably because no such evidence exists. Probably because this leopard has not changed his spots. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Grandmaster, I'm not sure you're helping anyone with your accusatory behavior. I'm also not sure why you bring up a BLP discussion in your appeal, since judging from my actions (or lack thereof), I was satisfied with the explanation given to my comment in that discussion. For the record, I'm still planning to look for better sources as I don't think it would be hard to find, but I didn't have the time yet because of irl responsibilities.
- I also don't think you understood me, I'll repeat for the last time:
I edit mostly Azerbaijan related articles, since I know this topic very well, and there are very few editors from that country here.
- You stated this just above, which I find ironic/laughable/untrue to put it lightly. I reminded you the ru-wiki meat case with whopping 26 Azeri users, most of which have English Wikipedia accounts and couple commented here as well. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- You know very well that editors don't get sanctioned across different projects for what they do in any one language chapter. Yet you keep bringing up that more than a decade old case in every discussion involving me. For the record, I'm still a regular editor to the Russian wiki, and still contribute there with no sanctions and limitations for over a decade. Anyone can check my contribs there. And I believe reinserting slanderous claims with nonsense sourcing to a BLP article is a lot worse than posting a link to an anti-war article on a talk page discussion. Somehow one gets sanctioned, and the other does not. I have probably chosen a wrong place to appeal, as this place attracts also those who have axes to grind with me for preventing their BLP or other violations. My understanding was that only uninvolved editors will get to decide on this. Grandmaster 09:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by “separate project”, I think my comment was clear enough and directed to your specific statement. And where exactly I claimed I was “uninvolved”? That doesn’t limit me of the right to comment. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Russian Wikipedia is a separate project. What happens there has no concern to other language projects, including English Wikipedia. And that was 12 (!) years ago. Also, you are not uninvolved editor either. Last time we crossed our paths at the same BLP board, and it was only a couple of days ago. [7] Grandmaster 07:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- I edit mostly Azerbaijan related articles, since I know this topic very well, and there are very few editors from that country here. But I also edit articles that have tangential connection with my main topic of interest. For example, in the last few days I created articles about White Russian officers who were briefly involved in the battle of Baku in 1918. Lazar Bicherakhov and Georgy Dokuchaev are both DYK nominated, but I need to make minor fixes to pass the nomination. Am I allowed to do that now? I have no idea if those are considered AA related. Also, I edit not just Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict related topics, I contributed pretty much to every notable Azerbaijan related article. For example, I have recently largely rewrote the article about Gobustan State Historical and Cultural Reserve, which is a world heritage site, and was in a very bad shape. Over the years, I have made tens of thousands edits to Azerbaijan related articles. So I don't think my contributions should be seen in a narrow context. Grandmaster 01:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Spend at least six months making neutral improvements to articles that have nothing to do with Azerbaijan and Armenia. Aggressive nationalism is incompatible with Wikipedia editing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment While appealing after a substantially long period of exemplary behaviour and signs of accepting the systematically wrong approach he upheld for AA2 articles would qualify for a TBAN review, I am sorry to see Grandmaster's continued attempts of trivialising his systematic issue to a single "accidental mistake" and I am inclined to view this appeal as forum shopping / admin shopping - raising the same issue on another board, or to other admins, in the hope of finding one with the answer he wants. (a.k.a. "asking the other parent".) Two admins looked into the case - 1) Rosguill with his spotless record of being an impartial arbiter / reviewer of AA2 topics who concluded that Grandmaster's arguments belie a mentality that should have been unlearnt after 16 years of editing Wikipedia and 2) Ealdgyth, who, without previous knowledge of AA2 area, was able to support the TBAN based on the the user's overall contributions, concluding that when a topic area is contentious, the way to deal with it is to step up editing and behave better, not sink down into the mud further. --Armatura (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (the original AE report filer).
- Oppose per Robert McClenon and Cullen328. starship.paint (exalt) 01:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - The delayed reaction to close the case normally works in the favor of the reported party, gives time for things to cool down. In this case, the admin felt that there was ample clear evidence to warrant a topic ban. In fact, I had to warn you about being verbose, which you promptly ignored (I did one act of clerking, I didn't comment on the merits in this report). So in fact, instead of being limited to 500 words, the norm at WP:AE, you managed to put get in almost 2000 words, 4x the amount we normally allow. You had plenty of time and space to make your case. It is a judgement call, and given the evidence, it was the most likely outcome. As you haven't provided any evidence of a fatal flaw in the close, of any kind, this appeal shouldn't have even taken place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting. I tried to follow your advice, and keep it short, but since another user was accusing me of various other things, I had to respond to that as well. It is really hard to keep it short when you have to respond to so many things, and not just something you were originally reported for. You can see that that user's comments take almost as much space as mine. Anyway, sorry for using too much space, and making it hard to navigate through. Grandmaster 10:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree you needed more space, which is why I didn't say anything, but the point is, you were given ample opportunity to explain your edits. Sometimes, when you are in the wrong, no amount of explaining is going to make a difference. For what it is worth, you would have been better off spending a few of those words admitting the problem and explaining how you would move forward without the questionable behavior, but that requires some reflection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think that you have hit the nail on the head there @Dennis Brown: I have seen no contribution from Grandmaster that shows reflection, let alone remorse for his actions. Without some act of contrition, how can he move to the next stage - resolving to never do it again. Some voluntary penance would also be nice, such as coaching other Azeri-POV editors to be more NPOV. But I can't see that happening because this leopard is incapable of changing his spots IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree you needed more space, which is why I didn't say anything, but the point is, you were given ample opportunity to explain your edits. Sometimes, when you are in the wrong, no amount of explaining is going to make a difference. For what it is worth, you would have been better off spending a few of those words admitting the problem and explaining how you would move forward without the questionable behavior, but that requires some reflection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
172.58.222.209 page blanking spree?
I just blocked 172.58.222.209 for a week because they're blanking user pages like crazy, i.e. a page every few seconds. Anybody know what's going on here. Is this just random vandalism, or part of the recent botnet mess? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I have reverted all his contributions. By the way, what is the botnet mess? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- See #Emergency captcha enable above. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @RoySmith Ok, but I thought that to run bots here it needs the approval of the bot approval group? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- A botnet, in case you didn't know, is a large network of computers typicly used in DDoS attacks and other malicious activities. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 03:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @NightWolf1223 Can a botnet be used on Wikipedia? I thought it had captcha to make accounts. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- They could possibly be ordered to make anon edits. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 03:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- And what are anon edits? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Edits made logged out. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 03:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @NightWolf1223 Ok, got it. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 13:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Edits made logged out. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 03:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- And what are anon edits? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- They could possibly be ordered to make anon edits. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 03:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @NightWolf1223 Can a botnet be used on Wikipedia? I thought it had captcha to make accounts. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- A botnet, in case you didn't know, is a large network of computers typicly used in DDoS attacks and other malicious activities. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 03:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @RoySmith Ok, but I thought that to run bots here it needs the approval of the bot approval group? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- See #Emergency captcha enable above. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
BAG is not technically necessary in order to run a bot. It's them who allow you to under our rules, but the server software would allow other bots. The only way the software has to prevent a bot from doing things is the captcha; this prevents account creation and external linking by anons, but not standard edits. 2.55.174.255 (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional info. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Film series and spin-off films
Not an AN issue. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. I can see that almost every spin-off films are included in the lists of film series in the List of feature film series with (number) entries articles. I don't think it's actually correct, as most spin-off films are not a part of the film series, but a separate film in the same franchise as the film series. I guess that if it's a spin-off/sequel hybrid film like Men in Black: International (part of the Men in Black franchise) and Finding Dory (part of the Finding Nemo franchise), it should be included in the lists of film series since it's 50 % spin-off/50 % part of the film series. But if it's a 100 % separate spin-off film that's not a part of the film series like Hobbs & Shaw (part of the Fast & Furious franchise), Lightyear (part of the Toy Story franchise), Planes 1 and 2 (part of the Cars franchise), Lavalantula 1 and 2 (part of the Sharknado franchise), and Minions 1 and 2 (part of the Despicable Me franchise), it should not be included in the lists of film series. So I think we should either remove every 100 % spin-off films from these lists in these articles or rename the articles where the word series is replaced with the word franchise. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Karamellpudding1999 This doesn't seem to specifically require an administrator; proposals for changes to the content of the encyclopedia should be made at the Village Pump if they involve multiple articles. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Systematic removal of sourcing to a particular author at multiple articles
ConstantPlancks has been removing citations to the work of a particular author, Fabio Parasecoli, at multiple articles for "not being notable" (due to Parasecoli not being the subject of an article?) and accusing other editors of "astroturfing" and promotional edits for using those sources. I think it's possible the editor has confused reliable source vs. article subject notability, but they're pushing back on their talk page and at article talks.
- Removal and accusations of astroturfing at Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four
- Removal and accusations of astroturfing at Gastronationalism
- Here, here, here.
There’s also a concern about repeated edit warring, which has been discussed at their talk, and they’ve pushed back on that, too.
- Special:Diff/1072896014, again at Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four; followup here and here
Special:Permalink/1073213234#Elk is an earlier concern about edit-warring- Pushback on whether this is a content vs. behavior issue
This is a newish and I’m sure well-intentioned editor, but this seemed like it might need input from others. I thought about taking it to RSN, but that didn’t seem exactly right when all the removals were about the same author and when there seemed to be unwillingness to reconsider whether a source needs to be "notable", and especially with the accusations of astroturfing and the edit warring and refusal to consider whether this was appropriate for user talk discussion, it seemed to be a behavior issue rather than a content dispute. valereee (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not so much the disagreement as to the content of any particular article that is concerning, but more the battleground approach they seem to have to bring each time. This is exacerbated by the repeated casting of aspersions and BLP violations, which have not only been repeated in multiple edit summaries and in multiple posts, but doubled down upon. SN54129 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- (Actually, I'm wondering od WP:CIR applies; the response below is tone-deaf to the behavioral issues identified (let alone their continued aspersions). SN54129 16:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC))
- The removals are discussed on the talk pages of the article. They are all policy and guideline removals. They are justified on the talk page. There is no edit warring and the removals of a fringe economic opinion in an article about Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four by a Food and Nutrition professor are justified. The sourcing tied to that professor are either trivial or unreliable. Most of the removals are just removing the source as it is duplicative and appear to exist solely for the benefit of improving the notoriety of the professor. As I said on the talk page of one of MANY articles he is inexplicably mentioned, someone familiar with astroturfing campaigns should review these mentions. There are no BLP violations (??). I have not accused anyone of engaging in astrurfing only that there appears that the encyclopedia is astroturfed. There simply was no reason given for the poor sourcing and trivial mentions. As an example, one of the sources is from a political advocacy organization's magazine used as the second source for a claim. It appears that getting a mention as a source was the goal rather than adding content. Removing the political advocacy source did not change the content of the article or sourcing for facts in the article. ConstantPlancks (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @ConstantPlancks, I object to the characterization of my edits as appear to exist solely for the benefit of improving the notoriety of the professor and It appears that getting a mention as a source was the goal rather than adding content. Please strike both accusations. valereee (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am not characterizing you or your edits in any way. Indeed, I don't even know what edits are yours. I characterized the sources in the article as unnecessary. It is also unreliable. The source was a single political newsletter citation used as a duplicate source 3 times.
- This is the removal in question. Borgen Magazine is not a reliable source. It was used as the source to justify quoting the professor trivially and then sprinkled as a source in 2 other places that already had reliable sources. This is a CE removal of an unnecessary and unreliable. No content was removed. ConstantPlancks (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- FTR I told you yesterday the addition of that source was mine. It was a very short post, and you responded, so you must have seen that. Strike the accusations. valereee (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also the new one: It was used as the source to justify quoting the professor trivially. These are serious accusations. valereee (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I apologize for any poor wording that might be miscontrued as being personal. It is not intended to be. Rather it describes the state of the article. The quote of the professor was a triviallity. we can have that content discussion but it's my opinion about content, not an attack on you. ConstantPlancks (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also the new one: It was used as the source to justify quoting the professor trivially. These are serious accusations. valereee (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- FTR I told you yesterday the addition of that source was mine. It was a very short post, and you responded, so you must have seen that. Strike the accusations. valereee (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @ConstantPlancks, I object to the characterization of my edits as appear to exist solely for the benefit of improving the notoriety of the professor and It appears that getting a mention as a source was the goal rather than adding content. Please strike both accusations. valereee (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Fabio Parasecoli is a respected academic who has written many books that have been reviewed extensively and widely cited by other academics. Just take a look at his listing at Google Scholar. The notion that he should not be cited on Wikipedia is, frankly, bizarre. This repeated use of the pejorative terms "astroturfing" and "spam" is a BLP violation against the professor and a personal attack against two very experienced editors. It amounts to an accusation that this professor and these two editors are colluding to get mentions of his books into as many Wikipedia articles as possible. One of ConstantPlancks edit summaries reads "rm spam to sell cookbook of non-notable shef" which is glaringly inaccurate. The book is not a cookbook and Parasecoli is not a chef. ConstantPlancks has a bee in their bonnet, and they need to stop this campaign of casting aspersions on this professor and the editors who cite his work. Cullen328 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: Agree that was a flip edit summary. Consider though that Parasecoli was being cited for a capitalism quote and cited 5 times in an article about Nineteen Eighty-Four. That was very weird. Also weird is the same editor objects to a CE removal in a different article [8]. That article was created by a SPA as obvious copy/paste job. It left a citation fragment without indication. I made a CE to remove the unreferenced fragment. Still reverted by editor that has history with that article as well (making an edit 5 minutes after creation). ConstantPlancks (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- A veiled aspersion^^^ is still an aspersion. Clearly, the reason I had the article on my watchlist is because I had patrolled it almost five years ago. And, far from my "history with that article" being some kind of conspiracy, my exact edit was to slap a bunch of tags on a crummy article with the reason give:
It does not currently adhere to almost any of WP:MOS
. Yet again you are demonstrating an inability to not personalize your editing. Much as you keep referring to 1984, etc., as you have been told, this is not the place to discuss content: this forum is for editor's behavior, and no side-alleying into gastronomics can affect that or distract from it. SN54129 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)- You reverted a clean-up to restore a fragment the just says "Parasecoli: 2014" with no indication that there is a source. There is no source in that article with Parasecoli listed as an author. [9] Second article you did that and left warnings on my talk page that I would be blocked. ConstantPlancks (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- A veiled aspersion^^^ is still an aspersion. Clearly, the reason I had the article on my watchlist is because I had patrolled it almost five years ago. And, far from my "history with that article" being some kind of conspiracy, my exact edit was to slap a bunch of tags on a crummy article with the reason give:
- My edits come down to three things:
- 1. The opinion expressed by Parasecoli that Oceania actually has excess food due to extreme capitalism is a fringe view.
- 2 That Borgen Magazine" is an unreliable source for WP as it is published by a political advocacy org.
- 3 Parasecoli is a notable Food and Nutrition professor that should be cited properly according to WP:RS.
- Anything beyond that reasoning is not intended and I don't mean to imply anything nefarious. ConstantPlancks (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@ConstantPlancks:, as an uninvolved outside observer, perhaps you will find my input helpful. I think you are missing something fundamental here. When multiple long-time editors across multiple articles and talk pages are telling you that something is amiss with your editing pattern, the thing to do is not try to justify those edits or keep making them. The thing to do is stop that pattern and gain acceptance of your actions. This is a collaborative project and both communication with your fellow editors and building agreement with those editors are required. At this point, the justifiability or lack thereof of any particular removal of Parasecoli is not the issue. The issue is whether you intend to continue removing these and why. I hope that helps explain some things. 20:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs)
- On the talk pages where I removed things, the consensus appears to be the removals were justified. The anger appears to be with the edit summaries which I apologize for. ConstantPlancks (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- CP, when you simply remove a citation (even like simply 'Parasecoli 2014' which was in the Migrants article with no corresponding source) you remove any clue for other editors to follow. I've found Parasecoli, Fabio (2014). "Food, Identity, and Cultural Reproduction in Immigrant Communities". Social Research. 81 (2): 415–439. doi:10.2307/26549625. ISSN 0037-783X. which looks to be quite likely the source the article creator -- which looks like students in a class -- originally cited to and forgot to include in the sources. College students creating articles (badly) is common here. That doesn't mean we make the situation worse by deleting those clues. It means we clean up.
- And your objection to this fails to address your apparent fixation on Parasecoli. I think you should stop editing around Parasecoli. valereee (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have no way of deleting clues. It's all in the history. That was a copy edit routinely used to removes floating, irrelevant text. It's still in the history. Every other floating MOS failing references were removed by other editors (~50 ??). I don't have a fixation on Parsecoli. As I said, I was reading the 1984 article when a fringe view was cited as fact. That single google book source was cited 5 times in 1984 article and the author mentioned by name twice, including a red link. That was odd. The next article he was cited 3 times, named once and the source was from a political advocacy journal. It seems his food and culture citations are fine and peer reviewed. His political and economic views appear to be fringe and deserve scrutiny. Search wikipedia for his name turns up many articles on food and culture, none of which I edited. Nor does Parsecoli change the fact that Borgen Magazine is not a reliable source. If he's that notable for his opinion on such a broad range of topics, create a biographical article on him. I had never heard of him before reading his economic views in the 1984 article. Forgive me if the article's reliance on his views seemed odd. ConstantPlancks (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- There's no realistic way that any editor can be expected to know there is a incomplete ref in the article history that some editor deleted. If an editor finds something is uncited, they're going to assume it was added uncited. They're not going to think there was an incomplete ref (or any ref) but an editor deleted it since probably 99.9% of the time that won't be the case. Very rarely if something is very obscure and doesn't seem to be found in other sources an editor may find out who added something and see if they have a source and in doing so they'll probably notice it was added with an incomplete ref. But most of the time the detail is going to be deleted, tagged or left unsourced. By comparison, when an editor comes across an incomplete ref they can immediately see there was an attempt to source the text. They may look in the history to see if something is lost, or they may simply look for the source. Or yes they may delete the detail, tag it or left it with the incomplete source. If the editor does try to complete ref, the may find that the ref isn't suitable for Wikipedia and will need to deal with that. Or they may find it's perfectly fine and they'll complete the details and collobration will have worked. Note that beyond helping to find reference, unusual and incomplete references can sometimes indicate that the text was copied from an external source so while plenty of editors aren't going to do this, some editors may also check the history to work out if this happened depending on the precise presentation. Nil Einne (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: There was no uncited material. I didn't remove any article content because an additional reference wasn't needed . It added nothing to the article. The sentence fragment it appeared in is supported by every source on the topic. The article is about migrant food consumption and the sentence fragment stated migrants used local ingredients in migrant dishes. Every source on the topic states this and indeed the next source supported that fragment. So either it was misplaced in the editing process or it was trivial. The CE to remove it is more akin to a spelling or formatting issue. ConstantPlancks (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- It really isn't akin to a spelling or formatting issue, and I'm growing increasingly concerned that you aren't willing to listen to and learn from people who are more experienced. @ConstantPlancks, do you intend to continue making these kinds of removals? valereee (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: There was no uncited material. I didn't remove any article content because an additional reference wasn't needed . It added nothing to the article. The sentence fragment it appeared in is supported by every source on the topic. The article is about migrant food consumption and the sentence fragment stated migrants used local ingredients in migrant dishes. Every source on the topic states this and indeed the next source supported that fragment. So either it was misplaced in the editing process or it was trivial. The CE to remove it is more akin to a spelling or formatting issue. ConstantPlancks (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- There's no realistic way that any editor can be expected to know there is a incomplete ref in the article history that some editor deleted. If an editor finds something is uncited, they're going to assume it was added uncited. They're not going to think there was an incomplete ref (or any ref) but an editor deleted it since probably 99.9% of the time that won't be the case. Very rarely if something is very obscure and doesn't seem to be found in other sources an editor may find out who added something and see if they have a source and in doing so they'll probably notice it was added with an incomplete ref. But most of the time the detail is going to be deleted, tagged or left unsourced. By comparison, when an editor comes across an incomplete ref they can immediately see there was an attempt to source the text. They may look in the history to see if something is lost, or they may simply look for the source. Or yes they may delete the detail, tag it or left it with the incomplete source. If the editor does try to complete ref, the may find that the ref isn't suitable for Wikipedia and will need to deal with that. Or they may find it's perfectly fine and they'll complete the details and collobration will have worked. Note that beyond helping to find reference, unusual and incomplete references can sometimes indicate that the text was copied from an external source so while plenty of editors aren't going to do this, some editors may also check the history to work out if this happened depending on the precise presentation. Nil Einne (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have no way of deleting clues. It's all in the history. That was a copy edit routinely used to removes floating, irrelevant text. It's still in the history. Every other floating MOS failing references were removed by other editors (~50 ??). I don't have a fixation on Parsecoli. As I said, I was reading the 1984 article when a fringe view was cited as fact. That single google book source was cited 5 times in 1984 article and the author mentioned by name twice, including a red link. That was odd. The next article he was cited 3 times, named once and the source was from a political advocacy journal. It seems his food and culture citations are fine and peer reviewed. His political and economic views appear to be fringe and deserve scrutiny. Search wikipedia for his name turns up many articles on food and culture, none of which I edited. Nor does Parsecoli change the fact that Borgen Magazine is not a reliable source. If he's that notable for his opinion on such a broad range of topics, create a biographical article on him. I had never heard of him before reading his economic views in the 1984 article. Forgive me if the article's reliance on his views seemed odd. ConstantPlancks (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
ConstantPlancks, I am concerned by your repeated assertion that Borgen Magazine is not a reliable source. I have checked the archives of all the noticeboards and I see no discussion of the reliability of this magazine anywhere, except in this conversation. It is used as a source in many articles and I see no evidence that its use has been controversial. Can you point me to any such discussion? Yes, it is the magazine of an advocacy group. They advocate for an end to extreme poverty. That is hardly a fringe view. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
So, unless you can produce evidence of consensus that this particular magazine is unreliable, you do not have any basis for that assertion. Another concern I have is that you repeatedly suggest that Fabio Parasecoli is not a reliable source because he is not notable and that is because he lacks a Wikipedia article, and that other editors should write a biography of him if they want to cite him. These repeated comments seem to indicate that you are conflating reliability with notability. These are very different concepts on Wikipedia that should not be confused. There are sources that are reliable but not notable. Many small town newspapers fall into this category, but they are reliable for news of their locales. There are also sources that are indisputably notable but not reliable. My favorite examples are Der Stürmer and the Weekly World News. Those notable publications are glaringly unreliable. Never consider the absence or presence of a Wikipedia article about a source to be evidence for or against the reliability of that source, although if an article exists, it may contain useful evidence one way or another. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Borgen Magazine is a product of The Borgen Project. It doesn't have to be neutral but it has to be reliable. Who are the editors that make it reliable? What is their publication process? Their self-stated goal is admirable but self-publishing a goal is not the measure of reliability. The stated objective of the organization is advocacy
nearly every wrong ever righted in history was achieved through advocacy
. That's the opposite of Wikipedias NPOV goal so using advocacy sources are unstable ground hat should be tread carefully (or not at all if better sources are available). Its reliability as a source is limited largely to attributed opinion. It's not reliable for unattributed fact just as The Heartland Institute isn't useful for unattributed fact. Context matters. AlsoIt is used as a source in many articles
andNever consider the absence or presence of a Wikipedia article about a source to be evidence for or against the reliability of that source
to be interesting juxtapositions in the same paragraph. I don't have anything against Borgen Magazine except for using them outside attributed opinion. e.g. They shouldn't be used for a hearsay quote from a person unaffiliated with the group because we don't know their angle other than knowing they have an angle. From WP:RSReliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
Demonstrate their qualification. ConstantPlancks (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC) - As an example, see this reference removal [10]. I apologize for the edit summary but the removal is justified. Borgen is the 3rd source for an opinion. It's a 3rd hand account. The other 2 sources are peer reviewed. Why should we keep it as a citation? Article content is unaffected and they are not the author of the opinion they are being attributed with. We have 2 citations directly to the author Michaela DeSoucey who did not publish this opinion in Borgen. But Borgen is being cited. Why? ConstantPlancks (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- The academic credentials of Fabio Parasecoli should be well known to you by now or to anyone who can use Google Scholar even though you originally falsely described him as a cookbook author and chef. As for the magazine, your bare assertion without evidence that it is unreliable is not persuasive. Either seek consensus for your assessment at WP:RSN or drop the matter. Cullen328 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- ConstantPlancks, you keep making arguments that you were correct on content and sourcing, which a. is IMO incorrect and b. doesn’t matter in this venue. I will be happy to argue those with you at the correct venues, but please stop arguing here that your edits were correct and therefore your behavior is not an issue. That is not how Wikipedia works.
- The bigger problem is that you want to keep arguing why you're right and everyone else is wrong. You have 230 edits. Cullen has 81000. Nil Einne has 68000. Eggishorn has 17000. All of these editors have much, much more experience than you do. When multiple highly-experienced editors try to tell you something, stop arguing and start listening because there's probably something you don't understand.
- We're here because you refused to keep talking to me (52K edits, btw) and SN54129 (90K) at your user talk and told me to take it to a noticeboard. Because you are so inexperienced, people are trying to be helpful and kind here, but they do expect you to be willing to learn, and you seem to be refusing to do so. valereee (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Random side thought - I just did a quick search for sources, in the same way I would do a WP:BEFORE search if an article was at AfD. I have no doubt that Fabio Parasecoli is notable, under WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR, and that if someone wrote an article about him, it would be retained. I might do so myself actually, now I've done the search, unless someone beats me to it. Girth Summit (blether) 12:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- ConstantPlancks, and this is exactly why we create redlinks: not to signal that a subject isn't notable but to indicate we think they might be and hope that someone will come along who is willing to do that work. valereee (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I made a start - see Fabio Parasecoli. valereee, Cullen328 - feel free to contribute - you're probably better at this kind of subject than I am! Girth Summit (blether) 13:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- ConstantPlancks, and this is exactly why we create redlinks: not to signal that a subject isn't notable but to indicate we think they might be and hope that someone will come along who is willing to do that work. valereee (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, what kind of edit is this where you include Rv trolling
in the edit summary? And an accusation of WP:CIR here? I would certainly be quicker to question the competence of the editor adding and restoring such content rather than the one removing it. Probably three out of ConstantPlancks's five edits presented here are improvements to the articles, for which he is taking a lot of flack. If it's suspected he is not really a new editor then out with the accusation, otherwise this thread is examining the behavior of the wrong editor. fiveby(zero) 13:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- *sigh* "RV trolling" is a pretty natural response to being called an astroturfer and spammer, while CIR was merely a reflection on the facts as they stood (one of two choices; would you prefer malice over incompetence?). And no-one except you has suggested they are 'not a new editor; if this thread is
examining the behavior of the wrong editor
, then may I suggest you start a thread examining the behavior of another? SN54129 13:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)- If it's a new editor they should be thanked for their contributions rather than this pile-on criticism by editors making worse content decisions. If not spamming, adding Fabio Parasecoli's name inline and citing Bite Me: Food in Popular Culture is an odd choice an article on Nineteen Eighty-Four. fiveby(zero) 14:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fiveby, this editor told me to take it to a noticeboard. I brought it to AN instead of ANI because it's a bit of a kinder, gentler place. This isn't piling on, this is actually a several very experienced editors taking a lot of time to write long, thoughtful explanations to a newer editor, and being quite patient with that newer editor's reluctance to listen and learn. I disagree with you the removal of sources/sourced content represents an improvement, but this is not the place to discuss that. Please discuss those at article talk or RSN. valereee (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I asked you to take it to a noticeboard because of your comment that my talk page was needed "first." I was concerned that my talk page was becoming a trap and diff farm for this noticeboard. In fact, you cited 3 comments over a year old on my talk as evidence of prior warnings. You even pointed to Elk in this ANI above
Special:Permalink/1073213234#Elk as an earlier concern about edit-warring
. My total contributions to Elk is a single edit so it seems disingenuous to accuse me of being warned for a concern about edit warring. [11]. @Fiveby accurately describes how I felt when I came across:Fabio Parasecoli's name inline and citing Bite Me: Food in Popular Culture is an odd choice an article on Nineteen Eighty-Four
. I understand my edit summary created a reaction I didn't intend and is noted. ConstantPlancks (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)- @ConstantPlancks, the edit summaries are just one issue, but I'm glad you understand why they were not okay. Thank you for understanding that.
- The more important issue to me is the objection to perfectly reasonable sources, as removing a reasonable source can be damaging to the project. Food is important in 1984, and Bite Me: Food in Popular Culture discusses it. It's a perfectly reasonable source.
- You also can't assume that simply because there are three sources following a sentence that everything in that sentence was in all three sources. When you remove a source because you think it's not a good source, you may be removing the only source for something. If you believe a source is not good enough, you can tag it as[better source needed]. Please do not remove any more sources, even if you believe they are not good enough or not needed or incomplete. Instead tag them or bring them up on the article talk or at WP:RSN.
- If you want to take this back to your talk, I'm happy to do that. If you're willing to learn, I would be happy to work with you at your talk to understand these things. valereee (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I asked you to take it to a noticeboard because of your comment that my talk page was needed "first." I was concerned that my talk page was becoming a trap and diff farm for this noticeboard. In fact, you cited 3 comments over a year old on my talk as evidence of prior warnings. You even pointed to Elk in this ANI above
- @Fiveby, this editor told me to take it to a noticeboard. I brought it to AN instead of ANI because it's a bit of a kinder, gentler place. This isn't piling on, this is actually a several very experienced editors taking a lot of time to write long, thoughtful explanations to a newer editor, and being quite patient with that newer editor's reluctance to listen and learn. I disagree with you the removal of sources/sourced content represents an improvement, but this is not the place to discuss that. Please discuss those at article talk or RSN. valereee (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- If it's a new editor they should be thanked for their contributions rather than this pile-on criticism by editors making worse content decisions. If not spamming, adding Fabio Parasecoli's name inline and citing Bite Me: Food in Popular Culture is an odd choice an article on Nineteen Eighty-Four. fiveby(zero) 14:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Since we've established that Fabio Parasecoli is a reliable source on matters pertaining to the intersection of food, politics and popular culture as touched on in 1984, I've restored the material regarding his assessment of food in the novel to the /Analysis section, where it fits nicely along with the numerous other scholarly opinions. I note this is less than half the amount of the original text. SN54129 16:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- As stated on the article talk page Talk:Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four by me, only the single bit about chocolate (out of 5) could reasonably be included [12]. It's marginable though as there is no analysis or insight provided. It uses Parasecoli as a reference to quote "1984" directly. It probably should just be attributed to Orwell since it's his words doing the heavy lifting. Had you read the article talk page, you would have realized this days ago that only one of the five Parasecoli references were okay. Marginal, but okay. Here was my comment on the one edit about food in
Don't need Fabio quoting the book just because one of the examples (food) of pre-totalitarian was better. Trivial example. This was the closest to a relevant sourcing and it simply isn't needed.
Also, you added another bit unrelated to food that was removed by another editor. Glad there are more eyes on it. ConstantPlancks (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)- I have read the talk page, but I appreciate the (continued!) aspersion that I either choose not to or am incapable of doing so. It is your general battleground approach and repeated insinuations of bad faith that deter me from working with you; it has been an unpleasant experience, unlike with others, and I do not see your continued participation here as either helpful to the project or its readers. My congratulations on adding to the toxicity of Wikipedia. SN54129 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to agree that unfortunately this editor does not seem to want to learn or stop their battleground behavior. I think at minimum they need to stop editing around Parasecoli, and since they are telling us they'd never heard of Parasecoli before this, I'm wondering if they need not to remove sources or content unilaterally anywhere for now. valereee (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've not removed anything since before you opened this. You accuse me of battleground behavior and used my single edit to Elk as "edit warring" from over a year ago as an example and just repeat it as if it were fact without a diff. You agreed with the only edit proposal I made regarding Parasecoli sourced sentence [13]. I provide what was in the WP article vs what is in the source here[14]. Other editors can read what I wrote for themselves to see if there is anything improper. ConstantPlancks (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't agree. I agreed to compromise. That is what we do here. And I think you made this removal after this AN was opened? I know you think this broken source was not worth keeping. I have no attachment to the edit-warring concerns, fine with removing that from this and discussing the more concerning issues here: unwillingness to learn, battleground approach. Seriously, I've offered to take this to your user talk to help you understand. You really aren't going to respond to that? valereee (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- You can take it to my talk. When you were on my talk, though, you wanted to talk about my content edits. You struck the edit warring complaint but still say I have a battleground behavior again w/o citation. I am not battling anyone. It's not like I am the only one making the argument. The 1984 article has largely adopted my edits. You found the citation for the other article and there is no battle over that. I apologized for the poor edit summaries but even after apologizing it appears there is still another pint of blood required and I'm not sure what that is. I feel like you are looking for some kind of editor sanction and I'm not sure why. ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't agree. I agreed to compromise. That is what we do here. And I think you made this removal after this AN was opened? I know you think this broken source was not worth keeping. I have no attachment to the edit-warring concerns, fine with removing that from this and discussing the more concerning issues here: unwillingness to learn, battleground approach. Seriously, I've offered to take this to your user talk to help you understand. You really aren't going to respond to that? valereee (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've not removed anything since before you opened this. You accuse me of battleground behavior and used my single edit to Elk as "edit warring" from over a year ago as an example and just repeat it as if it were fact without a diff. You agreed with the only edit proposal I made regarding Parasecoli sourced sentence [13]. I provide what was in the WP article vs what is in the source here[14]. Other editors can read what I wrote for themselves to see if there is anything improper. ConstantPlancks (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to agree that unfortunately this editor does not seem to want to learn or stop their battleground behavior. I think at minimum they need to stop editing around Parasecoli, and since they are telling us they'd never heard of Parasecoli before this, I'm wondering if they need not to remove sources or content unilaterally anywhere for now. valereee (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have read the talk page, but I appreciate the (continued!) aspersion that I either choose not to or am incapable of doing so. It is your general battleground approach and repeated insinuations of bad faith that deter me from working with you; it has been an unpleasant experience, unlike with others, and I do not see your continued participation here as either helpful to the project or its readers. My congratulations on adding to the toxicity of Wikipedia. SN54129 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Closure review of Uyghur genocide RfC
Closure Self-RVed, no reason to keep going here. BSMRD (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a request to review the close at Talk:Uyghur genocide#RfC: First Sentence to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer when I raised my concerns at the NPOV noticeboard. The closer argues there is a consensus for stating that China is committing in genocide in wikivoice in the first lead sentence (option A within the RfC). I believe the closer has failed to properly account for the strength of the policy-based argument made by dissenting editors, who say this fails to follow key tenets of NPOV as summarised at WP:WIKIVOICE, as sources brought to the discussion indicate the label of genocide is contested by high quality sources.
This is obviously a sensitive topic with high exposure, made much more complex by the personal desire of many editors (including myself) to avoid minimising the abuses. I encourage reviewing editors to also read the discussion at the NPOV noticeboard for a brief background. A previous, recent RfC on precisely the same question found a consensus for avoiding the use of the term genocide in wikivoice. Thanks for your time, Jr8825 • Talk 16:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Jr8825 argues that I failed to properly assess the weight of the arguments. What I will say to that is both sides of this argument (between option A and Option B) were indeed very strong. Both sides ample sourcing and argues their position in full. It's hard to say one side was substantially stronger than the other, they both were strong. My decision was made from of 3 observations. (1) The sourcing provided by Mhawk10 was very strong and abundant (more abundant than the opposition) and it was mostly uncontested, on top at that about 1/3 of the participants in the entire discussion embraced his analysis, another 10 concurred with option A. This made choice A supported by a clear majority. (2) The B supporters did provide RS, however, it was contested by some editors. What matters is that the vast majority of participants were not convinced that this was enough to require a qualification under WP:NPOV. (3) As a closer I'm limited on interjecting my opinion on the policy matters in the discussion. I felt it would haven nearly arose to a super vote if I, alone as the closer, just took the side of the B supporters or ignored the vast majority and ruled no consensus because I just agreed with their application of policy (WP:NPOV) in this case. That wouldn't have been proper or balanced IMO. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- So you are saying that, you, as the closer, felt there was an NPOV violation and still closed it in favor of maintaining that violation because of a majority vote? Don't we emphasize WP:NOTVOTE to prevent exactly that? BSMRD (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm saying that the consensus was that it didn't violate WP:NPOV. If I thought an editor was POV pushing I would have discarded their !votes. The editors on their own will or consensus said that the RS was abundant enough to say in Wikivoice. They understood the seriousness of this claim. I only would apply policy myself in a discussion if I seriously felt the participants acted with disregard for policy, which was not the case here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if consensus can be used to completely determine NPOV. It would also have been better had everyone been notified (even if you didn't have to), since you ended up tallying votes, which editors might want to finalize depending on how tallies would be made. I count more sources for B than A, contested or not. Perhaps the collapsed lists were easy to miss because they were added by different editors. Some editors didn't know there had been a previous RfC recently and those findings for B were left out (on the other hand, those for A had been included with this RfC from the start). CurryCity (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm saying that the consensus was that it didn't violate WP:NPOV. If I thought an editor was POV pushing I would have discarded their !votes. The editors on their own will or consensus said that the RS was abundant enough to say in Wikivoice. They understood the seriousness of this claim. I only would apply policy myself in a discussion if I seriously felt the participants acted with disregard for policy, which was not the case here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- So you are saying that, you, as the closer, felt there was an NPOV violation and still closed it in favor of maintaining that violation because of a majority vote? Don't we emphasize WP:NOTVOTE to prevent exactly that? BSMRD (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- As an "A" !voter, I want to say that I read the various sources put forward in favor and in opposition to using the word "genocide" in wikivoice. I supported A because my conclusion was that there were enough sources using the term to constitute a consensus of sources. It wasn't unanimous, but it doesn't need to be. The fact that some sources don't use the term doesn't mean we can't, or we shouldn't, or that there is an NPOV violation in doing so. My vote wasn't based on ignorance of sourcing nor on ignoring policy: I looked at the same thing everyone else looked at, and I think using the term in wikivoice is what is required in order to faithfully and neutrally summarizing the consensus of the sources put forward. Levivich 17:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable sources and mainstream news media generally phrase it as follows: "over the past ten years, as documents have been leaked to the press and more Uyghur activists have escaped the country, a bleak picture has emerged, leading some observers—including the U.S.—to classify China’s ongoing human rights abuses as genocide." (Lorraine Boissoneault, Smithsonian "Is China Committing Genocide Against the Uyghurs?" Feb 2, 2022.)
- Given this summary, it proves nothing that Mhawk10 found writings by some observers that described it as genocide. Clearly they are reporting their own opinions. For example, James and Marian write, "This paper also argues that [China's actions] constitut[e] at least one count of genocide."
- Another of Mhawk10's sources says, "The regime with its inhuman policies is currently carrying out genocide through concentration camps, surveillance capitalism and terror capitalism." (Çaksu) That's clearly not an expression of a consensus view.
- Publication of an opinion does not necessarily mean that the opinion has consensus support. We need a source that explicitly makes that statement or else tertiary sources such as textbooks that routinely refer to it as a fact. For example, we can find that for the Holocaust. We don't have sources that say "this paper argues the Holocaust was a genocide" or "many observers classify the Holocaust as a genocide."
- TFD (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- checkers should have notified everyone beforehand in case they wanted to add anything, and also informed them of how the votes would be tallied, especially since for votes like A>B>C, only A would be counted, as opposed to A or B or C, where all would be (see diff 1). February has been an eventful month, and not all editors might be active at the RfC despite unresolved discussions. For example, MarkH21 joined almost 1 week after open but otherwise, I would not have known that camp A's sources are almost an exact copy of what were used in an RfC only 7 months ago! And that there were previous findings more in line with choice B, which had been conveniently omitted from this RfC. There's also an issue with source counting, which checkers relied on in part to reach their conclusion. I went over the RfC and counted 43 sources for camp A. 8 of them were from not only the same outlet (Axios) but also by the same exact writer (Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian), and 5 of the apparently scholastic sources had no English versions and could not be effectively contested by most editors. Had I known there would be a closure, I would have added these objections, even though the ones already raised at the RfC should suffice to indicate no consensus. I also counted at least 58 sources for camp B (excluding tweets and blogs etc), only 4 of which were contested. Not sure why checkers felt sources for B were weaker, especially since WhinyTheYounger cited HRW, Amnesty International, and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Overall, the closure was hasty and questionable in certain aspects. Considering the sources, there have been no meaningful new findings, only some more of the same media coverage due to the recent Olympics. In light of the previous RfC, the impression I get is that this issue is being pushed to the forefront again but in a not-so-transparent way to newcomers. CurryCity (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I was also surprised by the close and its focus on vote tallies rather than substantive sourcing; many votes on both sides were single-line statements of opinion. I also appreciate the highlighting of my source table, because I believe many of the sources provided earlier by Aquillon were overshadowed by a few questionable inclusions. I'm obviously biased here, but I am still perplexed at the view that the conclusions of HRW, Amnesty International, and the Holocaust Memorial Museum among many others are marginal enough such that their functional exclusion via option A is not a violation of NPOV. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Don't just exclude tweets and blogs, also exclude news, magazines, NGOs, dictionaries, the UN definitions, old sources, etc. Once you filter all those sources down to just legit peer reviewed recent scholarship, the academic consensus becomes clear (or at least it did for me, and I guess for other A voters). Levivich 04:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I endorse the closure. There is a not massive but nevertheless significant margin of editors in favor of option A (~60%) with no particular bias in the opinions that editors expressed over time. There is significant controversy within RS over whether the appellation "genocide" is appropriate, no doubt owing both to politics and to actual academic concerns, and I am not aware that our policies enshrine a standard by which we would favor one side of the debate or another. Thus, the issue comes down to which perspective the community believes is more prevalent in RS, a decision that is ultimately editorial in nature, not policy-based. Editorial decisions can really only be made by feeling the community's pulse, and with a noticeable majority of editors in favor option A, Iamreallygoodatcheckers was well within his discretion to close in favor of it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 04:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- There is in fact a particular bias of editors expressed over time. Five of the A voters have expressed strong opinions on the political status of Taiwan and two on communist mass killings. That's a third of the voting editors that I have come across on two other discussion pages. TFD (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: I meant that there wasn't a significant difference in the vote ratios of participants near the beginning vs. near the end of the discussion, which could affect the way consensus should be assessed if it were relevant. Sorry for the confusion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 06:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think the closure should be vacated (no offense to Iamreallygoodatcheckers as they've explained how their hands were tied), as to rehold an RFC on a more central location like VPP. There is a central issue with how we should consider source review of topics and language that can be contentious before we put it into wikivoice with a helping of NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM factors, in addition that we are supposed to be impartial and dispassionate. The RFC as presented was too complex and not simple. That RFC can be used to establish that there are basically two options (to express the situation as a genocide in wikivoice or not - everything else is DUE-level body/prose language) and that would be a better RFC to cover. --Masem (t) 04:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- This really is the central issue thats been danced around for the past few years now through RfCs and move requests and whatnot. The question "should we refer to events as genocide in wikivoice" has gotten different answers at different points in these processes, notably resulting in disconnect between the title and the first sentence for the past several months. We need a broader scope RfC to settle the question somewhat definitively. BSMRD (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- And from some responses in that last RFC and above, it ties into the current issue that we have with how much "trust" we give to a handful of RSes to make statements in wikivoice without attribution far too close to a situation, which is something we absolutely should not be doing. --Masem (t) 04:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- This really is the central issue thats been danced around for the past few years now through RfCs and move requests and whatnot. The question "should we refer to events as genocide in wikivoice" has gotten different answers at different points in these processes, notably resulting in disconnect between the title and the first sentence for the past several months. We need a broader scope RfC to settle the question somewhat definitively. BSMRD (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Any time you're dealing with an RfC with 5 options for editors to choose from over one of the most contentious topics in modern history it's gonna be hard to make a decision and whatever you do there will be controversy. This is probably the craziest RfC I've seen on Wikipedia to date. The more I've read over everyones comments here and at WP:NPOVN and reread the actual discussion, I too have began to question if I made the best analysis. Maybe some of those A votes really didn't have the strongest points, as I've reread many didn't even mention the sourcing. Just stuff like "A is the best option". Those aren't arguments that have merit here. This also isn't a purely editorial phrasing discussion, it was a deep dive into sourcing and policy. Many of the A supporters didn't engage with the meat of the discussion at all. I should have discarded those !votes entirely and I failed to do so. I treated them equally to a B supporter who dug up a trillion scholarly sources. I could try to defend my closing and I'm sure most admins would rule that it was well within reason, but I understand that this isn't about defending my position it's about what's best for this community. If I let this closing stay it will be enshrined as a nearly bulletproof precedent forever, and that would not be right. The point is closing it for A was wrong. If I could rewind time, I would close it with no consensus and recommend a discussion with A and B pitted against each other.I endorse overturning my closure. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Iamreallygoodatcheckers, then please go self revert your close, close this thread as self-reverted, and leave it to someone else to close the RfC (do not re-close it). Levivich 11:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn. While the close was made in good faith based on numbers, that isn't how we close. If it had been unanimous for A, the same problem would exist, that you have to discard votes that are against policy, NPOV in particular. You have to follow the sources, and for as long as the sources aren't using "genocide" as a consensus, we don't in Wiki voice, no matter how many people want to. That's hard to do in cases like this, because as closer, you have to look around a bit and understand what the sources are saying, and still close without it being a supervote. This is why RFCs like this should only be closed by very experienced editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
3RRNO policy update
Per a discussion at WT:Edit warring#3RR exception for spam, the following text has been added to WP:3RRNO: Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it was a standalone page. This shouldn't change a whole lot in common practice, but since the policy on edit warring is so central to Wikipedia's day to day functioning this is a central notification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Setup {{Category chart}}
Handled on all the related pages. — xaosflux Talk 15:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an admin setup {{Bare URLs chart}}, following the instructions here? (I've done steps 1 and 2.) ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- step 3 is done. — xaosflux Talk 19:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl: please open an edit request at User talk:MusikBot/CategoryCounter/config; I'm not exactly sure what needs to go in there. — xaosflux Talk 16:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
vandalism only IP
Stale and also already under a {{schoolblock}}. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://guc.toolforge.org/?user=216.56.20.138 --Palosirkka (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing to be done. No edits since 2019 and already the subject of a three-year range block. Nthep (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Kazemi Dam
Hello. Please protect this article (Kazemi Dam). User khabat4545 deletes source content and adds incorrect information. . Masoud bukani (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure whose right or wrong but seems the issue spills over to Lagzi_Lake which appears to be same dam/lake/locale and also been renamed.Slywriter (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I also haven't looked into who is right or wrong, but I note that Talk:Kazemi Dam and Talk:Lagzi Lake are empty apart from banners. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
See google maps. You can view other wiki articles to validate the information, Like Persian Wiki.
User Khabat4545. He has committed forgery. Edited the text to his liking. Just read the sources and compare the text. Masoud bukani (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Lagzi Lake I reviewed the sources of this article. This article is fake! This content is exactly related to the article of Shahid Kazemi Dam!
Employer
Western Azerbaijan Province Regional Water Organization
Consultant
Mahab Ghods Consulting Engineering Company
Main contractor
Keshvar-Abo-Khak Engineering Services Co. (western Azerbaijan Agency)
Specialist drilling and grouting contractor
Iranian Tazrigh Pump Co.
location
Bookan (Bukan), Western Azerbaijan
Scope of work
14000m Spillway drilling and grouting, curtain grouting on top of spillway and left abutment of dam.
Masoud bukani (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I do not undo edit. Waiting for managers to review resources and text.Masoud bukani (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Khabat4545: can you explain your recent changes? (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Tbhotch: I am afraid that he will not be responding, seeing as he has been blocked. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Considering that the location, coordinates, and other technical information provided by both infoboxes is virtually the same, plus that both pages were moved from the draft space by Khabat, and that the sources formerly included in Lagzi Lake were not talking about the lake, but about the dam, I have redirected both Lagzi Lake and Saqqez Shahid Kazemi Dam to Kazemi Dam. As Kazemi Dam is admin protected, and the performer is a blocked editor, an admin should consider to restore its title back to Shahid Kazemi Dam. Otherwise this seems to be a candidate for an uncontroversial RM. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Tbhotch: I am afraid that he will not be responding, seeing as he has been blocked. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Tbhotch: I think there is no need for explanation or discussion. It is enough to check the sources and maps of Google and its Persian article to understand. See article history, user added custom text but sources said something else. An example:
- En article:
- The crown of this dam is located 25 km Northeast of Saqqez on the border of Kurdistan province and West Azarbaijan Province.
- The Persian article reads as follows:
- The crown of this dam is located 25 km Northeast of Bukan on the border of Kurdistan province and West Azarbaijan Province.
- This user has replaced the name Saqqez with Bukan! While examining the sources and maps, we realize that this dam is in the province of West Azerbaijan, not the province of Kurdistan!
- Do a Google search for Saqqez Lagzi Dam, there is nothing about this name! I think this is a fake name! But do a Google search for Kazemi Dam or Kazemi Bukan Dam.
- Masoud bukani (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
British Democratic Party (2013)
Evening all. Could someone look at the article, above? An editor with the initials BDP is making edits that look rather suspicious, certainly potential COI. Any help would be great  doktorb wordsdeeds 00:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Doktorbuk: You are supposed to notify any editor mentioned here. Why have you not done so? Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- An innocent oversight User:Mjroots @Mjroots . I'm not usually around this board and thought I had followed the rules. Not malicious, just clumsy. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Miscategorized users
Hello. If anyone's bored, the miscategorized users (configuration) database report could use some love. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Fake Account (Khabat4545)
El C blocked and I tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user khabat4545 is already closed due to multiple accounts. Now, with another account, he is sabotaging. 1 Masoud bukani (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Irregular IP block
12.251.247.58 (talk · contribs · block log)
Can someone review this? IP addresses normally don’t get an indefinite block but are given a 6-month to 1-year block if there’s a history of vandalism. Thanks. 68.194.161.176 (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- How do we know that you are not the target of the block, and if you aren't, what is your interest here? 331dot (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- And this is why we ask the blocking admin first. You're right this appears to have been a rare mistake. However the IP has been abused regularly since 2018. I'll consider an appropriate block length later today (I suspect it will remain blocked for a number of years). -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- In case anyone cares, both the IP which started this section, and the IP being asked about, geolocate to Brooklyn, New York City. 2.55.175.178 (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- And since the block is a {{checkuserblock}}, most admins don't even have access to the evidence. 2.55.175.178 (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- And this is why... oh I already said that. That the 68. range has been regularly abused by the same vandal is a thing that hasn't escaped me. It doesn't really detract from their substantive point, that the block should probably be made to extend for years into the future instead. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Mass removal of category Glider aircraft
User "Nimbus227" has just started a mass removal of articles about glider aircraft types from Category:Glider aircraft. No explanation has been given. This should be stopped. Thank you. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Glider aircraft is a parent category of Category:Sailplanes, an example is the Schempp-Hirth Discus which is in Category:1980s German sailplanes which is a sub-category of Category:1980s sailplanes whose parent category is Category:Sailplanes. Wikipedia:Overcategorization is the guideline. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- It is actually a parallel category, which has been in place uncontestedly since 2004. If someone wants to look for an overview of all glider aircraft types, how should he know whether to look in "Lithuanian sailplanes" or "1980s German sailplanes"? There is not even any list showing (almost) all glider types; you always have to know at least the nationality of the manufacturer. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I can't find what a 'parallel' category is at Wikipedia:Categorization. So you are saying that Category:Dogs should be in every dog-related article because you want to see them all in one place? Uncontested usually means unnoticed, there are many incorrect things that have been in place for a very long time on Wikipedia, that does not make them immune from correction. I note no attempt to discuss this elsewhere contra to the instructions at the top of the page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is an editing dispute that should be discussed at a talk page; it does not require admin intervention to resolve. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I would totally agree that this not an ANI problem though dragging an experienced editor here with no warning or discussion elsewhere is and a warning should be given for it. The complainant's talk page history shows historic problems with categorisation and, oddly, on Commons the user is trying to implement over diffusion (the opposite of what is being complained about here). Baffled.
- This is an editing dispute that should be discussed at a talk page; it does not require admin intervention to resolve. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I can't find what a 'parallel' category is at Wikipedia:Categorization. So you are saying that Category:Dogs should be in every dog-related article because you want to see them all in one place? Uncontested usually means unnoticed, there are many incorrect things that have been in place for a very long time on Wikipedia, that does not make them immune from correction. I note no attempt to discuss this elsewhere contra to the instructions at the top of the page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- It seems the complainant's primary wiki is German, I guess things are done differently there. The correct venue to discuss this is WT:AIR though I really believe there is nothing to discuss.
- Examples of similar categories are Category:Aircraft which has one page (plus one user sandbox (approximately 10,000 type articles)}, Category:Helicopters (60 pages with about 10 type articles (approximately 1,150 type articles)) and Category:Aircraft engines (53 pages, less than five types (there are approximately 2,000 type articles). By contrast :Category:Glider aircraft has 453 type article pages with nine sub-categories available for diffusion.
- There is no dispute, just one editor not understanding how the wiki:en categorisation system works. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal
I would like to ask for the lift of my topic ban on policy discussion on the draft space put in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292#Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata (see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Topic_Ban_Request for the latest thread on this ban.)
The reasons are
- The topic ban was brought in the context of my dispute with other editors (Legacypac and Hasteur) who actively work on the draft space for cleaning up. Since they seem no longer active, hopefully, the same dispute will not arise.
- Lifting the topic ban will allow me to communicate better regarding some of my activities in the draft space; see e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:List_of_draft_pages_on_science_and_engineering
- I have one proposal to make on the draft space. It’s minor but I hope it would streamline some maintenance work.
(In the thread the topic ban was put, some editors mentioned I having made a death threat. This is a misunderstanding, plain simple and so shouldn't factor in the determination of the lift.)
@Primefac: -- Taku (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support lifting the topic ban. It seems that it was put into effect in 2017, and was modified in 2019. I never fully understood it, having not been involved in the 2017 controversy, which apparently resulted in a ban on User:TakuyaMurata discussing drafts, which required him to engage in preterition so as to talk about them without talking about them. It seems that it was partly the result of conflict between Taku and User:Hasteur and User:Legacypac, and Hasteur and Legacypac wanted to keep draft space clean. That objective seems to me to go against the purpose of draft space, but I'm a computer scientist. It was revised in 2019 to be a general topic-ban on draft space by Taku, a somewhat more extensive but less convoluted thing. Hasteur has tragically died of covid, and Legacypac has been de facto banned. Unless anyone wants to reopen these quarrels that Taku has honorably avoided for five years, I suggest that the topic-ban be lifted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- One small clarification: it is not my understanding that the topic ban was modified in 2019. There was some discussion that ultimately ended in non-consensus. I still routinely work on the draftspace (because, as I understand, there is no general topic ban on the draftspace). -- Taku (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Question Taku, could you please explain why this should be considered a "misunderstanding," and not something far more egregious? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, it was not taken as a death threat by the other party (RH); he has confirmed that. Second, the quarrel I had with RH was unrelated to the dispute on which the topic ban is about. If the community thinks that comment (which was obviously a mistake) was problematic enough, the community should decide on some other measure not the topic ban on the policy discussion. -- Taku (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that this diff was from 2016, amidst a discussion accusing the administrator of overzealous speedy deletion. Some years later the same admin was desysopped for, among other things, overzealous speedy deletion. This is not to excuse the comment, but to put it in context. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, it was not taken as a death threat by the other party (RH); he has confirmed that. Second, the quarrel I had with RH was unrelated to the dispute on which the topic ban is about. If the community thinks that comment (which was obviously a mistake) was problematic enough, the community should decide on some other measure not the topic ban on the policy discussion. -- Taku (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly impressed with the allocution above. Point 1. is summarized as "They made me do it", which is not particularly in the vein of taking responsibility for improving one's own behavior. Taku chose their own words when in conflict with others, and I see no sense that there is any evidence that they understand why what they did was wrong, and how they have changed and modified their behavior while the ban was in effect. Point 2. and 3. are entirely about Taku's own needs and desires, and nothing about the effect of the disruption they caused on the project, and how they will modify their behavior to not do that anymore. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the kind of changes necessary to remove a ban. I just see a lot of blame shifting and how this ban affects Taku personally. That's not a sign of change. --Jayron32 17:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I can promise the disruption will not arise again in part because, after getting my Ph.D., I am much busier in real life. I simply don't have time to keep making policy proposals (except one minor one I want to make). The topic ban clearly taught me to be careful about not disrupting the project too much; so my behavior on making policy proposals will certainly change and I will be more careful about choice of words (so not cause death-threat misunderstanding). About Point 2. It's not entirely my need but also for others who want to engage me on the draftspace topics. Point 3. is also not just my desire; I still routinely work on the draftspace and, lifting the topic ban will allow me to make a propose that help the community maintain the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I had reservations about supporting mostly for the same reasons as Jayron32 (i.e. no promise to not continue disruptive behaviour and no statement of understanding why the topic ban was imposed), but the above comment clears all that up. — Golden call me maybe? 18:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support removal of the topic ban per WP:LASTCHANCE, an essay that avoids the rope metaphor. I supported the topic ban five years ago but it is time to lift it. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - TakuyaMurata's comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Math-drafts appear to violate this topic ban. Since the comments so far would have not seemed out of place if I hadn't noticed the topic ban, I and other editors have been discussing the question with TakuyaMurata anyway. But I worry that in situations like this where an appeal is pending but not granted, not doing something to enforce the ban like a block or removal of comments just encourages bad behavior and not taking topic bans seriously, creates a bit of a loophole for violating the ban. -- Beland (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but how did I violate the topic ban? For one thing, I have abstained and have provided some context. Do you mean to say "I do prefer drafts to be placed in the draft space" is a violation? (note I am talking about drafts not how the draft space should be used). This is one of the reasons for me to asking for the lift of the ban since it is unclear if just expressing some personal preference is a violation of the ban, and hiding my personal preference can hinder an effective communication (Point 2). I am quite willing to remove the comment if necessary, but removing the comment right now seems to give an impression it was a ban violation (so I am not doing that). It would be nice if the community can clarify this (by lifting the ban altogether or modifying it somehow). —— Taku (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - The above discussion illustrates that the current topic-ban is confusing and difficult to apply. It interferes with the ability of Taku to engage in discussion without having an obvious purpose. But I have already supported removal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Eh, this is pretty confusing. I'm not really convinced a violation has occurred. He's talking about a weird userspace page, not how and under what circumstances pages should be deleted from draftspace, which (as best as I can tell) is the dispute for which he was topic banned. Maybe he rather indirectly violated the letter of his ban, but not the spirit of it. AFAIC, if there was any violation, it was good faith confusion not requiring sanction. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- The topic ban includes "any policy discussion regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed)," "discussing the applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed)", and "participating in any MfD discussion for which there is a discussion of Draft namespace suitability (broadly construed)". I broadly construe Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Math-drafts to be part of the topic of draft namespace because it was specifically created to do the same thing as draft namespace without having the same deletion policy, which seems to be vexing TakuyaMurata. The policy question here is whether this shared user account is redundant to draft namespace. This is also an MfD concerning whether the draft namespace is more suitable for these files than userspace, so that seems to be pretty clearly subject to the ban. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages is an MfD which concerns whether it's appropriate to use lists to track drafts, once again because TakuyaMurata is experiencing friction with the Draft namespace deletion policy. Being topic banned doesn't mean you can participate in a discussion as long as you obstain from voting. Being banned means you cannot participate, and you must let other editors make the decision. Yes, such a ban prevents you from sharing your personal opinion and prevents you from communicating effectively with other editors in this area. That's the point of the ban, to stop your communications, because presumably the editors who enacted the ban decided that in the past your communications were so disruptive they prevented other editors from working efficiently or were abusive enough to editors they were creating a toxic working environment for some people. If editors want you to communicate effectively about drafts and think you have demonstrated that you are willing and able to be civil and constructive, they need to repeal the ban. If kept, perhaps it would be helpful to clarify that being banned from discussions means not posting to discussion pages at all, and that it applies to anything to do with drafts, whether in draft namespace or other namespaces. My recommendation would be just to create useful, reader-ready stub articles on the topics you think should have articles rather than continuing to argue about drafts or argue about arguing about drafts. -- Beland (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I've been following these discussions for half a decade and I still don't really understand what was the problem that led to the ban in the first place. Regardless, the two editors who so adamantly pushed for these sanctions are no longer around to be disrupted (one has tragically died and the other pulled off a suicide by admin) so I don't see what purpose these restrictions can possibly serve. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Since there's some confusion on this point, let me try to explain how we got here in the first place. Taku abandoned any number of incomplete stubs in draft space. These articles were completely unsuitable. When they were inevitably tagged for deletion Taku's reaction was often disruptive, at best. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 24 for a good example of this. Taku also, at times, moved articles that were in mainspace, and had been worked on by multiple people besides himself, back into draftspace. The net effect of these behaviors was to create unnecessary friction and waste lots of time, hence the topic ban. Like Jayron32, I see no real acknowledgement of the problems that led to the topic ban in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I object to the false narrative that I "abandoned any number of incomplete stubs" and the drafts "were completely unsuitable". The fact is that the drafts started by me have since been worked and most have been moved to mainspace (ask my fellow math editors). (In particularly, Principal orbit type theorem now exists in mainspace.) Also, I didn’t move articles in mainspace to the draftspace (which articles are you referring to?). There was a friction in that there was an attempt to mischaracterize these drafts as abandoned mainly by two editors (Legacypac and Hasteur). After they become inactive, it seems there has been a lot less friction. By the way, it is true, in hindsight, that I have created too many drafts. That’s a regret. We, including I, now know that would create a lot of maintenance issue. So, for the past few years, I have started very few drafts, if any; that’s the acknowledgment of the issue (I doubt the too-many-draft problem will arise again). —- Taku (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per the sentiment I expressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292#Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata, a precursor discussion to the one that implemented a topic ban. Around that time perception bending was nigh; while Taku may have not behaved perfectly, I doubt that they behaved in a manner to deserve a sanction (if they did, then they may have been pushed there {and to wits' end} by forces attempting to subvertly accomplish noncanonical draft and userspace "cleanup" {a dispute which is overarchingly dead due to G13 changes and the ideas expressed at DUD}). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Want to create a translation page about An Jung Geun in Bengali, of the existing article in English
{{{1}}} | |
(non-admin closure) @Aditibanerjee22— advised to direct themselves to Bengali Wikipedia to upload their translation. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello administrator,
I wish to create a translated wiki page about An Jung Geun in Bengali. I have translated the existing English wiki page into Bengali and wish to upload the same. Please help. This is an assignment so I need to post it by today.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditibanerjee22 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am not an administrator, but please note that no one on English Wikipedia can determine what goes on Bengali Wikipedia (bn.wikipedia.org). You should put your translation there according to the rules of Bengali Wikipedia. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Help me
Sock neatly put away by Bbb23 RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello respected sirs,
Please help me how to write on wikipedia. 7M4TN7 (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- @7M4TN7 See WP:TUTORIAL and WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The sockpuppetteer is seeing how many administrators are paying attention to the administrator's noticeboard.
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeezGod
- Rabnebanadijodi (talk · contribs): "NT4M" "NT4M"
- Wichan The Lost Guy (talk · contribs): "bomb blast"
- 7M4TN7 (talk · contribs): "bomb blast"
- ZNKA (talk · contribs)
- Rajen Sharma ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh well, it's a hobby. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Didn't get you, respected sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7M4TN7 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Is creating an account evasion of an IP block?
Let me start by emphasizing that this is not a complaint about @Kinu:'s action. I'm just seeking clarification of what our policy is.
This came out of my investigation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haneywonders. Kinu blocked an IP. Apparently, the person they were trying to block then created an account and continued to edit using that account, and then that account was blocked for block evasion.
But, is that really block evasion? The IP talk page was left a message which said, ...consider creating an account for yourself...
. So, they did exactly what the message told them to do. I think it's hard to call that block evasion. Maybe our messaging is just disfunctional? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Personally I'd say not, for that very reason; they have literally just done what we have asked them to, which would seem like entrapment otherwise. On the other hand, policy is more vague, and takes a slightly Cadite eos approach:
User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked
, seemingly without discrimination. I suppose it comes down to whether they continue the disruptive behavior that got their IP blocked in the first place... SN54129 14:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC) - (Non-administrator comment) Surely the point is that the "consider creating an account" is prefixed by
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above
, which means you didn't make the edits that got the IP blocked? FDW777 (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC) - I would say yes, it is evasion. The message is for someone who just happened to get a blocked IP assigned to them. The block is for the person who's editing disruptively, not their handle. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- It is 100% block evasion. The shared IP notice reads: "If ... you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account ..." (emphasis added). And yes the messaging is dysfunctional: /64 IPv6 ranges tend not to be dynamic, but there is no way to disable Twinkle automatically inserting the shared IP notice. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree it's block evasion.
But while I often say indefinite is not infinite, this is IMO one of those cases when it would have been better to not impose an indefinite block. I'm assuming what the IP did wasn't enough to earn an instant indefinite block which wasn't done because it's an IP and so this block was only for evasion. If so, if the editor moving to the new account that will probably be better for everyone. And creating a single account and continuing to edit is the sort of thing which could easily be done in good faith through misunderstanding. And it's not like the editor editing after 1 week is guaranteed to be a problem. So a better solution, rather than indefinitely blocking them until they make a successful appeal, block the account for a week, it imposes the original block with a little extra and warn them that blocking applies to them whether they edit as an IP or account.Nil Einne (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)- Well nevermind, the SPI shows multiple accounts. Even without looking at the timing, creating so many is unreasonable and cannot be blamed on anything we did. It still looks to me like based on what was known at the time, it might have been better not to indefinite, in the end it didn't matter. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- A user on a blocked IP making their first ever account will surely be looked after when they explain themselves. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I really think it is a bad idea to tell people that creating one (1) account is automatically block evasion.
- Also, how are you going to enforce this without asking new editors to publicly disclose their IP addresses, which is something we should never encourage? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Please make specific requests for page protection at WP:RFPP. Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please support us — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanOther (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Please don't delete this post. We are humble. Do needful. Do discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanOther (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
You can add some extra dots and save us (I don't know how to use this site and we still have humor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanOther (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Our rules don't allow us to protect pages pre-emptively. There needs to be problems at a page first, and then you report it for protection, at WP:RFPP. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Protecting pages would also prevent people from writing about what is happening and who is doing it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Action review: Geo Swan and imissdisco
Background: [[15]]
- Geo Swan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- imissdisco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User talk:Geo Swan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Today I noticed a back-and-forth between these two editors at Geo Swan's talk page. Per the background link above, evidently Geo Swan was blocked almost a year ago for creating an article about Dan Trotta while involved in a dispute at commons with imissdisco, which claims to be Trotta's account (I have no way of confirming this). About two weeks ago Geo Swan began posting a "plan for reinstatement" to their talk page. imissdisco, who has not edited this wiki except in relation to this dispute, began to challenge various things that Geo Swan was adding to their "plan", and their conversation became hostile.
Reviewing the talk page, I came across a diatribe in which Geo Swan threatened to ping the blocking admin daily until getting a satisfactory response. Admins are required to be accountable but there is no requirement to be publicly flogged until the offended party is satisfied, particularly in this case where the blocking admin's action was already discussed by the community (background link above). As such, I revoked Geo Swan's talk page and email access, standard practice for overt threats of harassment.
I also par-blocked imissdisco from Geo Swan's talk page, given their unreasonably aggressive tone and threats of their own, because the dispute at commons that started this whole thing seems to still be ongoing and is spilling over here again, and because Geo Swan won't be able to respond anyway.
I understand that the situation between these two editors is somewhat sensitive because the deleted page I won't link to was characterized as an attack page and because one of the parties is allegedly the target of that page (in other words it began with harassment) and so I'm requesting a review of the situation and my actions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Cat o'nine tails for HJ Mitchell obviously. But, seriously, that looks fine ((Non-administrator comment)), obvs); notwithstanding Geo Swan's plan for reinstatement, I would say he was more likely to be heading towards a site ban than away from it. It's a shame imissdisco has to be blocked from the talk, but they have absolutely no reason to be editing it that I can see. Although if GS is also harassing her on other wikis (did I see her say that?), that makes her ire very understandable, although not something we can address on en-wp. SN54129 17:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. This looks like a reasonable response to an unpleasant and disruptive situation. --Jayron32 17:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Partial endorsement. I've been observing this for some time. It seems to me that imissdisco has been poking Geo Swan with a sharp stick. I am steering clear of the origfinal infraction. I consider, however, that all parties in a dispute are expected to conduct themselves with decorum. Perhaps the original issue was sufficient to cut the stick wielder some slack, but I wonder if the administrative action has gone far enough. My expectation is that, whatever the provocation they should avoid the talk page where they are poking with sticks. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- A clarification. HJ Mitchell is not the blocking admin. He gave a warning, and Drmies subsequently blocked. The block was overwhelmingly confirmed at a discussion here at AN [16]. Geo Swan seems to want to argue about the warning first, before requesting an unblock. I don't know if HJMitchell was even aware of the the posts: it doesn't seem required to watchlist a page almost a year after giving a warning, and the first actual ping was yesterday, I believe, though does it even work if you add a ping to previous text? In any case, Geo Swan continuing to argue that he was right, including ramping up the situation by asking for the undeletion of the contested picture at Commons (apparently in order to force Imissdisco to self-identify officially), seems very, very unlikely to convince editors to unblock him here. Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- A ping only causes a notification if you sign the same edit that you add it with. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- And if you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo-blocknotificationslist and fill in a harasser's username, you won't see those pings no matter how often they're sent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- A ping only causes a notification if you sign the same edit that you add it with. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Geo is incapable of collegiately editing, which is a shame because he has also provided good content. I don't know the IP, but agree with them in the request that Geo's response warranted further eyes, although I don't fault anyone in opting not to. Engagement with them is unnecessarily hostile, which is why I asked them not to email me. They had talk page access and did not need to resort to off wiki communications because they believe others need to be at their beck and call. Star Mississippi 18:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wait, Geo Swan is still writing about Trotta and still using the photo Trotta objected to elsewhere on the Internet as recently as this month? It seems like we're moving closer to Trust & Safety territory than an unblock. The summary Imissdisco posted at Geo Swan's talk page seems helpful. As he admits, he's not a Wikipedian and made the initial photo request without understanding how things work simply because he didn't like the photo. That's something we see every day. Yes, it can be annoying when you're oriented towards building a free knowledge resource and someone wants to remove an illustration just because they don't like it, but from the subject's standpoint it's completely reasonable. So when it wouldn't hurt much, or when there's something unusual about the case, we try to accommodate those requests. But Geo Swan went to great lengths to ensure it would never be deleted and, moreover, spread the photo to even more locations. It's wildly inappropriate, and I really don't see a way forward for Geo Swan without owning up to that, without pointing fingers, doing everything they can to undo the harassment, volunteering for a topic ban about Dan Trotta, and probably some other BLP restrictions. Given the current situation, I support the actions at the top. (And btw I'm not even saying the photo should've been deleted. It was two years old, was just a crop of a group photo that wouldn't have been deleted, and Commons errs on the side of preservation both due to its broad scope and to protect anyone who may have used that photo outside of Wikimedia projects and is counting on Commons documenting the license.) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I participated at GeoSwan's talk page, but my advice was not taken. As I wrote there, he's an amazing editor and I hope he can eventually get over himself and be allowed to return here. In general we allow blocked users understandable latitude in expressing their frustration on their talk pages, so I hope we can avoid ourselves doubling down here, and at least avoid removing that; he's not doing a very good job of advocating for his return, but he is trying. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
In general we allow blocked users understandable latitude in expressing their frustration on their talk pages
In the immediate aftermath of the block, yes. Not almost a year later.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm looking at the wrong deleted article, but the last deleted article of GS doesn't look like an attack to the naked eye. imissdisco did look like they were wholesale deleting sections they didn't like. What about it is attack? What am I missing? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- It was created for the purpose of bothering the BLP subject, while the GeoSwan was actively arguing with and insulting the subject on Commons. GeoSwan said ahead of time that it would be a dick move to create the article, and did so anyway. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. For what it is worth, the article itself was fairly benign. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- It was created for the purpose of bothering the BLP subject, while the GeoSwan was actively arguing with and insulting the subject on Commons. GeoSwan said ahead of time that it would be a dick move to create the article, and did so anyway. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- GeoSwan's behaviour over the last few days suggests they need a community ban, and certainly not unblocking at any point. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I support any block or ban of Geo Swan that we have the power on en.wiki to implement or endorse. A year later, Geo Swan is still acting in an emotionally reactionary way, unable to control their temper in the way that I would expect a Wikipedian to be able to do were the incident something that happened yesterday, and making threats of harassment (to HJ Mitchell). They display no understanding of why they were blocked, and Imissdisco (whose comments are quite tame) alleges continued off-wiki harassment. Geo Swan says that they were drunk while committing harassment against Imissdisco, but that is a matter for more concern, not less. This is becoming a T&S matter, as Rhododendrites says.Lastly, while my condolences go to anybody who is experiencing grief, editing Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right, and we have precedent of not lifting blocks/bans that were issued after impulsive behaviour by a person experiencing serious negative life events due to the pandemic. The question here is "will this person be a net positive if unblocked?", not a question of fairness. — Bilorv (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Considering GeoSwan is using their Talk page to argue about the block, rather than attempting to appeal, I'd suggest revoking Talk page access & making them use UTRS. This obsession of his is getting out of hand. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support full-fledged site ban of Geo Swan, and I'd probably support a T&S ban too. I do not recall crossing paths with Geo Swan, but I do recall having a high opinion of his past work, and being shocked to find he'd been indef'd... and then disgusted after reading why. We must reject and act against any forms of harassment; Imissdisco does not deserve this treatment. If Geo Swan is still obsessing over this matter nearly a full year on from the imposition of his indefinite block, then I think we can safely say that he is no longer "here". --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support ban GeoSwan has been repeatedly counselled over many years for a range of BLP issues relating to their editing (e.g. creating negative articles on people for what appear to have been WP:COATRACK purposes, creating articles on non-notable people accused of terrorism, etc - see the various reports via [17], Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan and the list of articles they created which have since been deleted at [18] - most of the 708(!) are BLPs). As they are continuing problematic behaviour related to BLP while blocked for this, a ban is clearly in order given there appears to be no likelihood they will be ever adhere to the key BLP policy. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
RfPP backlog
Back down to about a half-dozen. Primefac (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's a long backlog at WP:RfPP at the moment. Can someone help clear it please? Curbon7 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
Hello, all,
This talk page hasn't even existed for 48 hours and it already has a talk page archive and 76 discussions going on. It sometimes borders on FORUM. Does it need temporary protection? There are already accusations I've seen from Russian IPs that Wikipedia is presenting a biased point of view. I'm usually for unprotected talk pages but this will only get more active in days to come. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I see this subject has already come up (above) but this inquiry is about this specific talk page, not Ukraine articles in general. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think this talk page would benefit from a short-term (like one or three days) semi-protection. Do we also have a big banner which would remind the users about the NOTFORUM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I added {{Not a forum}}, for all the good that I expect it to do. Mackensen (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we need protection yet. Any disruption is quickly reverted (there are over 370 watchers and an edit seems to happen every two minutes), and there are several new users and IPs raising valid comments. We've got 12 hour archival, though perhaps eight hours would be more suitable. Anarchyte (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is what I wanted to hear, Anarchyte, I started this short discussion here, rather than protecting the page myself, to get more eyes on it and so that more people would be aware that it is probably the most politicized page right now. I also don't want to limit IP editors but what I was seeing when I initiated this discussion was people posting "news items" like YouTube video clips which should be discouraged. I know people get excited and want to share breaking news but that's not what our talk pages are for. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think this talk page would benefit from a short-term (like one or three days) semi-protection. Do we also have a big banner which would remind the users about the NOTFORUM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Ukrainian localities allegedly under Russian control
I see today a lot of edits like this. The edits are not acceptable, since this information must be verified by reliable and independent sources. This is not possible at the moment, with the possible exception of large cities (and even there we have problems, for example the information added to Odessa is reliably cited but is most likely incorrect). All sources which report on the actual engagements are either Russian or Ukrainian and thus are not independent. Even if both Russian and Ukrainian sources report the same it still does not mean the information is verified. Would it be possible to stop this by edit filters (for example to prohibit similar additions to non-extended-confirmed users)? --Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Almost as if an encyclopedia shouldn't cover events in real time and should only document them AFTER the fact. Oh and support any technical means to limit misinformation but with thousands of reliable sources regularly churning out rumor as fact, I don't see howSlywriter (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Disinformation reproduced by reliable sources is indeed a problem (see my example of Odessa above), but a lot of information is now being added without any sources at all, or cited to clearly affiliated sources. This should be stopped by edit filters and/or reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm trying to wrap my head around the how. Could a version of edit filter 180 be tweaked to flag unsourced statements in specific existing articles? Copyediting would get flagged, but at least there would be a list for editors to work through.Slywriter (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I do not know how to select the set of articles in the best way. An obvious solution would be every article in any subcategory (of any level) of Category:Ukraine, but this is possibly too broad.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm trying to wrap my head around the how. Could a version of edit filter 180 be tweaked to flag unsourced statements in specific existing articles? Copyediting would get flagged, but at least there would be a list for editors to work through.Slywriter (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Disinformation reproduced by reliable sources is indeed a problem (see my example of Odessa above), but a lot of information is now being added without any sources at all, or cited to clearly affiliated sources. This should be stopped by edit filters and/or reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I used to police "hot spot" articles, and then as now, wish we had a 72 hour rule, where info can't be posted in rapidly changing political events until 72 (or some other number) hours after the source publishes. Part of this is like a game to some editors, mad dash to wedge their edit in before others, and it just creates a cluster-fudge of edits and reverts. We aren't a newspaper, our articles are supposed to be reflective, not reactive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I would support such a rule if a proposal has been made.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't. The WP:READER doesn't care about
a cluster-fudge of edits and reverts
; that's sausage-making stuff. What's the end result? Articles that are sometimes wrong, but usually fixed. With this limit, articles about current political events would be almost always wrong, and couldn't be fixed, because rules. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)- Wikipedia is not a newspaper and people coming here for current breaking information are sadly in the wrong place. We should focus on making sure our articles deal with quality enduring coverage of an event like this, and that means making sure we have it right about if and when certain territories are occupied rather than rushing to add it. That is, there is no DEADLINE to get it right. --Masem (t) 05:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't. The WP:READER doesn't care about
- It's roughly the WP:RSBREAKING guideline:
—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements.
- I would support such a rule if a proposal has been made.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia: a ground for political attack and propaganda?
Hopefully the OP is now well aware of the venue they need to address if they wish all Wikipedia editors, whatever they identify as, discuss their concerns. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi gentlemen editors,
I request that all senior editors have a comprehensive look at the page Qatar and State Sponsored Terrorism and analyse all sentences and sources used in the page from the very first minute the page was created. I would not like to sound sentimental or judgmental, more so that I am not a Wikipedia editor and unfamiliar with its editorial principles, but I strongly belief that Qatar and State Sponsored Terrorism page is absolutely a political propaganda and an attack against the subject.
I request that the page be deleted.
Please do not hasten to dismiss this issue. Read and analyse before taking a position.
Here are the reasons I am proposing the deletion of the page.
The page was created in 2015 with 24 sources but all were nonexistent sources. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&oldid=666087413#cite_note-12
The page has been expanded since its creation in 2015, but more than 50 per cent of the sources in the page in its current form today are not related to the statements in the page. I urge all to spare some moment and review the sources in relation to the statements and allegations contained in the page.
I wondered why Wikipedia ignored its own principles and allowed this to remain since 2015.
One would think that the page should have been deleted immediately it was created for peddling unfounded propaganda and attacking a political subject.
It is important to note here that the page was created in bad faith: to attack its subject because all sources used from the day it was created were all unverifiable. And one of your principles states that any statement or page whose sources cannot be verified should be deleted immediately.
The pertinent question is why was this page not deleted? But it is also never late to take it down completely.
If this page is allowed to remain, it therefore means that Wikipedia is allowing and supporting political attack and propaganda campaign in violation of its own core principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1600-1700s (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you'd like to request deletion of Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism, the place to do that would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sigh. A brand new editor, who's first edit is coming to AN to complain about a well sourced article. Who's sock is this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi gentleman editors
there's your first mistake. This isn't some old boys club. We let women and gender non-binary people edit too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)- @Muboshgu: Let? I think Bishzilla would eat me if I suggested we were "letting" her edit ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, . Obviously I didn't mean that quite literally. Team feminism ftw. (Glad you didn't ping her, I don't want to be eaten tyvm) – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Advice about an IP user
- 131.203.251.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I was wondering if I could possibly get a bit of advice about the correct path to follow regarding a user (user:131.203.251.134) who is engaged in what looks to be good faith but probably mildly harmful editing of wikipedia. I doubt it is serious enough to take to ANI, but I think it probably needs dealing with.
The user has a strong aversion to certain grammatical forms, the passive voice (where they can recognise it), structures which use the copula "to be" and even the verb "to be" itself. They tend to substitute them with active sentences even when doing so makes no sense. They also have a tendency to "by whom" tag examples of the passive in the text, even when no reasonable interpretation of WP:WEASEL could suggest it was warranted. These structures are fine to use in wikipedia, and in standard English in general, and their removal often weakens the article's prose.
While it is not a big deal in the great scheme of things, the user is editing in a way that on balance is detrimental to the project. I have left a couple of messages on their talkpage but they have not yet engaged with my comments. What can be done to steer them towards more productive editing?
--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- You might point them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
User with a name closely similar to mine
Closing, clearly no administrative action required (as intimated by GiantSnowman) and difficult to avoid, per WAID. (non-admin closure) SN54129 20:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sorry to bother you. There's a user who has a very similar user name as mine, except it is BattleshipGun as I am BattleshipMan. I find that very strange and I'm a bit concerned. The user link of that user below.
BattleshipGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Would you mind check it out for me and notify that user for me since I know it's procedure to notify the user reporting the noticeboard? BattleshipMan (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:SIMILARNAME applies, although I don't think it's similar enough to be an issue. They are not impersonating you. GiantSnowman 06:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: Well, people might confuse me with that user for one, since I am one of a long time editors on here. That's what I'm concerned about. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- It all depends from what happens in the next edits. There have been a lot of edits that do nothing effective at all, such as whitespace in templates (Special:Diff/1073097172/1074041617) or are like Special:Diff/1074044319. This could be genuine. It could be a push to get autoconfirmed status. Uncle G (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did you consider asking them to change username (WP:CHUS) because you found the usernames too similar (not an unreasonable view [19])? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- The user should change the username because I won't. That's for sure. Someone should tell the user that. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- You are required to notify the other user when you open a section here that concerns them. I have done that for you. valereee (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- My first reaction was that the user name is not quite close enough to be a concern, but I suppose if you are both going to edit the same articles it could be. User:BattleshipMan, why come straight to an admins' noticeboard rather than the user's talk page? You have not communicated at all. The "someone" who should be talking to the other editor is you. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- The user should change the username because I won't. That's for sure. Someone should tell the user that. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- @BattleshipMan, have you ever looked at Special:ListUsers/Battleship? There are dozens of editors whose usernames start the same as yours. Adding one more to the list is really not likely to cause any problems that you're not already having. You should instead be happy that you have such an unusual username. There are thousands of Giants, Phils, Uncles, Vals, and Whats here. That's what happens when a website has 43,133,136 registered users. Some of the names will naturally be very similar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Sockpuppet : E.-T.
Hi dear admins. You know who's him? He made any socks. Any users like this name :
Etc... Block it. Météor de Niort (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- We cannot block users here purely because they have been blocked on another wiki. Given that only one of the accounts has actually made an edit (and that was over 2 months ago to revert a message from a French user telling them they were blocked on fr.wiki) there is nothing to do at this time. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Jonathunder
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The "Jonathunder" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of six months.[note 1]
If Jonathunder (talk · contribs) should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Jonathunder is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.
If such a request is not made within six months of this motion or if Jonathunder resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Jonathunder shall be permanently desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Jonathunder may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.
- ^ The case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder.
For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Jonathunder
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters
The AfD in question has since been relisted by another admin. Generally, Wikipedia:Closure requests is the venue for requesting closes. Relevant discussion can continue at the AfD.—Bagumba (talk) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters has been going on for more than seven days, which is the usual length of a deletion discussion, and a final statement on this discussion by an administrator, or another user, would be helpful. Thanks! --Historyday01 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- AfDs are not required to be closed exactly at seven days. That one is complex and lengthy and probably takes more than the normal time for any admin to close. It should not be an NAC. Star Mississippi 01:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I know they aren't required to close after exactly seven days, but it could be helpful, that's all. I'm guessing by NAC you mean non-admin closure (I don't know every acronym) and sure, it can be closed by an admin. I think that could help. Historyday01 (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with @Star Mississippi. Sure, it's been running for a few days past the normal 7, but there's still constructive discussion going on, so there's no hurry to close it. And, I also agree that this one is complicated enough that it needs to be closed by admin. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I can agree it should be closed by an admin, sure. But, I also think the discussion is starting to peter out, so I'd say it should be closed at least in the next couple days, if not today, then maybe Monday or Tuesday. --Historyday01 (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with @Star Mississippi. Sure, it's been running for a few days past the normal 7, but there's still constructive discussion going on, so there's no hurry to close it. And, I also agree that this one is complicated enough that it needs to be closed by admin. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I know they aren't required to close after exactly seven days, but it could be helpful, that's all. I'm guessing by NAC you mean non-admin closure (I don't know every acronym) and sure, it can be closed by an admin. I think that could help. Historyday01 (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Historyday01 There is a specific place, Wikipedia:Closure requests. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. I submitted a closure request there. Historyday01 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I left a message on closure request page. Basically: stop worrying about closing it. Some AFDs run 2 or 3 weeks. The speed of the close isn't an objective. Getting wide input from the community is, and complex issues like this (ie: is it better as a CAT only, not List article?) often take extra time. There is no legitimate reason to rush to close based solely on $x days having past, that isn't how we determine closing times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Contrary to the statement that
discussion is starting to peter out
, I see a half-dozen new participants in the past 24 hours. Probably due to the added visibility of being mentioned here. Since people obviously are still interested in discussing this, I've relisted the AfD to give them the opportunity to do so without the clock ticking so loudly. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)- Good job, I should have done that. Discussions like this, we WANT it to be long enough and visited enough so that at the end of the day, we are confident the consensus is truly global. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not a great idea to have one editor bludgeoning the process, though... Primefac (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. Apparantly Historyday01 thinks it was a
wierd decision
([20]). Combined with random aspersions at the same time (those who support this deletion will definitely try to apply to the knife to the Lists of LGBT-related films category
), it's not a great look for someone who !voted to keep the article to then come here demanding an immediate close of the discussion, as those prone to such suspicions might suspect an attempt at walling-off any further delete !votes. SN54129 16:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)- I'm not bludgeoning the process and I didn't "demand" any close to discussion (I only suggested it), it just seemed like the right thing to do. I don't care about looks or anything else, SN54129. The usual suspects, Primefac in this case, accuse me of "bludgeoning." I am not surprised at all. I only wanted the discussion to end so we could move on with the page and not keep in the lurch. Those in favor of deletion, merging, and keeping the page have all made good points, and I would like to put those into practice, but feel that is not possible until the discussion comes to an end. Its that simple. Since the discussion is continuing, who am I to disagree with administrators who have more power on this site than I do? That's the gist I'm getting out of this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I've become one of the "usual suspects", but I made my point specifically because you have added the most text (27% at current) and the second-most number of edits (~30%, only behind the nominator, and their count is high only because of a back-and-forth with editors #3 and #4). Then you ask for the discussion to be closed, then question the admin that relisted. Maybe "bludgeoning" is too strong of a word, but "seems to be more invested than is strictly necessary" is a bit of a mouthful. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I can admit I am invested in this topic and I thought posting here could do some good, although I admit it was somewhat misguided and I probably shouldn't have posted it in the first place. In any case, since the admins have made their decision, I don't have any power to challenge that, and their decision is final. Historyday01 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone can relist an AFD, so that isn't even an admin decision, although it is in our realm. The key takeaway should be that several people here don't care what the outcome will be, but they do care that it continues as long as their is interest in the AFD. That is how you build a strong consensus, and in the end, no matter how it ends, if it ends with a strong consensus either way, it likely won't need to be revisited. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. I do think it is foolhardy to continue it, as I'd rather have some certainty in terms of the future of the page, but it has been re-listed, and the discussion goes where it goes. At the same time, I find it very unlikely that a strong consensus will appear in the next week. Pages can revisited for AfDs all the time, so I don't think a consensus would stop anyone, they would just nominate it anyway. I've had a number of pages I created be nominated for AfDs and it can be very nervewracking. This is one of those times. I have learned from this discussion to not post about AfDs on here in the future, as this discussion has been, in my opinion, mostly fruitless. Historyday01 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone can relist an AFD, so that isn't even an admin decision, although it is in our realm. The key takeaway should be that several people here don't care what the outcome will be, but they do care that it continues as long as their is interest in the AFD. That is how you build a strong consensus, and in the end, no matter how it ends, if it ends with a strong consensus either way, it likely won't need to be revisited. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I can admit I am invested in this topic and I thought posting here could do some good, although I admit it was somewhat misguided and I probably shouldn't have posted it in the first place. In any case, since the admins have made their decision, I don't have any power to challenge that, and their decision is final. Historyday01 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I've become one of the "usual suspects", but I made my point specifically because you have added the most text (27% at current) and the second-most number of edits (~30%, only behind the nominator, and their count is high only because of a back-and-forth with editors #3 and #4). Then you ask for the discussion to be closed, then question the admin that relisted. Maybe "bludgeoning" is too strong of a word, but "seems to be more invested than is strictly necessary" is a bit of a mouthful. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not bludgeoning the process and I didn't "demand" any close to discussion (I only suggested it), it just seemed like the right thing to do. I don't care about looks or anything else, SN54129. The usual suspects, Primefac in this case, accuse me of "bludgeoning." I am not surprised at all. I only wanted the discussion to end so we could move on with the page and not keep in the lurch. Those in favor of deletion, merging, and keeping the page have all made good points, and I would like to put those into practice, but feel that is not possible until the discussion comes to an end. Its that simple. Since the discussion is continuing, who am I to disagree with administrators who have more power on this site than I do? That's the gist I'm getting out of this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. Apparantly Historyday01 thinks it was a
- Not a great idea to have one editor bludgeoning the process, though... Primefac (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Good job, I should have done that. Discussions like this, we WANT it to be long enough and visited enough so that at the end of the day, we are confident the consensus is truly global. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Contrary to the statement that
RfC close review: Fox News RfC
An RfC was held at Talk:Fox_News#RfC_about_Fox_being_described_as_Conservative, where the final tally was 10 in favor of retention of the text in the lede, 5 to remove. User:Compassionate727, appallingly, sided with the 5 and found a "rough consensus against inclusion". Am aware of WP:NOTAVOTE, but, there were quality opinions all-around. No trolls, no socks, no I-don't-like-it. One cannot just toss a 2:1 on its head without a darn good reason, and there isn't a good reason here. FWiW, I did not participate in the RfC. Zaathras (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Revert closure - Classic WP:BADNAC: "A non-admin closure is not appropriate... [when] the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." Obviously, deciding whether Fox News is a "conservative" media outlet or not is clearly always going to be controversial 100% of the time. And, closing an RfC in favor of the 2-to-1 minority voter is often going to be controversial as well. Additionally, Compassionate727's closing statement brings up points and policies that were never brought up in the discussion, implying that there are some WP:SUPERVOTE aspects going on here. I've read through the discussion and I don't see any reason to close this against the numerical majority. Both sides had valid policy-based arguments. One side had a 2-to-1 majority. At best, if the closer was unconvinced by the arguments to keep the word "conservative" in the lead, they could have closed it as "no consensus" and retained the status quo. I'd recommend reverting the closure and allowing an uninvolved administrator close this RfC. —ScottyWong— 05:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I recently started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magomed Tushayev and it appears to be swiftly heading towards a WP:SNOW delete result. I know that the AfD hasn't even been up for 24 hours yet, but there are some concerns that the article is potentially spreading misinformation related to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which I'm trying to be particularly sensitive to lately. Since I created the AfD, I obviously can't close it. I'd ask that some admins keep an eye on it and consider closing it early per WP:SNOW if you think that's the right call. —ScottyWong— 05:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)