Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
(Initiated 14 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 11 days ago on 16 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 80 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 71 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{doing}}voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)- Oops; I put this in the wrong section. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 60 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 47 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 44 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Closed. Soni (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 42 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closed – Consensus seems clear, I don't think my Indian-ness poses a WP;COI here, closed. Soni (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPathtalk 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 24 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 56 | 60 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 55 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 19 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
_by_Ólöf_Pálsdóttir.jpg){kind=link}
(Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 22 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 93 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 72 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 70 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 59 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 51 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 8 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 25 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata
- TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Algebra over a monad
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cotensor product
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again
- "Vandalism" reverts
- Where I dis-invite Takuya from my user talk
- "warning" me for "vandalism"
- Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_15#Draft: Tensor product of representations
- Draft:Toric degeneration
- Draft:Specialization (algebraic geometry)
I've tried very patiently to work with this editor trying to convince them to clean up their old, unedited, esoteric, and frankly non-viable drafts. The contents read as copy paste definitions from Mathematics textbooks (though I cannot find the text in CopyVio search) that have sat for far too long not doing anything. I (in misguided wisdom) elected to exercise the WP:ATD option of Redirecting, and Taku has proceduraly objected on the grounds of "That's not exactly what this is". Previous discussions have suggested moving the pages to Taku's Userspace so that they can work on them, Redirecting the pages to sections of a larger article so that effort can be focused in one location to potentially get a WP:SPINOUT article, or numerous other alternatives to deletion. It takes a full on MFD to compel Taku let go of the page so I suspect some form of WP:OWN or Creation credit is the goal. Furthermore on July 27th, I formally dis-invited Taku from my talk page setting in place the remedies for WP:HARASS.
Now that Taku has elected to throw the "You're vandalising Wikipedia" by my redirecting Draft space "content" to the closest approximations and reverting citing vandalism I ask for the following:
- That Taku be prohibited from reverting any redirection of Draft space content to a main space topic without first securing an affirmative consensus on an appropriate talk page.
- That Taku be chastised for improperly using vandalism in the above reverts
- That Taku should apologize to me for droping that warning on my page in line with the improper usage of "vandalism"
- That Taku should be prohibited (i.e. ban) from creating any new Draft space pages until there are no draft page creations of theirs that are more than 6 months unedited and that are not redirects
- That Taku be subject to these issues indefinitely with the option of appealing after 6 months (on 6 month re-appeal) when they show that they have remedied all pages under the above mentioned ban.
- That Taku be blocked for coming back to my talk page after I had banned them.
Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- What I gather from your description of the situation is that you have chosen to boldly unilaterally redirect drafts, which TakuyaMurata created, to articles. They then restore the content by reverting your redirection. That seems acceptable, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; you are free to raise the matter on the talk page of the drafts. You want them to gain consensus to revert your changes, when you have not established consensus for them yourself. That is a double standard. That aside, their description of your changes as vandalism is incorrect. We can correct that notion here; a block is not necessary for that, as they seem to have believed your edits were vandalism, which made posting to your talk page appropriate per WP:NOBAN. Though redirecting drafts is an accepted practice, I am not sure it is documented anywhere, the matter is arcane nonetheless. I believe this just concerns drafts TakuyaMurata created, if so, I would not oppose userfying them to their userspace. I oppose all six of your requests as undue based on what has been presented thus far, except #2 to a point, we should "inform" them rather than admonish them. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Godsy: Taku has explicitly rejected on multiple occasions moving these pages into
draftspaceuserspace. So that option is out. Taku makes procedural objections of "It's not really that" or other tendentious arguments. In short, If Taku wanted to actually do something about these drafts (or merge their contents to mainspace, then he could in the copious amount of time that he's spending. Heck, I'd even give him a 3 month moratorium on sweeping up the drafts if he promised that at the end of that moratorium any drafts that he created that haven't been edited in 9 months are fair game for any editor to come in and apply an appropriate disposition (Moving to mainspace, Redirecting, Merge-Redirecting, CSD-Author) to get them off the Stale Non-AFC Drafts report. If the report is clean it removes some of the arguments for expanding CSD:G13 to include all Draftspace creations. If the page is redirected to a relatively close mainspace article, attention gets focused to mainspace (which is google searchable and provides benefit to wikipedia) and potentially we get a new article when there's enough content to viably have a WP:SPINOUT Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)- @Hasteur: Sure you can apply what you believe is an "appropriate disposition", but that does not mean your choice is the most appropriate action. Drafts currently do not have an expiration date. Stale Non-AFC Drafts is not something that needs to be cleared. I largely concur with Michael Hardy below. This is all I have to say. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Godsy: Taku has explicitly rejected on multiple occasions moving these pages into
- I can't speak to the specific merits, but I've seen any number of Taku's drafts turn up at DRV after a well-meaning editor tagged what looked like (per Hasteur) an unviable abandoned draft and Taku strongly objected. It's not a healthy dynamic. Mackensen (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what usages and concerns exist in the Draft namespace. Possibly that is why I don't know why the existence of these drafts would cause any problems. Could someone explain why it's a problem? Barring that, I don't see that these complaints against this user amount to anything. If there's really some reason to regard the existence of these drafts as a problem, might moving them to the User namespace solve it? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've come across this issue mainly via DRV listings. It seems TakuyaMurata has created a swathe of tiny pages in draftspace about obscure mathematical and allied concepts, containing little more than an external link, a restatement of the title, or a few words. He has then resisted all attempts whatsoever to improve the situation, objecting as vociferously to any deletions as to any suggestion that he might, you know, want to expand the drafts he has rather than spewing out yet more of them.
There is no benefit to the encyclopedia from having tiny non-searchable substubs in draft space. None. Taku needs to accept this and redirect the copious time he seems to have to argue about old substubs towards more constructive activities like researching and expanding some of them. Otherwise, they should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @User:Michael Hardy I've offered to move the stubs to his userspace (specifically to a userpage he already has listing about 50 of the about 200) but he refused that. These pages are a Draft space management hassle representing a growing percentage of the 200 of the remaining 5500 abandoned non-AfC Draft pages. Frankly I can't figure out why he guards them so carefully, given he could just expand them or move the info onto one page or redirect or whatever. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: To respond, I for one don't get the need to delete the legitimate drafts just because they are old. The figure 200 is misleading since most of them are redirects. I agree the draftspace has a lot of problematic pages. I'm not objecting to delete them. Am I correct to think your argument is it would be easier if there are no legtimate drafts in the draftspace so we can delete old pages indiscriminately? That logic does make at least some sense (although i think there is a better way.) -- Taku (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Only redirects after the community consensus compelled to give up your walled garden plots. Our argument is that you've created so many sub-stub pages in draft space that it's causing more problems both for patrollers who are looking for problematic pages and for those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace. Your reams of words to dilute and obstruct any meaningful progress on the topics (you'll argue to the end of the universe your right to keep the pages) instead of actually working on them to get them to mainspace gives little doubt as to your purpose here. Hasteur (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- For me, Draft:Faithfully flat descent doesn't strike to me as a sub-stub. How is that page a problem for "those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace". What is the real or hypothetical mechanism having draft pages prevents the editors from working on the mainspace? Hence, I think "patrollers who are looking for problematic pages" seems to be the heart of the matter; having non-problematic pages makes the patrolling harder. Obviously the answer is not to delete/redirect the non-problematic pages? Are you seriously seriously proposing we ease the search for problematic pages by removing non-problematic pages? -- Taku (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- To respond "gives little doubt as to your purpose here.", actually I have fairly solid reputation in editing math-related topics in the mainspace. I agree if a user edits only the draftspace and no of his/her drafts have promoted to the mainspace, then we may suspect on the user's motivation. I'm not that case here. -- Taku (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Only redirects after the community consensus compelled to give up your walled garden plots. Our argument is that you've created so many sub-stub pages in draft space that it's causing more problems both for patrollers who are looking for problematic pages and for those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace. Your reams of words to dilute and obstruct any meaningful progress on the topics (you'll argue to the end of the universe your right to keep the pages) instead of actually working on them to get them to mainspace gives little doubt as to your purpose here. Hasteur (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: To respond, I for one don't get the need to delete the legitimate drafts just because they are old. The figure 200 is misleading since most of them are redirects. I agree the draftspace has a lot of problematic pages. I'm not objecting to delete them. Am I correct to think your argument is it would be easier if there are no legtimate drafts in the draftspace so we can delete old pages indiscriminately? That logic does make at least some sense (although i think there is a better way.) -- Taku (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment How many total math-related drafts created by Taku are there? How many of his drafts are now mainspace articles? If this is a specific issue about Taku's use of draft space, analysis of editing history should give clear evidence as to whether he has an unreasonable number of drafts. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, I expect Hasteur or Legacypac to have some data here; I'm not expecting TakuyaMurata to produce data to defend himself. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: According to XTools, TakuyaMurata created 113 drafts. Of these, 42 have been deleted, so we have 71 current drafts. [1] This does not include redirects (which would include those moved to mainspace or redirected based on consensus at an MfD). There are a good 106 of those, with 42 deleted (many via G7). [2]. I think 71 drafts being retained in draftspace, many unedited for years, is clearly excessive. ~ Rob13Talk 19:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! I agree something needs to be done here, but don't know exactly what yet. I think User:BU Rob13's proposal below is a good start, but it may not be sufficient to resolve this issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to further restrictions; I just think my idea is a good start to at least prevent the problem from getting worse. ~ Rob13Talk 20:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! I agree something needs to be done here, but don't know exactly what yet. I think User:BU Rob13's proposal below is a good start, but it may not be sufficient to resolve this issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: According to XTools, TakuyaMurata created 113 drafts. Of these, 42 have been deleted, so we have 71 current drafts. [1] This does not include redirects (which would include those moved to mainspace or redirected based on consensus at an MfD). There are a good 106 of those, with 42 deleted (many via G7). [2]. I think 71 drafts being retained in draftspace, many unedited for years, is clearly excessive. ~ Rob13Talk 19:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, I expect Hasteur or Legacypac to have some data here; I'm not expecting TakuyaMurata to produce data to defend himself. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
From a brief glance, my guess is that there are 20 or so drafts that can be turned into mainspace articles, and 50 or so that need to be deleted or redirected to a more general topic. Draft:Graded Hopf algebra and Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem are two obvious examples that should be combined into a more general article. Diffs by Taku like [3] are extremely concerning; Taku does not own the articles he creates in draft-space, and he should not expect them to stay there indefinitely ([4]). Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
See also this proposition where after 22 days Taku unilaterally decided to pull back a page in mainspace that other editors had contributed to to that clearly violates the purpose of Draft space, the collaberative editing environment, and is the most blatant violation of WP:OWN that I can imagine. @Power~enwiki, BU Rob13, Legacypac, Stifle, Michael Hardy, Jcc, Godsy, Mackensen, BD2412, and Thincat:: Can we move forward with something that acutally improves wikipedia instead of the repeated hills we have to needlessly debate over and over on? Hasteur (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Also presenting the case of Taku's disruption of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for which they try to override an administrator's Move protection on pages promoted to main space that, while not 100% perfect, are viable. Notice how Taku does not contact RHaworth when requesting the reversal. Each time a new content or conduct venue is introduced in an attempt to fix these complaints, Taku seizes on it as the next life raft to save their walled gardens. ~~
Proposal: Limited restriction on use of draftspace
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Let's propose something concrete that can at least control the issue going forward. I propose that TakuyaMurata is restricted from creating new pages in the draft namespace when five or more pages remain in the draft namespace which were created by TakuyaMurata, excluding any redirects. This seems perfectly sensible; no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time. Complete something before you start something new. ~ Rob13Talk 17:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. ~ Rob13Talk 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support some kind of warning regarding ownership behavior on draft articles is also necessary, IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support, however this doesn't fix the problem of his existing pages. I'm not 100% certain, but I think they haven't created any new pages so this is effectively a wash as it doesn't do anything about the already festering piles in Draft space. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: He made one as recently as late July. ~ Rob13Talk 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment re: "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" - I have something along the lines of 1,740 open drafts at this time. They are generally attached to specific projects, and I consider this entirely reasonable. However, in the case of this specific editor, having created intransigent drafts, I would support the proposed limitation. bd2412 T 20:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems to be an attempt to discourage a valuable contributor over a non-problem. Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. The assumption that you can have more than five works-in-progress at any time is absurd. And the idea that there should be some specific time limit to how long something can be a work-in-progress directly contradicts WP:DEADLINE. This whole idea of forced cleanup of drafts seems like a solution in search of a problem. Also, User:TakuyaMurata has been an extremely prolific and valuable editor, writing a large number of articles in a highly technical field over many years. I'll admit that his use of draft space is somewhat unorthodox, and he does seem to digging his heels in about userspace vs. draftspace. But, on balance, we need more people like him. Let us not lose sight of our main purpose here, and that's to produce good content in mainspace. Hewing to somebody's ideals of how draftspace should be organized, pales in comparison. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- How does refusing to incorporate a draft that's been inactive since 2014 into mainspace contribute to good content in mainspace? ~ Rob13Talk 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I'm refusing to work on draft pages in the specified time frame. Wikipedia is not my full-time job and for instance, I'm currently attending a workshop and it is very inconvenient for me to edit Wikipedia. Why do I need to be asked to finish them today? Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030? Most of my drafts do get promoted to the mainspace; so there is no such pill of never-completed-drafts. Yes, I agree some drafts turned out to be not-so-great ideas and I can agree to delete those. (I admit I might have not be reasonable in some cases and I promise that will change.) The accusation that I don't allow any deletion is false. -- Taku (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- With absolutely no respect, Taku has known about this for over a year and a half (March of 2016, June of this year) reminders at WikiProject Mathematics talk page. Taku's pleas of "I have no time to fix these" could have been entertained if this were in the first year, but this is yet another hallmark of playing for time until the furor dies down. Even the statement "Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030?" shows the "Play for time" mentality of "someday getting around to it". If progress is being made, then pressure can come off. If no progress is being made and delay tactics are the order of the day, then the writing is on the wall. Hasteur (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I'm refusing to work on draft pages in the specified time frame. Wikipedia is not my full-time job and for instance, I'm currently attending a workshop and it is very inconvenient for me to edit Wikipedia. Why do I need to be asked to finish them today? Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030? Most of my drafts do get promoted to the mainspace; so there is no such pill of never-completed-drafts. Yes, I agree some drafts turned out to be not-so-great ideas and I can agree to delete those. (I admit I might have not be reasonable in some cases and I promise that will change.) The accusation that I don't allow any deletion is false. -- Taku (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- How does refusing to incorporate a draft that's been inactive since 2014 into mainspace contribute to good content in mainspace? ~ Rob13Talk 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose the suggested restriction. Any restriction on the use of draft space should apply to everyone, not just Taku. The examples given above of alleged disruption are remarkably unpersuasive to me. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Algebra over a monad is the first substantive case put forward. If anything, the disruption is being caused by editors improperly taking ownership of draft space by trying to enforce restrictions that are not supported by policies or guidelines. Thincat (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - The draftspace is an appropriate place to draft content and there is not and should not be a limit on the amount of drafts an editor can create there unless they are creating a truly unreasonable amount of poor quality drafts (i.e. hundreds). I completely disagree that "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" and oppose any sanction on individual because of largely unnecessary cleanup. Either everyone should be limited to five drafts, or no one should bar especially egregious behavior (which I do not believe has been demonstrated here), and I'm certain such a proposal for all wouldn't pass. I concur with Unscintillating. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not convinced that anything should be in draft space as we managed fine before it existed. But, in so far as draft space has a point, it's that it's a scratchpad that we should be relaxed about because it's not mainspace. Introducing petty, ad hoc rules is therefore not appropriate and would be contrary to WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Rob. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment not a bad idea, but maybe restricts him from useful editing, which I commend him for. Leads me to an alternative proposal below. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- oppose per Andrew D. above and Roy below. We are trying to solve a problem that I'm not sure exists. It feels very controlling. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Rob, displaying ownership of draft articles. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose as the proposal doesn't address the one concern that actually seems to be a potential problem, that of ownership. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support changing from eariler comment and alternate proposal that failed to get traction. The ongoing disruption is too much. It's a game to him, in his own words [5]. A game that is more fun than content creation. Place the restriction. Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: Limited restrictions/topic ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Taku be restricted to voting once and making one followup comment on any MfD concerning a Draft he started. He is topic banned from starting a WP:DRV or requesting a WP:REFUND to restore any deleted or redirected Draft he started. He is also prohibited from starting any more RFC or similar process or discussion on how Draft space is managed.
- Support as proposer. These very narrow restrictions will cut out the drama but let Taku continue productively editing. The old sub stub drafts will eventually either get improved or deleted in due course. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- In WP:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 15#Draft:Tensor product of representations, which Taku started, overturn is being rather well supported, despite your multiple comments. Is this the sort of discussion you are seeking to ban? Thincat (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- That is cherrypicking ONE discussion. See the many examples at the top of this thread. This narrow restriction should solve the disruption. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- It was the only DRV "cherry" listed up there. For the four MFDs listed (1) one Taku comment agreeing delete (this was an incredibly poor example of "disruption"); (2) multiple Taku comments which were not persuasive; (3) two Taku comments (and two from you) resulting in keep (!); (4) multiple Taku comments followed by redirect rather than delete and now subject of the DRV. Thincat (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- That is cherrypicking ONE discussion. See the many examples at the top of this thread. This narrow restriction should solve the disruption. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- In WP:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 15#Draft:Tensor product of representations, which Taku started, overturn is being rather well supported, despite your multiple comments. Is this the sort of discussion you are seeking to ban? Thincat (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support as Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RfC:_on_the_proper_use_of_the_draftspace, Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RfC:_the_clarification_on_the_purpose_of_the_draftspace, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2017/Jul#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace, and numerous MFDs and DRVs Taku's repeated comments ammount to filibustering and nitpicking in what I precieve as an attempt to dillute any consensus to effectively nothing that can be overturned with the whim of a cat. If the community has to respong 50 times on a MFD we're going to be spending 100 times as many bytes arguing about the content than was ever spent building the content. Taku appears to have the intellectual exercise of debating content rather than fixing things that have been brought to their attention as lacking. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have not seen any behavior I deem inappropriate (i.e. contrary to policies or guidelines) by TakuyaMuratad, and I cannot support any sanction against them until I do. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: If I'm allowed to point out (which this proposal will prohibit), it is ironic that my behavior is considered disruptive while an attempt for the rogue so-called clean-up of the draftspace isn't. There is no consensus that my draftpages (perhaps all) need to be gone. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Draft:Faithfully_flat_descent.E2.80.8E for example for the position of the wikiproject math: they don't see my draft pages to be causing a problem. Thus I'm not working against the "consensus". I pretty much prefer to just edit things I know the best, rather than engaging in this type of the battle. I know this type of the battle is wearing to many content-focused editors and many of them stop contributing. Obviously that's the tactics employed here. That is the true disruption that is very damaging to Wikipedia the whole. -- Taku (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Counter-proposal: I can agree to deal with some of sub-stubs (expand or delete them); it helps if you can present me a list of "problematic" draftpages started by me. They usually take me 5 min say to create and I had no idea it would cause this much controversy. While I don't see a need for us to spend some min to delete/redirect them (leaving them is less time-consuming), hopefully this is a good compromise. -- Taku (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Taku, the time for your going through and cleaning up the pages was a year ago. Your repeated obstinancy this past month is disruptive. Want to prove to the community you actually want to fix these pages? Fix them yourself. You've spent thousands bytes defending these festering piles of bytes but not one single byte actually fixing the problem. Fix the problem and the issue resolves itself. Hasteur (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, just wow. This proves you're more interested in the disruption for the sake of disruptions rather than working out some compromise. Anyway, my offer is still on the table. You promise to cease the disruptive behaviors for once and all and provide me a list of short-stubs you want me to work on; then I can try to meet you as much as I can. -- Taku (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- In no way did I make that promise. What I agreed to was you clean up the pages so they're under 6 months unedited, then I won't have anything to poke you about. You do that and I will lay off because I set a personal minimum of 6 months to consider if the page needs to have corrective action taken on it. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- You imposing the restriction like that, disregarding WP:DEADLINE, is called a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- In no way did I make that promise. What I agreed to was you clean up the pages so they're under 6 months unedited, then I won't have anything to poke you about. You do that and I will lay off because I set a personal minimum of 6 months to consider if the page needs to have corrective action taken on it. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, just wow. This proves you're more interested in the disruption for the sake of disruptions rather than working out some compromise. Anyway, my offer is still on the table. You promise to cease the disruptive behaviors for once and all and provide me a list of short-stubs you want me to work on; then I can try to meet you as much as I can. -- Taku (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Taku, the time for your going through and cleaning up the pages was a year ago. Your repeated obstinancy this past month is disruptive. Want to prove to the community you actually want to fix these pages? Fix them yourself. You've spent thousands bytes defending these festering piles of bytes but not one single byte actually fixing the problem. Fix the problem and the issue resolves itself. Hasteur (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose attempts to restrict access to WP:DRV. Access to DRV by any editor has important governance and symbolic aspects. Taku does not have a history of disruption at DRV. DRV closers and clerks are well capable and practiced in speedy closes when required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your rose-colored glasses should not hide the fact that DRV has no process for speedy closes. The DRV started by Taku is a great example of a failure of the hit-or-miss application of DRV speedy-closes. Nor is there a process for corrective feedback when a speedy close is improperly applied. Unscintillating (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Due probably to its much more tightly constrained scope, DRV management is much simpler than ANI's. DRV should not be managed from here. Bad speedy closes can be taken up at the closer's talk page. My experience is quite positive (eg). There is also WT:DRV, which is very well watched. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Picking up on part of your comment, if we had "DRV clerks" that could be a path forward. Unscintillating (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Arguing about the right solution to the problem is silly because nobody has yet demonstrated that there is a problem in the first place. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- oppose Just doesn't seem needed. Yes he's verbose. But it's a two-way street. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support he has created all these stub drafts, and if only he'd spend as much time working on them as he did arguing for them to be kept then we'd all be much better for it. Clearly there is enough disruption to prove a point going on here to warrant some kind of action. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose disagreement with an editor's position is not a good justification for banning them from policy discussions. VQuakr (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose the reason I support action against this editor isn't related to his objections to deletion of drafts, it's his objection to attempts to move the content into mainspace. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Result of DRV
Note that WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations was under review in parallel with this discucssion. The original MfD close of redirect was overturned earlier today. It seems pretty obvious to me that if an action was overturned upon review, asking that somebody be sanctioned for protesting that action is unwarrented. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- A proper DRV process follows WP:Deletion review/Purpose. Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hardly a typical DRV conducted during an ANi where editors with a point to make took over. It's fine the page with be deleted again in 6 months after it goes stale again. I urge to keep voters to focus on improving these pages so there is no abandoned pages to worry about. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- To say the obvious, you don't need to be worried about abandoned drafts. There is no evidence that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned. What is the case is that among the abandoned drafts, there are a lot of problematic drafts; an editor starts a draft on a non-notable topic and left the project. But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved. -- Taku (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- "But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved" which is precisely what Legacypac is doing, submitting drafts he sees as having potential back to AfC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- See also: Draftspace cleanup regarding the behavior of Legacypac. -- Taku (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Draftspace cleanup
Can we do something about this crusade to cleanup the draftspace? Not every single old abandoned (in fact the above are not even abandoned) need to be deleted. The only problematic ones are. To cut out the drama, I would like to ask:
-- Taku (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Addressing the OP, would an IBAN be appropriate here? VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Warning to VQuakr: Calling my post a "blatent falsehood" is a personal attack and if you do not retract it I will seek sanctions against you. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
One-month suspension
|
Proposed topic ban for Legacypac
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Part of the problem above is the rapid-fire MfD nominations from Legacypac, even while the AN discussion above is still open. Legacy hasn't significantly slowed down his process bludgeoning at MfD since the discussion last month at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Problem of too many hopeless pages sent to MfD, in which SmokeyJoe proposed that Legacy be limited to 5 MfD nominations per day. I propose that this restriction be enacted as a topic ban in the hopes that Legacy will improve the quality of his nominations (which are as a rule quite terrible). VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Before proposing such a thing, clean up your own personal attack. Until someone gets around to closing the G13 expansion, cleanup will continue. Anyway, G13 will be useless on Taku's abandoned Drafts. He'll immediately request a WP:REFUND (a safe prediction since he goes to DRV when the pages are deleted at MfD). Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think Taku should move all his drafts into his userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I was wondering myself why they didn't do that if there was controversy about them being in Draftspace. Taku? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- (I'm he by the way). Because that would defeat the purpose of the draftspace. It's not like my draft pages never get promoted to the mainspace; they do by me or others. Policy-wise, there is nothing with them. Some minority editors don't like the drafts are not the reason to remove them from the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- So you have a problem with people touching your drafts; why not move them to your userspace where they'll be left alone? -FASTILY 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have a problem with the editors disregarding the policies like WP:DEADLINE. I don't mind a well-intentioned attempt to develop the content. I have a problem with an attempt for undeveloping (e.g., deletion) the content. -- Taku (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- So you have a problem with people touching your drafts; why not move them to your userspace where they'll be left alone? -FASTILY 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose as pointless because once the G13 expansion occurs (which it will), this won't be an issue. This is an issue of policy lagging behind community standards, not of behavior. ~ Rob13Talk 05:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- One (or few more) user's behaviors do not equate to the community standard. I'm asking some sanction because their behavior do not seem to reflect the community consensus nor policy. -- Taku (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- And given the wide support for the expansion of G13, you're incorrect. ~ Rob13Talk 05:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- No G13 is about streamlining the deletion process; it's about the process not about the use of the draftspace, which is now discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#What_draftspace_is_not. -- Taku (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- And given the wide support for the expansion of G13, you're incorrect. ~ Rob13Talk 05:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- One (or few more) user's behaviors do not equate to the community standard. I'm asking some sanction because their behavior do not seem to reflect the community consensus nor policy. -- Taku (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - per BU Rob 13. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Premature. -FASTILY 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose ridiculous. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Another disruption
See User talk:TakuyaMurata. We need some kind of an admin intervention to stop their disruption. For example, my drafts are not abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Currently the community consensus on low-quality drafts that have been stale for 6 months are abandoned. The solution to avoid having stale unworked drafts deleted is to a)work on improving them, b)keep them in your userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- The citation please. Also, here is the better solution c) do nothing to drafts that have some potential and do not have some obvious problems like copyright bio or being about non-notable topics. This actually saves everyone's time (and in fact is the preferred solution.) -- Taku (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Here you go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- The RfC asks to expand G13 to non-AfC drafts, which I even supported. It is unrelated to the inclusion criterion for the draftspace. There is still no community consensus that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned (only that there are many problematic drafts among abandoned drafts) and drafts started by me are not even abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- And do you agree c) is the better solution? -- Taku (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you cant understand that that RFC means any draft unworked for 6 months is likely to be speedy-deleted I cant help you. There is nothing restricting you from making new drafts, only that if you do not improve them and abandon them they will be deleted sooner rather than later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- @TakuyaMurata:--Please read WP:CSD#G13 which has been explicitly modified post-RFC.And avoid a I don't hear it behaviour.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- You need to distinguish between how to delete and what to delete. The expansion of G13 simply gives more convenient ways to delete old pages. The RfC specifically did not ask whether if we want to delete old pages. The distinction is subtle but is real and significant; perhaps this needs to be explicitly noted. -- Taku (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Here you go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- The citation please. Also, here is the better solution c) do nothing to drafts that have some potential and do not have some obvious problems like copyright bio or being about non-notable topics. This actually saves everyone's time (and in fact is the preferred solution.) -- Taku (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is another instance of Legacypac (obviously the page is not a test page). I don't understand how behavior like this can go unpunished. They have the great jobs of deleting problematic pages in the draftspace. That doesn't give him to go above the rules. -- Taku (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- That page has NO CONTENT which is a standard reason to CSD G2 Test. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest you read G2 again. It applies to a page with an editor testing editing functionality. Do you seriously claim I was testing th editing functionality? -- Taku (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I try to help save your little stub by moving it to your userspace. What gives you the right to call my move "vandalism"? Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Becuase the removal of legitimate content is vandalism. It's that simple. If you suspect the topic is not notable for instance, the right place to discuss it at MfD. -- Taku (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I try to help save your little stub by moving it to your userspace. What gives you the right to call my move "vandalism"? Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest you read G2 again. It applies to a page with an editor testing editing functionality. Do you seriously claim I was testing th editing functionality? -- Taku (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- That page has NO CONTENT which is a standard reason to CSD G2 Test. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
A yet another instance of applying an incorrect CSD criterion: you don't get what you want? You need to get over it! -- Taku (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Time Out!
I've been watching this for a while (and participating a little too). One thing that's obvious to me is that neither side is 100% wrong, and neither side is 100% right. And, equally, nether side is ever going to convince the other to change their opinion. At this point, people are just venting. As Mackensen said, It's not a healthy dynamic. This is bad for the project. We need to get some closure here, and that's not going to happen in the current forum. I recommend we take this to some neutral third party, have both sides make their case, and everybody agree that whatever comes out of that they will comply with the decision. I'm not sure if WP:ARB or WP:M is the better process, but likely one of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- With respect, but this has been going on for over a week actively and simmering for over a month. 3rd Opinions, RFCs, MFDs, RMs, and many other forua of evaluating community consensus is clear: the creations are not acceptable. I am attempting to use every community method of resolving conduct and content disputes prior to going before the most disruptive form of dispute resolution so that the enablers can be disproven when asked "Did you try alternative form of dispute resolution". Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Numerous MfD discussions contradicts your claim. -- Taku (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
One Admin has removed G13 tags on five Taku substubs (some with zero content) so that is something. Note I'm just tagging as I find them in the list not targeting math pages specifically. . Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's a sense this is time-out but I'm about to take an intercontinental flight so I will not have Internet accesses for quite a long time. I'm just hoping the plane Wikipedia exists when I'm back on the earth. The matter is actually very simple: one side is trying to destroy Wikipedia and I'm merely trying to delay it as much as possible. My English is quite limited and that might be a reason I didn't describe the situation. -- Taku (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not need you. Wikipedia will still exist once your back on earth. We are not trying to destroy Wikipedia (despite your numerous personal attacks to the contrary). We are trying to clean up a portion of Wikipedia-adjecent space for which you have been reminded and nagged multiple times. That you can't be bothered to deal with issues in over a year leaves little imagination that you don't see any purpose in working on them. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually Wikipedia needs editors like me who supply content but anyway yes in your wikigame I'm dispensable. To respond, the cleanup does not have a policy-wise support if it has supports from some users. So, people like me would see clean-up as a disstruction; see above, I'm not alone in this view. -- Taku (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia does not NEED you. Wikipedia doesn't need me, and for great effect, Wikipedia doesn't need Jimbo Wales. No editor is indespensible. If you think that content creation, or potential content creation, will excuse you from behaviorial norms, you are in for a very rude awakening as the community at large and ArbCom have (at various times) banned and blocked editors who were a net negative to the community. Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually Wikipedia needs editors like me who supply content but anyway yes in your wikigame I'm dispensable. To respond, the cleanup does not have a policy-wise support if it has supports from some users. So, people like me would see clean-up as a disstruction; see above, I'm not alone in this view. -- Taku (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion for a compromise
Keeping in mind that A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, let me suggest a possible way forward. The goal of one camp is to get these articles out of draft space. The goal of the other camp is to not have any particular schedule imposed on completing them, nor moving them to user space. What if we created WP:WikiProject Mathematics/Drafts/ and moved them to be subpages of that? It would get them out of sight of the people who want to clean up draft space. It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them. And, they would be subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided were appropriate (which might well be that they never expire). Would this work? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- +1.Happily!With the provisos (1) and (3) of Hasteur.Otherwise reject!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Cute and creative. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Anything that would stop this non-constructive bickering has my support.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Accept with provisos: 1. Taku is not allowed to move things back to Draft namespace after they have been sent to the Mathematics draft bullpen. 2. Only pages that are not ready for mainspace get sent to this bullpen. 3. The Mathematics project endeavors to work on these pages and after some timeframe of not being able to nurture them to the point that they can be stand alone, they be nominated for deletion. The way the proposal reads simply shifts the pile of bits from one location to annother without any stick at the far end to elicit the improvement of mainspace by the content. This has already been done previously when WP:Abandoned Drafts was closed down and absorbed by Drafts. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: "A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied", and therefore the sides of the conflict should not have the veto right; and in particular, the provisos above need not be accepted; they tend to shift the point from the middle to one end. Rather, "subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- With respect, Your proposal only creates yet another walled garden for Taku to be disruptive in. My provisos are actually in line with generally accepted processes. We have a tool already available in CSD:G13 to deal with Taku's pages, but I would prefer not to have to use that lever to get improvement. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also would not the best compromise be one in which both parties are satisfied? I do not agree that a single wikiproject gets to decide that they can keep embryonic pages that "may one day" be expanded. Wikiproject space is not indexed so pages there do not help further the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:5P1). Taku gets what he wants by getting to keep the pages (for some duration), Legacypac and I get what we want by ensuring that the creations are actually improving Wikipedia instead of being perpetual used bits, and Wikipedia as a whole gets what it wants in content that an average reader can use. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- As for me, you are not less insistent than Taku. Maybe even more. Well, naturally, you look the right side in your own eyes. No wonder. I guess, Taku does, as well (but is now on a flight). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also would not the best compromise be one in which both parties are satisfied? I do not agree that a single wikiproject gets to decide that they can keep embryonic pages that "may one day" be expanded. Wikiproject space is not indexed so pages there do not help further the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:5P1). Taku gets what he wants by getting to keep the pages (for some duration), Legacypac and I get what we want by ensuring that the creations are actually improving Wikipedia instead of being perpetual used bits, and Wikipedia as a whole gets what it wants in content that an average reader can use. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Question - What is the advantage of moving the drafts to a new Wikiproject draft space, as opposed to moving them into Taku's userspace, which seems to me by far the simplest and most appropriate solution. Articles can be moved from userspace into articlspace as easily as they can from draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm attempting to find a solution which is acceptable to everybody. Apparently, moving them to userspace has already been rejected by one party, so I'm exploring other options. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Recall also the answer given at the start: "It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them." Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is WP:NOTWEBHOST policy or not? There are many textbooks with esoteric details that could be used to generate hundreds of pre-stub drafts. Encouraging their indefinite storage undermines NOTWEBHOST because the community has no practical way to say it is ok to store pointless notes on mathematics, but not on, say, K-pop. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- True. But "policies the wikiproject decided" could be such a practical way. WP Math can decide what is pointless in math. Do you expect that another wikiproject will decide to store pointless notes on K-pop? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- And on the other hand, if indeed WP:NOTWEBHOST should restricts the use of the draftspace, then the restriction should be formulated clearly in draftspace-related policies. For now it is not, and the position of Hasteur exceeds even the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is that some interpretation of WP:NOTWEBHOST contradicts some interpretation of WP:NODEADLINE. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Should the WP:PORN project be the arbiter of whether sub-drafts of pornography articles are retained indefinitely? What if they wanted to upload a hundred sub-stubs each based on the name and photograph of a non-notable porn star? Relying on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not a reasonable way to run Wikipedia. It is important to uphold the principle of WP:NOTWEBHOST and discourage the indefinite storage of things some contributors like. Per not bureaucracy, this noticeboard is not bound by the details that are or are not covered in the text at WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- OK. If so, yes, this noticeboard can make a precedent decision against Taku. In this case it is desirable to complement draftspace-related policies accordingly. Alternatively, this noticeboard can accept the proposed compromise. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- But now I see there a modification of RoySmith's idea by Johnuniq: do keep them on the project space, but combined into a single page. Really? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- The application of WP:NOTWEBHOST rests on vacuous grounds, since the most page views of these drafts are caused by the janitors and their employed bots, so no essential web hosting takes place at all. Purgy (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see WP:NOTWEBHOST applying at all. The content we're talking about is clearly intended to be used for writing future wikipedia articles. The point of contention is not the intended use of the material, but the speed at which those articles get written.
- Even if "not webhost" is indeed not an apt name for that policy, the problem behind the policy is real: in order to be a healthy organism, Wikipedia needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system. This is the point of Johnuniq (as far as I understand this). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see WP:NOTWEBHOST applying at all. The content we're talking about is clearly intended to be used for writing future wikipedia articles. The point of contention is not the intended use of the material, but the speed at which those articles get written.
- The application of WP:NOTWEBHOST rests on vacuous grounds, since the most page views of these drafts are caused by the janitors and their employed bots, so no essential web hosting takes place at all. Purgy (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Should the WP:PORN project be the arbiter of whether sub-drafts of pornography articles are retained indefinitely? What if they wanted to upload a hundred sub-stubs each based on the name and photograph of a non-notable porn star? Relying on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not a reasonable way to run Wikipedia. It is important to uphold the principle of WP:NOTWEBHOST and discourage the indefinite storage of things some contributors like. Per not bureaucracy, this noticeboard is not bound by the details that are or are not covered in the text at WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Tsirel: of 04:47, 27 August 2017: That's a good one. I perceive that as a personal attack. In no way did I deal with that defunct sub-project. I'm applying WP:Drafts which is policy, instead of a cherry-picked project that was absorbed into the Draft namespace. It's very simple. The drafts are abandoned because Taku hasn't done anything about them in over two years after having attention brought to an appropriate WikiProject (for which they participated in) (May 2016, June 2017). Taku contributed precisely zero bytes to improve them, however will spend thousands of bytes arguing that they should be able to keep them. Hasteur (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- You do not own a production factory called draftspace. Yet you want the creative-content production of draftspace to meet your production standards. Unscintillating (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- A personal attack? Just the (true) statement that your position exceeds even the guidelines of something? I did not know it is defunct, I did not know you apply something else. But even if I were knowing that, would it be a personal attack? As for me, this is your nervous overreaction. (Now blame me for the word "nervous" too...) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- (Better late than never...) "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." (policy) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Tsirel: I know the type of these editors. They are here to play a game; the ultimate goal of it is the destruction and getting the users blocked. They want you to get upset and make mistakes to get you banned. I'm a target since I have kept evading their attacks; so I became the last boss of the sort. I guess I'm not completely innocent; a part of me must enjoy counter-attacking their attacks (It can be quite more fun than writing terse math articles). This is just an online game a lot of Wikipedia users play nowadays. I know the game is a distraction and that's why I agreed with the proposed compromise. -- Taku (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Taku: You would be best advised to stop commenting on the motivations and characters of the opposing editors and start dealing with the actual issues involved, because this has been going on for quite a while now, and I can sense that some admins might be close to dealing out some NPA blocks, if only to shut it down. Boris, at least, made an effort to find a compromise, albeit one that didn't fly, but it's you, Taku, who is at the center of this, and therefore it's you who is going to have to give way in some fashion or another, because your failure to do so, your digging your feet in with continued rejections of all proposals has, in my estimation, become disruptive to the smooth operation of the encyclopedia. That being the case, it's no longer going to matter who is "right" and who is "wrong", someone is heading for a block, and the prime candidate would appear to be you. You're out here practically alone, with a number of editors aligned against you, which is not a great position to hold in a noticeboard discussion. Continue holding out and don't compromise if you want to take the risk that no admin is going to block you, or start to actually talk to the other editors and find some acceptable common ground -- the choice is yours, and yours alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Tsirel: I know the type of these editors. They are here to play a game; the ultimate goal of it is the destruction and getting the users blocked. They want you to get upset and make mistakes to get you banned. I'm a target since I have kept evading their attacks; so I became the last boss of the sort. I guess I'm not completely innocent; a part of me must enjoy counter-attacking their attacks (It can be quite more fun than writing terse math articles). This is just an online game a lot of Wikipedia users play nowadays. I know the game is a distraction and that's why I agreed with the proposed compromise. -- Taku (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I'm on the path for the block, reading from the above and below. Anyway, for the record, I have already agreed with the Roy Smith's proposed compromise that we put the draftpages at the subpage of the wikiproject math. It seems it is the other side that it never accepts anything other than total capitulation. -- Taku (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've given you my view of the situation which, despite the comment of an editor below that it was "perfectly biased", was, in fact, a neutral and unbiased take on the matter. Only time now will tell if it was correct, but certainly if Taku continues his escalation to personal attacks, it would seem to be more likely than not. Good luck with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- support as written (not with addendums). Arg, this whole thing is silly. Both sides are, IMO, out of line. There is no need for these articles to sit in draft space for months and months. But there is also no reason for anyone to care if they do (yes, I've heard the reasons on both sides and yes I still think both are wrongheaded). This solves the problems both claim exist (draft space being to "messy" and giving the drafts a home outside of user space where others are likely to find and help). So let's run with it. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support - This seems like a good solution to the problem. Without this, we will surely have drafts that will never be improved sitting in the draftspace. Hopefully, we can bring these drafts to the attention of those who know stuff about the subjects. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Copy of all content in a single page
I downloaded the wikitext (minus irrelevant stub templates etc.) from all current Draft pages created by TakuyaMurata, and appended it to User:TakuyaMurata/DraftsUser:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage which already existed (skip the initial list of links to drafts to see what I added). Drafts which are currently redirects were not included. TakuyaMurata of course is welcome to revert my edit if wanted, in which case the content can be seen at permalink. If nothing else, the single page allows easy browsing of the content. I should have used a level-one heading for each copy, but everything else is probably ok. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Now headings are level-one. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- (in an airport with a patchy connection) I object to the use of a single draft page. See my sandbox page, which I use for my own private drafting use. The draft pages I started are supposed to belong to the community; that is, why I object to put them into my user-page. I can live with the proposal to place draft pages in the wikiproject math page; this way, they are still not tied to me and can be edited by the others. I have a lot to say on the proper use of the draftspace, but I will not repeat the here. As noted above, WP:NOTWEBHOST is not applicable since it's about the non-encyclopedic content. Are in the agreement? -- Taku (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
To heck with Taku this is absurd. [7] see below:
Propose 1 week block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Only a block is going to stop the never ending disruption of draft cleanup that he continues to spread to pages far and wide. [8]. Nothing will satisfy Taku ever. In a week the push will be over and he can come back and hopefully make useful controbutions. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- As above, I have expressed my agreement with the proposed compromise and so I have to be blocked then??? -- Taku (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Now Edit warring to delete a redirect and wholesale modifying my talk page posts. Legacypac (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- You complained about the broken links so I tried to fix them; it's hardly the modification. -- Taku (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Regretfully Oppose Part of the issue here is that I'm not a abstract Geometry/Mathematics expert so I can't judge alone what is notable and what is not. To block a user and then immediately proceed to delete pages so that they cannot object will only set up the case for compassionate Refunds on the grounds that Taku wasn't able to contribute to the proceedings. If Taku has the opportunity to contribute, but does not that's a silent acceptance of the proposal. If they can't respond that smacks of a star chamber. Hasteur (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Taku should not be so disruptive, but the issue was sure to be ignited when drafts were nominated for deletion. However, 1 they do not have to be nominated, 2 they do not have to be deleted, and 3 they can be restored at WP:REFUND request. However I will also note that putting it in userspace is a much better option. Don't expect others to stumble across the draft and improve it. Instead Taku should ask at a Wikiproject to see if there are others willing to assist, and then it does not matter if it is userspace or draft space. I would also oppose a separate Mathematics draft space, as that would still accumulate stagnant drafts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Removal of Personal attack
TakuyaMurata has been warned by many editors including recently by Beyond My Ken above at 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to stop making statements regarding the motivations of editors who are attempting to secure compliance with standard operating practices of Wikipedia. As such Taku made a bald faced personal attack on those who are trying to clean up draftspace on the Mathematics wikiproject page. I have reverted it citing the warning. I request that an Administrator give a final warning to TakuyaMurata for failure to adhere to the Civility policy and "No Personal Attacks" policy as the attacks and inuendo poison the consensus building arguments and fracture the community into an "Us vs Them" situation. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- In his own words why he is doing this, and another attack. [9] Legacypac (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I also name TimothyRias as complicit in twice restoring Taku's personal attack on the above page. What is worse? Removing a personal attack or disruptively restoring the attack repeatedly? Hasteur (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- To answer your question: 1). You simply should not be removing comments in any conflict in which you are directly involved. If you feel that a some comment is a personal attack against yourself, go through through the proper channels, and do not remove it yourself. TR 14:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Policy absolutely supports removing personal attacks against you. User:TimothyRias needs to be trouted for edit warring to restore disruptive nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Both of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and think about why people might get the idea that you are trolling. Maybe take a wikation?TR 17:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose to the need of a final warning. I consider the valuation expressed in Taku's reverted comment as obvious, and I myself share with others the opinon that the sanitizing engineers act above reasonable levels. The reverted comment contained to my measures neither insults, nor threats, nor innuendo, nor any general attack beyond tellingly describing specific behaviour. As regards the cited comment ("warning") by Beyond My Ken, this is in my perception a perfectly biased, non-neutral view of the facts, totally neglecting any possibility of a compromise, fully in line with Hasteur. Purgy (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Request for administrator involvement
This thread has been going on for about 2 weeks now, with no sign of it being settled between the disputants in the near future. Could an uninvolved admin please weigh in on it, in whatever fashion is deemed appropriate, in order to put it out of its misery? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- But don't we have Roy Smith's compromise? I'm not sure what admin actions are needed (block? Why?). Regarding personal attacks, I should note that my motivations have also been questioned time to time; e.g., starting a DVR is viewed a disruption rather than checking of the procedures are followed correctly. -- Taku (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- A compromise which has been accepted by one side in the dispute, but not by (all those in) the other is not a viable compromise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken is correct (actually, two of the three primary players here have accepted it, but not all three). If we don't have buy-in from everybody, it's not going to fly. The next thing I would suggest is to ask three uninvolved admins to write a joint closing statement. That's often a good way to get closure. Whatever they decide, everybody has to live with. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have made this request here -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken is correct (actually, two of the three primary players here have accepted it, but not all three). If we don't have buy-in from everybody, it's not going to fly. The next thing I would suggest is to ask three uninvolved admins to write a joint closing statement. That's often a good way to get closure. Whatever they decide, everybody has to live with. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- A compromise which has been accepted by one side in the dispute, but not by (all those in) the other is not a viable compromise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh. Rats. OK, I edit conflicted with people (including RoySmith) saying my suggestion isn't feasible. I'll post it here anyway.
- You want an uninvolved admin's opinion? OK. This has been personalized too much to lead to a suitable solution right now. So after reading this whole thing, I
plan onwas thinking of doing the following, if there aren't good reasons not to in the next day:- Enact RoySmith's compromise, but as a temporary measure. For one thing, Legacypac and Taku have both agreed to it, and they are the main drivers (I know Hasteur hasn't). Leave the drafts there for a month, to allow the dust to settle. They could certainly be worked on while there, but this wouldn't necessarily be a long term solution, and it certainly wouldn't be setting a precedent for what to do with similar pages.
- Clemency for the many too-personal comments made by one side against the other. A strong suggestion to avoid people from the other side where possible, and avoid talking about the other side's motivations to anyone, for the one month period, but not a total interaction ban or anything.
- After a month (or sooner if everyone feels chill earlier), one or more of the following:
- A thread at WT:MATH about whether there is a benefit to hosting these sub-stub drafts in WP space, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations.
- A calm discussion... somewhere (WT:DRAFT? WP:VPPOLICY?) about the benefit/cost ratio of keeping extraordinarily short pages in draft space, when a good faith editor objects to deletion, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations. I have not yet seen a fully persuasive rationale for keeping them or for deleting them.
- A calm discussion somewhere else.
- As a result of this/these calm discussion(s), with no deadlines, either delete the drafts from WP space, move them back to draft space, move them to userspace, or leave them where they are.
- In other words, postpone the decision, giving people a chance to cool off, and stop edit warring / namecalling / block shopping / being angry. AN/ANI is about the worst place to try to solve a complicated problem. Let's follow RoySmith's advice and compromise, and try this again in a more productive place than here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- You want an uninvolved admin's opinion? OK. This has been personalized too much to lead to a suitable solution right now. So after reading this whole thing, I
- Its not a complicated problem. Taku wants to host his unlikely-to-ever-be-worked-on-once-created stubs in draftspace, the editors who have been attempting to clean up draftspace would rather he actually work on them and/or submit them to AFC - you know, what draftspace is actually for. And have successfully managed to change the CSD criteria so unless he (or anyone else) does work on drafts, they will be deleted as abandoned. Since the solution to the problem of having unworked/abandoned stubs of little value sitting in draftspace is to not have them in draftspace, the easiest solution is just to move them all to Taku's sandbox where he can continue to not work on them to his heart's content and everyone else who really doesnt care about them can safely ignore them like all the other random stuff thats in sandboxes. Granted Taku wont be happy, but the point of dispute resolution is to resolve the dispute, not move it around the place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: With respect. The compromise has already been broken by TauyaMurata in first having the pages in Taku's namespace and then moving them to annother user's draft space. If Taku wanted to work on these, they should be in Taku's userspace. Moving these to Taku's workspace has been resisted tooth and nail by Taku. Multiple offers have been extended to Taku to show how they can get Legacypac and Myself to go away for 6 months.
The change to the CSD rule was enacted by community consensus with Taku also providing feedback, so I find your claim that we changed the rule offensive.Finally I intend to hold your words up in 6 months when I predict that there will be not a single edit to any of the topics because Taku has repeatedly made the same noises without a single line of substantial improvement. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- this is pretty simple now and can be closed by an Admin, and here is a suggested closing statement "
"We accept Taku's agreement to move his stubs to MathProject. Most have already been gathered into one page and any missed can be added by any editor. All Taku stubs so consolidated shall be deleted with Taku forbidden from objecting/DRVs or requesting REFUNDS on the consolidated pages. Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." Feel free to adjust the closing stmt or suggest improvements. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Several things are wrong with the statement. In RoySmith's original formulation, there was no suggestion to consolidate draft pages into one page (thus the statement is significant departure from the original). For another, many of the drafts started by me are not really stubs; e.g., Draft:residual intersection. "Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." too vague; also not in the original formulation. My understanding on RoySmith's proposal is it says that we use subpages of the wikiproject math as opposed to the draftspace. This is acceptable to me because it simply represents the change of the locations of the drafts (and not to the substance of them). It is my understanding that the substance of the drafts are not problems but the location is; somehow it is wrong to store drafts in the draftspace :) -- Taku (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
So... 70 or so little stubs? Since you oppose encouragement to develop the topics for mainspace... did you want to mandate development or forbid it altogether or just discourage development? Those are the other options right? Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Taku, the consolidation is not at all a hostile act against you. Its reason was explained by Johnunique, and reformulated by me as "in order to be a healthy organism, Wikipedia needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system." (above) Class hatred between these two systems is destructive (as always). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I know but the consolidation fundamentally changes the nature of the drafts; it ties the drafts to me. The reason I use the draftspace as opposed to my user-page is to make suggestions that the drafts belong to the community not me. The closing statement I have in mind is
- Because of the reviewing complications, for mathematics-related drafts, use subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics instead of the draft namespace.
- It is important that the statement does not refer to one particular user.
- Equally important, the statement should not refer to any editing behavior.
- -- Taku (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- "ties the drafts to me"? Yes, if the page will be called "Taku's drafts"; no, if it will be called "Our drafts", or "Algebraic geometry drafts", etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe I misssed thr point: why do we want to consolidate drafts into one page? Obviously, it's more convenient to edit Draft:residual intersection as a standalone page rather than a section in one giant single draft page. Without consolidation, I image there will be a list of draft pages sorted by subjects so it will be easier to find interested editors to work on them. -- Taku (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, for us mathematicians it is better not to consolidate. But for admins that must resist bad-intended advocacy groups, it is safer to consolidate. I guess so; but I am not one of them, and not authorized to represent them. If you are able to resist the consolidation, do. Otherwise, accept. Such is the life, and it becomes sucher and sucher. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Taku: If the drafts "belong to the community and not [you]", then why are you exhibiting such powerful WP:OWNERSHIP over them? You fight tooth and nail to exert your will about how they should be handled. That doesn't show that you believe they "belong to the community", that shows that you act as if they belong to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, no, I'm trying to fight against the attempt to impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used, the view that does not have the community support and that is inconsistent with the policies like WP:DEADLINE. Obviously, say, Legacypac's view is not always the same thing as the community's view. In fact, many so-called problematic drafts survive MfD, which implies there is a solid support for my use of the draftspace. Some editors might be verbose; doesn't mean their opinions are the majority's. I admit there does seem a tension between whether the draftspace must be reserved for the short-term use only or should be allowed for the long-term use. I have suggested we run an RfC to find the community's opinion on this and that was considered a disruption... If I just want to own them, I would just use my user-page (in fact, I use my sandbox for drafts I want to own.) -- Taku (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- With no respect (because you've burned all my available AGF) you are wrong. The RFC which expanded G13 (for which you participated in extensively) clearly indicates that drafts that are unedited for over 6 months (like the ones we've been debating for the entire period) should be speedy deleted. Period, End of Line, No debate. Want to change that? Launch a new RFC making your case. Until then the community consensus provides for taking a critical view to pages that are unedited for over 6 months (like yours) because they do not further Wikipedia's purpose WP:5P1. Hasteur (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- "impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used" I refer you to the previous linked RFC which is very clear that draftspace is not for indefinite draft storage. Please find another tree to bark at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- I also object to the example of Draft:Residual intersection being flung around like chum to muddy the watters. Looking at the history we discover the page was created at 00:00 26 May 2017 (UTC) which by even the first revision makes this page less than 6 months ago so thereby is still concievably being worked on. Furthermore the most recent revision is from 08:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC) which again makes this page far too young to consider G13. Yet another line from Taku's Playbook for Delay and Disruption: Pull the debate to a topic that has a better case of getting cherry-picked support so that the generic debate can end in a "No Consensus" close. Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, no, I'm trying to fight against the attempt to impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used, the view that does not have the community support and that is inconsistent with the policies like WP:DEADLINE. Obviously, say, Legacypac's view is not always the same thing as the community's view. In fact, many so-called problematic drafts survive MfD, which implies there is a solid support for my use of the draftspace. Some editors might be verbose; doesn't mean their opinions are the majority's. I admit there does seem a tension between whether the draftspace must be reserved for the short-term use only or should be allowed for the long-term use. I have suggested we run an RfC to find the community's opinion on this and that was considered a disruption... If I just want to own them, I would just use my user-page (in fact, I use my sandbox for drafts I want to own.) -- Taku (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Taku: If the drafts "belong to the community and not [you]", then why are you exhibiting such powerful WP:OWNERSHIP over them? You fight tooth and nail to exert your will about how they should be handled. That doesn't show that you believe they "belong to the community", that shows that you act as if they belong to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, for us mathematicians it is better not to consolidate. But for admins that must resist bad-intended advocacy groups, it is safer to consolidate. I guess so; but I am not one of them, and not authorized to represent them. If you are able to resist the consolidation, do. Otherwise, accept. Such is the life, and it becomes sucher and sucher. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe I misssed thr point: why do we want to consolidate drafts into one page? Obviously, it's more convenient to edit Draft:residual intersection as a standalone page rather than a section in one giant single draft page. Without consolidation, I image there will be a list of draft pages sorted by subjects so it will be easier to find interested editors to work on them. -- Taku (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Taku's accusation that I'm verbose but my opinions don't reflect consensus is one of the funniest things I've seen this week! Look in a mirror Taku! It's more than a little odd that Taku is complaining about G13 expansion after he voted FOR it. Anyway, he was fighting anyone touching HIS drafts (that apparently belong to the community today) well over a year ago. There are correct terms for people that will say anything, even contradicting themselves, to stir trouble. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- There is a little confusion as to what the expansion of G13 means: it is about how to delete the stuff and not about what to. It was about streamlining the deletion procession; the question was formulated as such. If we were to permanently delete any page that is unedited for 6 months, we need to disallow, for instance, the refund of G13-deleted pages. There is still no consensus that there need a refund-proof deletion of old drafts. In fact, MfD, DVR, and WikiProject math if you look at anywhere else, you find this rogue "clean-up of the draftspace" does not have the strong community support. Fighting against rogue operations should not be considered as a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Again no respect. You seem to repeatedly and willfully mis-construe the RFC to the point that I question your competency to understand and form coherent arguments in English as you have enumerated multiple times that it is not your primary language. G13 is the current law of the land, and nothing prohibits you from requesting a REFUND on those pages, however when they come eligible for G13 again (which I predict will happen) they will be deleted again for lack of editing. On a subsequent REFUND I expect the admin will see the history and see that it had been requested before and zero progress was made. REFUND is a low effort restoration, but there is an effort. An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests. Furthermore this argument that it's a rogue operation is patently wrong, willfully deceptive, and very short of a personal attack. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Rogue operations" it's not my opinion but has been expressed broadly. There has been a wide skepticism whether it is necessary to clean-up old but legitimate drafts (there are a lot of worthless drafts and I'm not talking about them; the G13 expansion mainly concerns the latter type). "An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests." This is news to me; can you provide me a link to this instruction? -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- @TakuyaMurata: Please properly indent your messages. The standard on Wikipedia is to add one tab (represented by a colon) for each response, to make a pyramidal structure. You tend to go in and out and in and out, which is more difficult to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Rogue operations" it's not my opinion but has been expressed broadly. There has been a wide skepticism whether it is necessary to clean-up old but legitimate drafts (there are a lot of worthless drafts and I'm not talking about them; the G13 expansion mainly concerns the latter type). "An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests." This is news to me; can you provide me a link to this instruction? -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Again no respect. You seem to repeatedly and willfully mis-construe the RFC to the point that I question your competency to understand and form coherent arguments in English as you have enumerated multiple times that it is not your primary language. G13 is the current law of the land, and nothing prohibits you from requesting a REFUND on those pages, however when they come eligible for G13 again (which I predict will happen) they will be deleted again for lack of editing. On a subsequent REFUND I expect the admin will see the history and see that it had been requested before and zero progress was made. REFUND is a low effort restoration, but there is an effort. An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests. Furthermore this argument that it's a rogue operation is patently wrong, willfully deceptive, and very short of a personal attack. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- There is a little confusion as to what the expansion of G13 means: it is about how to delete the stuff and not about what to. It was about streamlining the deletion procession; the question was formulated as such. If we were to permanently delete any page that is unedited for 6 months, we need to disallow, for instance, the refund of G13-deleted pages. There is still no consensus that there need a refund-proof deletion of old drafts. In fact, MfD, DVR, and WikiProject math if you look at anywhere else, you find this rogue "clean-up of the draftspace" does not have the strong community support. Fighting against rogue operations should not be considered as a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- "ties the drafts to me"? Yes, if the page will be called "Taku's drafts"; no, if it will be called "Our drafts", or "Algebraic geometry drafts", etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
To those closing, here is another evidence so-called "consensus" only exists in the fantasy land: Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve. The reference to a hypothetical non-existent consensus got to be stopped. -- Taku (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yet annother case of willfull "I didn't hear that" by Takuya. This real and present disruption has got to be stopped. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Are you again referring to the G13-expansion RfC? Again it was about streamlining the deletion process; nothing more. The question was not about the proper use of the draftspace. See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Is_this_really_what_people_supported_in_the_G13_RfC.3F for the related discussion. -- Taku (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your repeated attempts to claim victory out of resounding defeat surpasses all the markers of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Look forward to round two in 6 months when we get the opportunity to argue this again. I challenge you Taku to prove me wrong by focusing for at least net 100k bytes on improving the text of these pages. If not then my previous assertion (that you're only interested in the topics because they're your creations and therefore an impermissible form of WP:OWN) stands and is reinforced. Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hasteur, could you let this go? It's clearly gotten very personal for you. We have a compromise that only you seem to object to. Can't we just do that and move along? Hobit (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Without some form of guarantee that we won't be back here in 6~12 months re-litigating this debate and that Taku will be further emboldened at the fact that this discussion was closed as anything but a sanction to them, I think the harm to Wikipedia is still a clear and present danger. Hasteur (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hasteur, could you let this go? It's clearly gotten very personal for you. We have a compromise that only you seem to object to. Can't we just do that and move along? Hobit (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your repeated attempts to claim victory out of resounding defeat surpasses all the markers of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Look forward to round two in 6 months when we get the opportunity to argue this again. I challenge you Taku to prove me wrong by focusing for at least net 100k bytes on improving the text of these pages. If not then my previous assertion (that you're only interested in the topics because they're your creations and therefore an impermissible form of WP:OWN) stands and is reinforced. Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Are you again referring to the G13-expansion RfC? Again it was about streamlining the deletion process; nothing more. The question was not about the proper use of the draftspace. See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Is_this_really_what_people_supported_in_the_G13_RfC.3F for the related discussion. -- Taku (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- All the Taku nonsense about G13 is a smoke screen. He has requested and received refunds on each deleted page and another 5 or so were untagged for him. The refund request includes the words something like "because I intend to work on this". In 6 months we shall see if Taku is true to his word or not. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't think the REFUND takes the editors' minds into account; in fact, there is no things like continuous-editing requirement for REFUND (there shouldn't be). -- Taku (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Read WP:REFUND. I found something interesting though. The normal G13 REFUND wording says "I, usename, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it."
- To be clear, I don't think the REFUND takes the editors' minds into account; in fact, there is no things like continuous-editing requirement for REFUND (there shouldn't be). -- Taku (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- However [10] and [11] Taku did not use that for most of his REFUND requests, which may include knowingly deleting the wording. Does this indicate he requested the REFUNDS without intending to work on them? Were these refunds WP:POINT behavior? Taku - please answer yes or no - do you intend to work on all these drafts? Legacypac (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I do believe the template message is misleading and incorrect; for one thing, the drafts weren't created through AfC. For another, we shouldn't use intentionality as a test of whether we restore a page or not, since that can be subject to dispute and REFUND isn't an alternative venue for MfD or DVR. (To answer the question, I intend to work on any page in Wikipedia.) -- Taku (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- So... No you do not intend to work on your notes in Draft space. That is the only way to interpret that evasive answer. The requests for a REFUND was misleading and WP:POINTy. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- When/where did I say I don't intend to work on them? I'm questioning whether it is a good idea to ask such a question. Also, the instruction page is dated (e.g., only talks about AfC) and is not applicable to non-AfC drafts. -- Taku (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- So... No you do not intend to work on your notes in Draft space. That is the only way to interpret that evasive answer. The requests for a REFUND was misleading and WP:POINTy. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps TakuyaMurata is either confused to the point of competence questioning or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but the procedure for requesting a refund of a page deleted by G13 clearly states
If your draft article has been deleted for this reason, and you wish to retrieve it because you intend to continue working on it:
(emphasis mine). The majority and spirit of the line has been in since February 9th of 2014. Taku has read the page as that is the only way they could have known the template to use. This behavior only reinforces my hypothesis that we'll be back in 6 months to nominate these again because Taku has not spent one byte improving the pages they requested REFUND on. Hasteur (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I do believe the template message is misleading and incorrect; for one thing, the drafts weren't created through AfC. For another, we shouldn't use intentionality as a test of whether we restore a page or not, since that can be subject to dispute and REFUND isn't an alternative venue for MfD or DVR. (To answer the question, I intend to work on any page in Wikipedia.) -- Taku (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Move them all to Taku's userspace. At this point, it really doesn't matter what Taku wants in my opinion, because what he wants violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Moving the things to his userpsace will at least get rid of the draftspace problem. It would be nice if an admin could close this endless discussion and make the obvious and easiest call, so that we could all go back to focusing on, you know, actually building an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- What part of NOTWEBHOST does this violate? The point of draft space to to have drafts. These are drafts aren't they? Hobit (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Besides if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, moving the pages to the user-space doesn't solve the issue since the policy applies to the userspaces. For the record, I would much prefer to work on the encyclopedic content; I'm merely responding to the other side's disruption; i.e., an attempt to remove legitimate perfectly-harmless drafts. -- Taku (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I understand, the items are not legitimate drafts. Nor is draftspace for anything at all that is "perfectly harmless". To paraphrase NOTWEBHOST, Wikipedia draftspace is not your personal website or drawing board or playground. The ridiculous amount of time and contention that is being devoted to this right now, and the refusal to accept a reasonable and harmless solution, is an indication in my mind that there are serious CIR and NOTHERE elements at play here. I'm almost wishing that this entire thread would have been brought to ANI rather than AN, because there is a wider audience there and less tolerance for endless back-and-forth nonsense without resolution. Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree; as far as I understand, they are legitimate (see Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve, this is not just my only personalm view). (Also, if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, the pages need to be deleted, not moved.) I do agree this dispute is about the proper use of the draftspace. So I have repeated suggested that we run an RfC to find out the community's view the proper use of the draftspace. From MfD, DVR and other talk pages, my understanding is that my use of the draftspace is legitimate. -- Taku (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I understand, the items are not legitimate drafts. Nor is draftspace for anything at all that is "perfectly harmless". To paraphrase NOTWEBHOST, Wikipedia draftspace is not your personal website or drawing board or playground. The ridiculous amount of time and contention that is being devoted to this right now, and the refusal to accept a reasonable and harmless solution, is an indication in my mind that there are serious CIR and NOTHERE elements at play here. I'm almost wishing that this entire thread would have been brought to ANI rather than AN, because there is a wider audience there and less tolerance for endless back-and-forth nonsense without resolution. Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- From board to board to board shopping for decisions he likes and ignoring or seeking to overturn decisions he does not like. Untold drama instead of either building good content. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please, pretty please, before judging on math content, keep in mind your pertinent professional incompetence and, before beweeping the untold drama, consider its abundancy caused by you janitors in steadfastly refusing to agree to a suggested compromise. Purgy (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Purgy: I don't think that English is your primary language, so probably you're not aware that "incompetence" is not the neutral word it may appear to be, because of its connotations, which include being stupid or inept. If your point is that Legacypac and Hasteur are not professional mathematicians (which, of course, they don't have to be to count to "6 months" and look at the history of a draft to see if it's been worked on in that time), it would have been more polite to say something like "your lack of professional qualifications in mathematics." (And, so you know for the future, "Pretty, pretty please" is a fairly condescending thing to say.)But, be that as it may, I don't see where either of them are making judgments on the value of the mathematical content of the drafts in question. It appears to me that the point being made is that the drafts have been sitting in draft space without being worked on for a substantial period of time, and therefore should be moved elsewhere. That's not a judgment on the content of the drafts, it's a judgment on where they are, how long they've been there, and what's not happened to them in that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- You are perfectly right about English not being my mother tongue, and I do not even live in a pertinent country, so thanks for your hints to a more adequate use of pretty please and incompetence, even when decorated with the adjective "professional" and the one in italics above. But mostly I want to emphasize that my comment did not address anyone's capability to count or look, but the statement by Legacypac
"Untold drama instead of either building good content."
, which I perceived, in this here context, to be targeting missing or defect "math content". Sadly, because of this repeated misinterpretations I cannot revise my estimation of you being "perfectly biased", favouring the "janitors of draft" and turning down "Taku, the vandal of draft". Maybe, this all is caused by me being inept to understand English in a native way. So sorry. Purgy (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)- Maybe, or maybe I am "perfectly biased" and just don't know it, but it now appears to me that the only participant in this particular colloquy who is "perfectly biased" is you. "Janitors of draft", indeed. "Notorious user Hasteur"? Those are not the comments of an unbiased observer, whatever their proficiency with English. I extended you AGF, but you've sucked it all up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- No one needs an advanced math degree to assess a page with no meaningful content - including ones with not a word of content. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe, or maybe I am "perfectly biased" and just don't know it, but it now appears to me that the only participant in this particular colloquy who is "perfectly biased" is you. "Janitors of draft", indeed. "Notorious user Hasteur"? Those are not the comments of an unbiased observer, whatever their proficiency with English. I extended you AGF, but you've sucked it all up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- You are perfectly right about English not being my mother tongue, and I do not even live in a pertinent country, so thanks for your hints to a more adequate use of pretty please and incompetence, even when decorated with the adjective "professional" and the one in italics above. But mostly I want to emphasize that my comment did not address anyone's capability to count or look, but the statement by Legacypac
- @Purgy: I don't think that English is your primary language, so probably you're not aware that "incompetence" is not the neutral word it may appear to be, because of its connotations, which include being stupid or inept. If your point is that Legacypac and Hasteur are not professional mathematicians (which, of course, they don't have to be to count to "6 months" and look at the history of a draft to see if it's been worked on in that time), it would have been more polite to say something like "your lack of professional qualifications in mathematics." (And, so you know for the future, "Pretty, pretty please" is a fairly condescending thing to say.)But, be that as it may, I don't see where either of them are making judgments on the value of the mathematical content of the drafts in question. It appears to me that the point being made is that the drafts have been sitting in draft space without being worked on for a substantial period of time, and therefore should be moved elsewhere. That's not a judgment on the content of the drafts, it's a judgment on where they are, how long they've been there, and what's not happened to them in that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please, pretty please, before judging on math content, keep in mind your pertinent professional incompetence and, before beweeping the untold drama, consider its abundancy caused by you janitors in steadfastly refusing to agree to a suggested compromise. Purgy (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- From board to board to board shopping for decisions he likes and ignoring or seeking to overturn decisions he does not like. Untold drama instead of either building good content. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration?
It looks like arbitration is the next step. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- With regret I feel obliged to report that this, rightfully sighed at, remark is canvassed by notorious user Hasteur, who did not hesitate to bias a presumed arbiter with headlining the problems as solely caused by Taku-cruft, without even mentioning his denial of any compromise short of his fullblown targets, and of course not admitting own stubbornness. Purgy (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? Hasteur hasn't edited User talk:Stifle since 17 August, and (as best as I can tell) hasn't posted on the talk page of any arbitrator for more than a month. Since the hinting above doesn't seem to have penetrated, I'm going to put this more bluntly: WP:No personal attacks applies to you just as much as it does to anyone else, and if you continue insulting other editors or making accusations without evidence, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for that response, though had I decided to presue advanced forms of DR, I would have named Purgy as a useful idiot addition to the case. For the time being I feel that the case is pretty well put now that 2 administrators have strongly reminded TakuyaMurata that "started a deletion review purely as process for process' sake" is disruptive and can be a blockable offense. Takuya's drafts are either below the threshold or are being debated. I have very little doubt that in 6 months we will be back here, having this same debate, with exactly the same cast of disputants, with some of the same enablers of the action. At that point I suspect there will be a 1 week AN thread before I or someone else will transition this to ArbCom so that the underlying conduct dispute can be resolved short of the Appeal to Jimmy. I do not expect this to come to ANI beause it does not need immediate (<48 hrs) resolution as it is not an existential threat to Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? Hasteur hasn't edited User talk:Stifle since 17 August, and (as best as I can tell) hasn't posted on the talk page of any arbitrator for more than a month. Since the hinting above doesn't seem to have penetrated, I'm going to put this more bluntly: WP:No personal attacks applies to you just as much as it does to anyone else, and if you continue insulting other editors or making accusations without evidence, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Tangentially related pages
There is a discussion on the purpose of the draftspace at User talk:A2soup/Don't use draftspace. Since the issue is really about the policies about the use of the draftspace (as opposed to editors' behaviors), the page might be relevant. In particular, I haven given my take on the draftspace (as well as on AfC).
See also Draft:Geometric Mixed-Motives for an example of a math draft started by someone other than me. In time, a draft like that will be deleted. I'm objecting to practice like that. Objections to destructions like that should not be disruptions. -- Taku (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- On the Geometric Mixed-Motives you are as woefully wrong as possible. If you took the time (instead of looking for cherry-picked examples to hang your banner on) you'd see that the anonymous user had the AFC "draftmode" banner in the content from the very first instant. Approximately 1 minute later, the same anonymous user requested an AFC review meaning they are giving it to the community to judge it's worthyness. It was reviewed by what appears to be an editor in good standing and was declined. The anonymous user knew exactly what they were getting into when they submitted the content. Unless you're making a very poor quality argument about others your example is so wrong that you appear to be setting yourself up as the patron saint of hopeless math draft pages. As was said untold times before, the way to keep this draft off the deletion pile is for the page to be improved and brought up to an acceptable quality. Hasteur (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- that User talk:A2soup/Don't use draftspace is useful - to keep themselves occupied. It will get MfD'd sooner or later. There is nothing more to do with Taku until 6 month rolls around and his drafts get CSD'd again for inactivity. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
ECP of Kappa Alpha Order
I note that Kappa Alpha Order has been extended-confirmed protected by Plastikspork. This page hadn't been semied for a while. I think the action was intended to prevent a recurrence of the edits by an auto-confirmed editor on 15th of August. A warning would appear to be more appropriate, and, if problems persisted, a block.
Perhaps I have missed something, so I thought I thought I would bring it up here.
Yaris678 (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Have you discussed this with Plastikspork before coming here? His talk page should be your first port of call. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have tagged him in the post above. His user page says he is semi retired. Despite this, I probably would have gone to the protecting admin's talk page first for other forms of protection. But I thought the point of logging each instance of ECP at AN was so that it can be discussed at AN. Yaris678 (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- No one has offered an opinion here or at User talk:Plastikspork#Kappa Alpha Order so I have changed the protection to semi. Yaris678 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yaris asked my advice on this since I closed the RfC that led to the implementation of ECP and I'm inclined to agree with his assessment. Many people in the RfC expressed reservations or supported ECP with the caveat that it be used sparingly and in this case semi and possibly other measures look like they would adequately control the disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- No one has offered an opinion here or at User talk:Plastikspork#Kappa Alpha Order so I have changed the protection to semi. Yaris678 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Full prot for E/W and discussion needing closure (and PS about Marek)
Full protection is currently active at Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals for an edit war over the use of "illegal alien" vs. "undocumented migrant" or variations thereof. Since there has been no resolution of this dispute by parties including Home Lander, Volunteer Marek and Snooganssnoogans, and the relevant substantial discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22 has not been closed, I have extended full protection by another three days.
While there have been previous discussions on this issue, the current edit war started at the end of July (!).
There is clearly a desire by some editors to continue editing this article directly. I propose the following:
- If no admin closure is made of the above-listed discussion before the full protection runs out, any further revert should result in an immediate temporary block as a first resort
- If an admin closure is made of the above-listed discussion and a consensus found, any further revert against that new consensus should result in an immediate temporary block as a first resort
The third possibility (discussion closed but no consensus) has no clear resolution in my mind. Policy would probably suggest further full protection if the edit war continues - an unsatisfactory outcome.
PS: Just saw since starting to draft this last night that talk page discussion has flared up again. IMO, Volunteer Marek continues to display a broad spectrum of antagonistic behaviours as well as arguments for ownership (both evidenced at just this one diff, but there's plenty more).
The IP addresses involved in the dispute with Marek that he alleges to be the same person, map to Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Ontario, fwiw.
So in conclusion, I think Marek’s behaviour needs further advice. I suspect he will not listen to me as a short while ago I endorsed Atsme’s suggestion that he reign it in. Perhaps nothing but another block will help. Certainly, I think that closing that discussion would improve the situation w.r.t. perhaps establishing a consensus that could then be enforced on a more specific basis. I'd like to see this not needing permanent admin attention.
Samsara 10:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek continues to display a broad spectrum of antagonistic behaviours as well as arguments for ownership - oh, nonsense. I literally have made something like 6 edits to the article, most if not all of them have been reverts of disruptive IP. Then I participated in talk, which I guess what makes Samsara think this is "ownership" of an article. Wtf do they want me to do? Not discuss on talk? Not edit the article? This is some strange notion of "ownership".
- More generally, what Samsara doesn't tell you is that this is several long standing editors reverting a WP:SPA IP editor, who's using several addresses (yes, from "Ohio and Michigan"... on the two sides of a narrow border. Also all the edits made by the various IPs are *exactly* the same) (the IP's editor's knowledge of Wikipedia policy and obscure drama board pages also strongly suggests this is a sock most likely of a banned user).
- In July, as a result of this another admin semi-protected the page. This was the appropriate response here. However, this time around Samsara decided to fully protect the page, and has attacked the long time editors on the talk page, thus enabling the disruptive IP [12]). For example, when another user User:Chris Howard pointed out to Samsara that full protection wasn't necessary and that this was a case of just one IP causing trouble, Samsara responded by making personal attacks against them [13] [14].
- A similar situation arose earlier on a different article [15], where again, Samsara fully protected an article where the problem was just disruptive IP editing. And likewise, when they were politely asked why they chose full not semi, they responded with the same type of obnoxious "my way or the highway" assholery as with their personal attacks on Chris Howard (and myself, but nevermind) on the DACA article.
- Also, I have no idea why Samsara is restoring vandalism by an IP in that edit. What gives? Do they just not bother looking at the actual edits before storming in with the revert and/or protect button?
- I don't know what's going on here. At the very least this is "conduct unbecoming". An admin simply should not act in such a - unprovoked - disrespectful manner towards editors who've been here a long time. When someone asks you why you took an admin action replying with some version of "screw you, I'm an admin, I do what I want!!!" is not helpful and understandably pisses off people who don't like being treated like dirt. There is a strange pattern to Samsara's actions where this full protection always happens to protect the POV edits of some disruptive IP, edits which probably would otherwise have no chance of surviving in the article for too long. But who knows, more likely they're just very sloppy with their tools.
- I'm not asking for a desysop or a block of anything of the sort, but someone does need to tell Samsara to step back, stop waving their admin pistol in people's faces (this "another block" bullshit should stop too) and show a modicum of respect for regular editors. Volunteer Marek 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh and also, the whole "you dare to challenge my decision??? Here, I'll extend full protection out of spite for a few more days!!!!" is just childish and immature on Samsara's part. Again, I'm not the only - or even the first one - to have raised questions about whether full protection was necessary. That was another user. Here Samsara appears to be just purposefully acting like a jerk. Volunteer Marek 14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Neither edit (1 2) you allege are PA's actually are, the first isn't even by Samsara. Perhaps you wish to restate that? Kleuske (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think what Volunteer Marek refers to as personal attacks is intended to refer to this edit, alleging I was "just arguing for the sake of it". in my reply I therefore pointed out that there was no need for WP:PA, meaning that the person in question should not go down that route. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I find it hard to see a PA in that, It may not be the nicest comment, but that does not make it a PA. Kleuske (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think what Volunteer Marek refers to as personal attacks is intended to refer to this edit, alleging I was "just arguing for the sake of it". in my reply I therefore pointed out that there was no need for WP:PA, meaning that the person in question should not go down that route. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Neither edit (1 2) you allege are PA's actually are, the first isn't even by Samsara. Perhaps you wish to restate that? Kleuske (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The page should probably be tagged for WP:ARBAPDS. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with Samsara's request, for the reason the protection level is suboptimal for the article. As far as I can see, the protection level is too high (it is full, whereas semi would have sufficed for preventing all edit wars of July and August) and too short (mere two weeks, whereas the edit warring flares up whenever the protection is removed). An edit war between IP's and new editors on one side and confirmed IP's on the other side could normally be resolved by mere semi-protection, allowing a reasonable discussion on the relevant talk page. I therefore strongly suggest reduction to semi-protection, but indefinite until the apparently contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented") is solved. Concerning the contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented"), this article is the entirely wrong place for the argumentation; there is a clear statement about this in the relevant article (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration&oldid=798290297#Terminology). Therefore, that issue should be solved separately (whether that involves a request for third party opinion, an arbitration, or any other means, and whatever the outcome of that may be) but in such a way that the DACA article is not blocked from being edited for the mere reason of a dispute on the "illegal"/"undocumented" terminology, which is not even the center point of attention of this article. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Blocking edits to the article is ridiculous. The arguments over terminology occur on every page related to immigration. The only difference with this page is that there seems to be a particularly large number of IP accounts who repeatedly do the same terminology edits. Seems to me that the problem with this particular would be fixed by simply increasing the protection level. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Snooganssnoogans: please clarify: increasing from what to what? It is currently full-protected. As I see it, the problem with these terminology edits would be fixed by setting the protection level to, specifically, semi - and keeping it there for as long as necessary. Is that also what you mean? --Chris Howard (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry. I'm not familiar with WP terminology. I was advocating for semi-protection, not a complete block on everyone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, that's clear now. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry. I'm not familiar with WP terminology. I was advocating for semi-protection, not a complete block on everyone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Samsura should review the WP:Close policy:
- The Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22 was closed -- the consensus was clearly against the proposal and it was closed by an archive bot. A formal close is not necessary: Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious.
- An editorial discussion such as this decidedly does not require an admin close Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins.
- I'm not endorsing VM's approach to this, I'm just not addressing it because such a discussion would be unlikely to be productive.
So let's thank Samsura for a) taking the time to be active on WP:RPP, and b) raising the issue here instead of continuing the escalation on the talk page, reduce the protection to semi, and hope Samsura and VM can figure out how to coexist with less drama.
- Oh, the root problem is there actually isn't any current WP:NPOV term for human beings in the US not in strict compliance with current immigration law as passed by the US Congress, who may or may not be subject to enforcement action based on the current administration policy. So let's not blame fellow Wikipedians for a mess that US politicians have made. NE Ent 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Really? What's wrong with "undocumented alien" or "undocumented immigrant"? What's POV about those? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- There might be some contexts where "illegal alien" is the appropriate term (like referring to a specific law which uses that term). But the whole point - and this IS the point, which the IP, Samsara and GoldenRing just refuse to hear - is that for sure on this particular article "illegal alien" is NOT appropriate. The people in question, under DACA are NOT here "illegally". They entered "illegally" (more precisely they were brought in illegally by their parents). But they have - or did as of yesterday - permission to be in the country. Even work in the country. They are (were) in no sense "illegal". This is why the IPs edits were in fact disruptive. Volunteer Marek 06:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Quite simply, no one in the DACA program are "undocumented." They are by definition "documented" quite extensively as they register as illegal aliens seeking to defer deportation, attend school and work in the U.S. There is really no debate about their legal status. This is a different status and description from other immigrants that have not been adjudicated or registered. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Just want to clarify a bit of information about DACA and the legalities of immigration/residency by non-citizens. The innocent children who were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents were temporarily "protected" under an executive order which was based purely in morality, not law. Immigration legislation is not one of the enumerated powers of the executive branch which is why it is being repealed. If we are going to be "technically speaking", then let's be consistent. Editors are supposed to provide RS factual information in a dispassionate tone. With the latter in mind, when/if a person or child is in the US illegally, meaning they were neither born in the US nor became a naturalized citizen, and have never been issued a permit for legal entry, be it residency or a work permit, they are here illegally and undocumented. Simple facts...dispassionate tone...NPOV...no censorship. Atsme📞📧 15:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'll just note here, without judgement, that an earlier version of the article used both terms, with one in parentheses. Samsara 19:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Just want to clarify a bit of information about DACA and the legalities of immigration/residency by non-citizens. The innocent children who were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents were temporarily "protected" under an executive order which was based purely in morality, not law. Immigration legislation is not one of the enumerated powers of the executive branch which is why it is being repealed. If we are going to be "technically speaking", then let's be consistent. Editors are supposed to provide RS factual information in a dispassionate tone. With the latter in mind, when/if a person or child is in the US illegally, meaning they were neither born in the US nor became a naturalized citizen, and have never been issued a permit for legal entry, be it residency or a work permit, they are here illegally and undocumented. Simple facts...dispassionate tone...NPOV...no censorship. Atsme📞📧 15:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Update
I have followed an edit request to replace a single instance of "illegal student" with simply "student". I do not expect anybody making a serious case for "illegal student" being a helpful phrase or one used in relevant sources, i.e. the change should be uncontroversial. Samsara 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Broadening locus
Just received a complaint about removal of sourced info by Marek at DREAM Act, an article which should equally fall under WP:ARBAPDS. I've indicated this fact on the talk page. Samsara 00:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Removing information with sources is not prohibited by policy. Especially when a 'criticism' section of an article about an act that seeks to legitimise immigrant children is sourced almost entirely to an advocacy group who wants to reduce immigration. Please go read WP:RS and WP:UNDUE because at this point I am having serious doubts about your competency. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Competency at what? Noting the complaint or placing the notice? Samsara 00:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Your judgment frankly. You have full protected an article which was being edited by registered users trying to prevent edit-warring by at best, 1 or 2 IP's from a small geographical area. You have made personal attacks against Marek and not substantiated them with anything resembling evidence - asking for an administrator who isn't enabling IP POV-warriors is perfectly reasonable when your actions are... enabling IP POV-warriors. You slapped ARBAPDS on an article which was not undergoing an edit war after Marek made a good removal of badly sourced info - in what clearly looks like a retaliatory slap for Marek daring to disagree with you. ARBAPDS has some of the most draconian editing restrictions, which you have now made a target for every IP POV-pusher who wants to edit war on it. The combination of 'consensus required' and '1rr' means functionally that random drive-by IP's can prevent improvements of the sort Marek made. Lastly you have brought attention to your inept handling of this by bringing it to one of the most watched boards. I don't know what your problem with Marek is, but you have come across here with showing no clue as to why you have managed to irritate numerous editors at the original article, and responded by attempting to shift the blame to others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Competency about you being an administrator obviously. Possibly an editor too. If you honestly think that a single edit which removes sketchy content is worthy of fully-protecting-an-article/blocking-someone/running-to-the-admin-drama-board, then yeah, that raises questions about competency. Volunteer Marek 03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- There are several issues here, Marek, one of which is your conduct on talk pages. I'm also not sure what "single edit" refers to, since on DREAM Act, you've already made seven. Samsara 04:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The main issue is you making personal attacks, generally being rude and misusing (and possibly abusing) your admin tools. As pointed by several editors now - myself, Snooganssnoogans, Chris Howard, NE Ent, and Only in death. I think it's time for you to drop this and walk away. (The "single edit" refers to the one that the disruptive IP went to your page to admin-shop and complained about, and which you then happily obliged by bringing it up here. Let me ask again - why are you enabling disruptive IPs by always protecting their versions of the articles? Why are you restoring IP vandalism? That's just strange for an admin) Volunteer Marek 04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm somewhat confused about the complaints here. AFAICT, there has been no protection of the article, or any other administrative actions relating to the DREAM Act article other than placing it under DS. Samsara is surely correct that the article falls largely under ARBAPDS. So regardless of the merits of the edits, I don't see any reason to make a big deal over the reasonable placing of DS on the article. This will affect everyone who edits, both those adding the info and removing it, as it should. Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the article should be placed under discretionary sanctions. That's not the issue here though. Volunteer Marek 14:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- There are several issues here, Marek, one of which is your conduct on talk pages. I'm also not sure what "single edit" refers to, since on DREAM Act, you've already made seven. Samsara 04:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Competency at what? Noting the complaint or placing the notice? Samsara 00:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- You "received a complaint" from an anonymous IP POV warrior whose entire edit history consists of anti-immigrant POV-pushing. Interesting that they race to your talk page to report the serious offense of removing self-published anti-immigrant polemics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I strongly agree that Volunteer Marek's behaviour on article talk pages is a serious issue. They take their battlefield behaviour everywhere they go. Note here on another article's talk page, where they describe everyone who disagrees with them in an RfC as not giving a shit Wikipedia policies and being NOTHERE: [16]. At another point on the same page they accuse me of making blatant falsehoods by misrepresenting a cited discussion, then misrepresents that conversation, and accuses me of being ‘friends’ with one of the participants of that discussion from 4 years ago: [17]. The whole talk page is littered with their accusations of dishonesty, such as here, where they tell James J. Lambden to stop being a 'lying pickle': [18]. Their behaviour, including a complete refusal to compromise or come to a consensus, in the AP2 area has unquestionably made collaboration in this area extremely difficult. This battlefield attitude is so entrenched, I'd suggest an AP2 TBAN of some reasonable length (6 months?) as a minimum preventative measure.
- So the opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warriors with a grudge have finally showed up. Cjhard, you're not even active on that article. You're here only to attack others and try to leverage what is a spurious complaint by someone who might get boomerang'd into "advantage for my side" by suggesting baseless sanctions. You might wanna watch for WP:BOOMERANG yourself. Volunteer Marek 04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the behaviour I'm referring to. Please don't accuse me of being a WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior without any evidence of me exhibiting battleground behaviours. Please don't tell me to watch out for a WP:BOOMERANG without any evidence of my wrongdoing. Cjhard (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- So the opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warriors with a grudge have finally showed up. Cjhard, you're not even active on that article. You're here only to attack others and try to leverage what is a spurious complaint by someone who might get boomerang'd into "advantage for my side" by suggesting baseless sanctions. You might wanna watch for WP:BOOMERANG yourself. Volunteer Marek 04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
A few brief comments about this:
- APDS applies to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, whether a notice has been applied to the talk page or not. As such, any uninvolved administrator can impose any sanction authorised under standard DS (so long as awareness requirements have been met). Articles in this topic space can't be individual "placed under DS." They are automatically under DS.
- That being the case, unless someone wants to present evidence that Samsara is involved per the terms of WP:INVOLVED (ie involved beyond taking administrative actions) then they are perfectly within their rights to protect pages. If someone wants to dispute the protection, after discussion with the admin involved, AE should be the first port of call and then ARCA is thataway.
- An hour spent reading the history of this gives me some concerns about VM's editing. This series of edits removed entirely the section discussing criticism of the DREAM Act, on the grounds that it was
unsourcedsourced to SPS. This looks like POV-pushing; it seriously unbalances the article and it defies belief that RS could not be found discussing this. Mixed up in that series of edits is this which I just can't understand; the edit summary is "Can't say that in Wikipedia voice" but the edit actually removed a statement attributed to the Centre for Immigration Studies, sourced to a statement by the Centre for Immigration Studies. It looks like any excuse to remove content he doesn't like. - The argument over protection at Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals essentially amounts to, "Semi-protect because almost all the people we disagree with would be barred from editing." If the non-autoconfirmed/IP editors were warring against consensus then fine; when the dispute is about a term that was discussed at NPOV/N without consensus, it just looks like gaming the rules to win an editorial dispute.
- VM's criticism of Samsara doesn't really stand up to much; if this is the best you can do to allege a PA, it's time to take some time out. VM describes this as "enabling the disruptive IP" - the only way I can construe it that way is if you necessarily regard use of the term "illegal alien"/"illegal immigrant" as disruptive.
- ADMINACCT is a thing, but it's not an excuse to sling as much mud at admins as you can to see what sticks. Descriptions above of Samsara "enabling IP vandalism" can again only be understood as such if any use of the term "illegal alien" is considered vandalism - and, again, in light of the NPOV/N discussion linked above, it can't be.
- Above, VM eventually just descends to personal attacks.
- In light of the above, I'm imposing a three-month topic ban for VM from all edits and articles related to immigration in the United States, under AP2 DS. Violations should be reported to WP:AE. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm halfway through reading this--if this counts as a "personal attack" we might as well all pack it in. Same here--seriously? Tom Robbins said years ago that a story that starts with a beet ends with the devil. A thread that starts with an editor who only does shit like this, an edit whose repetitions confirm that they are not here to improve our beautiful project, is likely to end with unjust censure if not nipped in the bud. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- No way are those personal attacks linked to two lines above. Imho, etc. — fortunavelut luna 09:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The removal of the 'criticism' section from DREAM act was with the edit summary 'actually this whole thing is SPS - find a secondary sources which covers this stuff' not 'unsourced' as you have claimed. Given you actually posted the edit summary, I assume you just didn't look at it, rather than being unable to read. Given that the criticism section was almost entirely sourced to an advocacy website whose purpose is to spread FUD about immigration, CIS here is *not* an independent reliable source by absolutely any standard, its an entirely reasonable content removal. Lastly the sanctions placed on the DREAM act were not merely a 'notification' that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, they include the 1rr and consensus required sanctions that is massive overkill for an article that was not undergoing any sort of edit-war and seems entirely designed to enable IP POV-pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Corrected. It doesn't materially change the point. GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The point that Marek removed dubiously sourced anti-immigration advocacy from an article related to immigration? Correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#From_AN---> No, not from ANI, on ANI. It is not a personal attack to question someone's competence after numerous examples were given by User:Only in death at 08:29 this AM, thus evidencing the claims before VM actually made them. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 11:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I am not actually saying that the remarks are in themselves accurate, merely that they do not qualify as personal atttacks. I will say that Samsara has always been nothing but straight up with me. It's bloody painful sitting on this fence :) — fortunavelut luna 11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The point that Marek removed dubiously sourced anti-immigration advocacy from an article related to immigration? Correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the sanction placed by GoldenRing. There seems to be very little and seriously debatable evidence to base this sanction on. Criticism of an admin and their actions is hardly a reason to place AP2 sanctions (and as said above, forcefully stated criticism hardly rises to the personal attack level that warrants sanctions). The removal of the section is certainly defendable, and the one "problematic" edit in that series seems to me that we can hardly claim "massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty" when the 1986 amnesty article doesn't even indicate such massive fraud. Without a clear pattern of unambigiously problematic edits in the AP2 area, a topic ban is not warranted. Fram (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Fram: Could you please cite the exact line under which you believe you have authority to remove the sanction? I do not see any text in the policy section you cited when posting on VM's talk page, so I am wondering what you believe grants you that authority. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." (emphasis mine), second line of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions. Fram (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Uhm, that highlighted wording is obviously about "placing a revert restriction", not about "reverting a restriction". Removing a restriction requires an active consesnsus of uninvolved admins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Fut.Perf.'s interpretation here, though one might reasonably in good faith misinterpret that the section about placing restrictions might have some content about removing them, given the not-great wording of that line. (Reference OID's link below.) Fram, you might consider reviewing WP:AC/DS#sanctions.modify and withdrawing your attempt at removing the restriction. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Uhm, that highlighted wording is obviously about "placing a revert restriction", not about "reverting a restriction". Removing a restriction requires an active consesnsus of uninvolved admins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." (emphasis mine), second line of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions. Fram (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the words of the relevant policies say, but if a discussion/consensus is required then I support Fram's removal of what I see as an unjustified sanction (for the reasons Fram gives). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Technically as it was placed as an Arbitration enforcement sanction, it should not be removed without agreement of a)the originating admin, b)consensus at a relevant noticeboard, c)arbcom. See here. Of course I think the sanction is completely bogus to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, unfortunately it's a colon not a comma. — fortunavelut luna 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ah yes, thanks Only. I guess it's down to consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Technically as it was placed as an Arbitration enforcement sanction, it should not be removed without agreement of a)the originating admin, b)consensus at a relevant noticeboard, c)arbcom. See here. Of course I think the sanction is completely bogus to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Absolutely support Fram's actions. WP:IAR applies.GR alone knows what led him to the topic, place a completely bogus sanction and stand out as the most incompetent editor in the entire thread.And, of course, the skins need to be thickened a bit.Winged Blades Godric 12:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Apologies to all, I have reverted my action, as I indeed misread the policy. I have informed Volunteer Marek of my mistake, and of the fact that this means that the sanction is still valid.
@GoldenRing:: seeing the opposition to this sanction expressed by multiple editors now, would you be willing to lift the sanction yourself and start a discussion to see if there is consensus for this (or another) sanction? Fram (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Of the admins commenting, GoldenRing's analysis convinces me as having a fairly complete understanding of the situation. His having spent an hour looking into the case strikes me as likely true. Samsara 14:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Then it is rather strange that his "fairly complet understanding" has led to a fairly wrong result. I have not commented on how long he has spent studying the situation, nor do I see its relevance (it clearly wasn't a 30-second look into it, beyond that a commpetition of who looked at this the longest seems not very fruitful). Anyway, I'll rephrase; "seeing the opposition to this sanction expressed by multiple uninvolved editors now...". Better? Fram (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: - I'm sorry but questioning an administrator's competence - and I am NOT the only person to have done this (User:Chris Howard raised a similar point and User:Only in death was the first one to do so) is NOT a personal attack. It is no more of a personal attack than Samsara basely accusing me of article "ownership" simply because I reverted an IP. It is no more of a personal attack, less even, then an admin (Samsara) being rude and obnoxious to another editor (not me, another one) simply because they questioned their judgement [19] regarding full protection. Yes, Samsara is within their rights to impose full protection on a page. They are NOT within their rights to demand that someone be blocked simply because they question that decision. Volunteer Marek 13:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The desire for ownership imo is evident in your characterising your opposition as a bunch of throw away accounts and IP addresses, which is the diff I provided (repeated here for convenience). And I have no problem with you criticising me. I do have a problem with you attacking newcomers in a scathing manner that can in no way be justified by having a different opinion, and have told you so before. So you do know what my objection is, you just apparently do not like it and will not take a helpful suggestion on board. Samsara 14:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's not "ownership" not even close. When you have a WP:SPA IP editor who only repeatedly makes the same revert over and over and over and over again, and provokes pointless edit wars, that's exactly what they are (I assume you're not actually objecting to me characterising IP addresses as "IP addresses", since that would be, you know, silly on your part). This happens all the time. Editors using IP addresses or newly created accounts start edit wars on controversial articles. They revert as much as they want, because if they get blocked, it's no skin off their back. Just get another account. But established, long time users can't do that. So basically named and respected users are sort of screwed when dealing with these kinds of "IP addresses". The only thing we can do pretty much is ask for semi-protection (of course this whole stupid problem wouldn't even exist if we had flagged revisions/pending changes but that's a rant for another time and place). Which we did. But you decided to fully protect the IPs edits, and then came running here when that action was challenged by several editors. Thus, yes, you were enabling these IP editors. Volunteer Marek 14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK, where are we with this? In the meantime I have blocked the IP whose ridiculous POV-pushing edits, complete with edit warring and making bad-faith reports, started all this. I agree that the sanction was hasty, that the criticism by Marek at the admin's address were not personal insults, that this is overblown and should be corrected. I appreciate Fram's intervention: we need to get this right. Seriously, you don't need to have heard half the shit I've been told by established editors in order to see that a. Marek's comments were serious charges but not personal attacks; b. this started with a BS report acted on improperly and too quickly; c. we need to do much, much better in staving off disruption from many, many sides--including POV warring IPs, sock accounts, and others. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- What he said. This is one of the worst cases of over-reaction I've seen for a while (this board is supposed to be for defusing conflict, not escalating it, people), and possibly the worst admin misjudgment I've seen recently - admins should be employing mops, sympathetic ears and soothing words - not boots and clubs. I see a strongly-emerging consensus among uninvolved parties that the sanction was wrong, and it needs to be reversed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support overturning VM's sanction. NE Ent
- @Drmies: I've just read through a longish stretch of that IP's contributions and I'm wondering for which of them you have blocked? Their TP contributions look civil and well-reasoned. Their reversion of vandalism is rarish but well-founded. They exceeded 3RR once but it was over a month ago and well stale for action now. They have edit-warred without breaking 3RR several times, always over the "undocumented" vs "illegal" question. But if that is the grounds for the sanction, then it begs the question: why is not a similar sanction on those with whom he edit-warred appropriate? As far as I can tell, VM is doing so claiming consensus against "illegal" when it's been repeatedly pointed out to him that no such consensus exists, while the IP is correctly describing consensus (or lack of it). The only other difference is that the IP is an IP; last I checked, that wasn't a blockable offence. GoldenRing (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- GoldenRing, this IP has been at this since November of last year; besides this article improvement and this one, that's all they have been doing here. There is no single opponent of theirs in that edit history with that history of reverting, so that's easy. Such a focus is an obsession, and if you look at their talk page posts (5 until recently, against dozens of article reverts), it's obvious that they're not arguing anything about Wikipedia policies or reliable sources. Here is another example of forumposting on a talk page, with that lame argument that popped up in their edit summaries: it's "like calling a shoplifter a "undocumented shopper". After all, they only lack a receipt." No, the shoplifter stole something--but either way, they should be talking about sources. Then there's the "PC trolls" warning in the edit summaries, and finally that nice piece of red meat they threw out here, which got VM topic-banned, which I hope you will reconsider. No, this is the kind of troll that should have been blocked long before we got here. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The main reason for the sanction was not the personal attacks. The substance of this dispute is that some editors object to the terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant." VM labels everyone who uses it a vandaldisruptive (eg in this discussion among many other places), despite the fact that a recent discussion at NPOV/N on whether the term is usable on wikipedia reached no consensus; there was a majority in favour of its use, with support split fairly evenly between those who thought it should be the default term for those unlawfully in a country and those who think it is appropriate sometimes. So when you read "disruptive IP vandal" in this (and related) discussions, you need to bear in mind that it is code for "non-autoconfirmed or IP editor who dared to use 'illegal alien' or 'illegal immigrant', apparently in line with consensus, and who objected to VM reverting them."
Mix this in with the attempts to game protection levels to win a dispute and outright falsehoods in edit summaries (both evidenced in my statement above) I think this topic would benefit from VM's absence for three months. If VM wants to appeal this, he can do so at AE, AN or ARCA.
I'm a bit surprised by the focus in comments above on VM's statements about Samsara's adminship; in the same diff, he also questioned his competence as an editor. In the second PA diff, he called another editor an "opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior with a grudge" with nothing whatsoever to support it, because that editor dared to comment on this thread. VM complaining about weak claims of PAs rings pretty hollow when he himself accused Samsara of a PA because he asked someone, "Now, do you actually have an edit to make, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?" If that's his standard of personal attack, it's a line he himself has stepped a long way over. GoldenRing (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The IP editor in question has now been blocked for repeated disruptive editing — precisely what VolunteerMarek said it was doing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I consider it likely that the IP reciprocally had the same opinion of VM, given that they edit-warred directly with each other at Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Samsara 13:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- What 'outright falsehood in edit summaries'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- There are growing problems with POV-pushing IP editors on a number of politically-related articles, as more and more people discover that in the name of assuming good faith, we put up with far more disruption from anonymous IPs than we ever would from registered users, which is precisely backward. It is not "gaming protection levels" to argue that more and more of these articles should be under long-term semi-protection or pending changes. It is common sense that will only become more common. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Whoa! This is getting ridiculous.
- " VM labels everyone who uses it a vandal" - completely and utterly false. Show some diffs or strike the accusation GoldenRing. Here, here is the talk page. Do a ctrl-F search for "vandal". It occurs ONCE. And that is not by me. It is a statement - "We're working on getting protection lowered. It still needs some protection from IP vandals" - by User:Muboshgu. So that's YET ANOTHER user who thinks that full protection of that article is ridiculous and that Samsara dropped the ball big time. Regardless, I am not calling ANYONE "vandal". Here is the article history with my edit summaries. Do a ctril-F search for "vandal". You'll find some. BY OTHER EDITORS - not me - REVERTING IPs and red-linked accounts. So stop making shit up GoldenRing. Or maybe you want to go and block User:El C, User:Serols, User:Dan Koehl, User:Muboshgu or even the good ol' ClueBot, since they actually DID call IPs "vandals". I didn't. Stop making shit up to excuse your own mess. Take some personal responsibility, admit you screwed this up and rescind the sanctions as numerous users and admins have advised you.
- Oh, and guess what? The only person who used the term "IP vandal" in this discussion is... YOU.
- But let me keep going.
- Your characterization of the discussion at NPOV/N is also false, as I've pointed out repeatedly on talk to the IP. That discussion was regarding whether the term "illegal alien" should be BANNED from Wikipedia. And yeah, it shouldn't. But that "not banned" is not the same as "should always be used". That in fact is what the dispute is about - which terms is appropriate for THAT ONE article. It's a legitimate content dispute. Whatever "code" you're seeing is in your own head. But I shouldn't be sanctioned for the stuff that goes on your head.
- Re: last paragraph. YOU. JUST. SAID that "The main reason for the sanction was not the personal attacks". And in fact there were no personal attacks. Yes, I questioned Samsara's competency. So did NUMEROUS other users. Because they acted incompetently. Seriously, does anyone think that fully protecting that article ESPECIALLY NOW was a good idea? All over some edit warring by an IP against multiple users? What the hell? Where are you getting this stuff from?
- "Outright falsehoods in edit summaries" - put up or shut up. Show me the diffs. As an admin you should know better than to make WP:ASPERSIONS without providing evidence. Which edit summary had an "outright falsehood" in it? Remember, "outright" means that it's not a matter of interpretation, it's not a mistake, it's me supposedly and purposefully lying. So... show me the diffs buddy or strike the attack.
- And "gaming protection levels"??? Buddy, at least four other users SAID THE SAME DAMN THING as I did. Are we all "gaming protection levels"? Are you going to ban them from the topic? What the hell are you doing?
- Volunteer Marek 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I apologise. I've struck 'vandal' since the term you used was indeed 'disruptive'. I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference.
- The falsehood in an edit summary was evidenced above but I'll give it again; in this edit you claimed you were removing content because "can't say that in wikipedia voice" when in fact you were removing a statement clearly in the voice of another organisation.
- AFAICT, your argument for semi-protection is that it would allow you to edit those articles while usefully excluding a group of editors with whom you disagree on content. Yes, that looks like trying to game protection levels to win a content dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- " your argument for semi-protection is that it would allow you to edit those articles while usefully excluding a group of editors with whom you disagree on content. Yes, that looks like trying to game protection levels to win a content dispute." - Arrghghg! FOUR other users said the exact same damn thing! Since then additional users have chimed in to point out that fully protecting the article was dumb! Stop making excuses for your own mistake.
- And this: [20]? AS ALREADY POINTED OUT TO YOU BY OTHERS yes it sure as hell says "massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty" in Wikipedia voice. Even if not, that is not an edit you sanction somebody for ffs. And that is categorically NOT a "falsehood". You can disagree whether or not that text should be in there, that's fine. But stop fucking calling me a liar. I don't give a crap if you're an admin or not, you just don't do that. And the more you do it, the worse and worse you make yourself look.
- Stop making excuses for your own mistake. Volunteer Marek 21:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: Are we looking at the same diff? The diff I'm looking at removes part of a sentence that runs, "The nativist-leaning Center for Immigration Studies has raised concerns that..., that..., that it would result in massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty, that... and that..." How is that not a statement in the voice of the Center for Immigration Studies? If it's an honest mistake, fine, say so. GoldenRing (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- And for fuck's sake, I don't even have that much of the problem with the term "illegal alien". I certainly don't regard anyone who uses it as a "vandal". GoldenRing pulled that out their ass. I just happen to think that AT THAT ONE PARTICULAR ARTICLE it's not appropriate (which is perfectly valid position given discussion at NPOV/N). I'd appreciate it if people stopped telling me what I do or do not believe. Volunteer Marek 21:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- TL; DR, but I was pinged. I am not fully aware of the editing history of DACA. I just looked into the history right before the article was protected and saw IP edits being reverted, and may have assumed too much about the cause of the full protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- If it's only a question whether it's appropriate at that one particular article, then why were you edit-warring over it on multiple articles? If it's not a question of vandalism/disruption, then what makes you think you have a right to an opinion on it while the IP does not? If it's not a question of vandalism/disruption but rather a question of editorial judgement of what's appropriate for the article, why is protection in response to edit-warring "enabling IP disruption" and not an entirely appropriate response? GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Stop changing your story. Stop making up new bullshit excuses for your own mistake. Provide diffs for your accusations. I don't know about you but personally, I really don't appreciate being called a liar and being accused of things I didn't do. Diffs. Diffs. Diffs. Volunteer Marek 21:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- And just because I'm feeling defensive (being falsely called a liar tends to do that), if you want to bring up the DREAM Act article as an example where I removed "illegal" (one revert, not "edit warring") then I just got to point out that... the two articles are freakin' closely related! Jeezus pandas. Volunteer Marek 21:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
GoldenRing - how many admins and users have now told you that your sanction was inappropriate? Perhaps you should pay attention and not let the admin-ego get in the way. Volunteer Marek 21:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Re the sanction placed on VM - I have to join others who find it unjustified. I do think VM should tone it down a little sometimes on talk pages (although given the rampant disruption on many pages dealing with controversial topics, I understand his frustration). But the rapid hammer on him was not good, not good at all. I think it's especially weird that criticism of an admin (deemed as unjustified) was explicitly cited as justification for a topic ban (!). If that was sanctionable, there would be dozens and dozens of editors who would be sanctioned. Frankly, the best thing to do now would be for GR to withdraw the sanction, and for VM to agree to dial it back a little bit in terms of heated disputes. Then everyone can move on with grace. Neutralitytalk 23:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I edit-conflicted with Neutrality but was pretty much about to say a similar thing; I think the bright line for topic bans in such areas needs to be (and generally is) set higher than the behaviour observed here. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree with Neutrality. Well said. And then I hope this topic could be closed and the admin(s) could address the issue of whether to now lower the protection level to semi (or extended confirmed) which has been raised on WP:RFRPL. --Chris Howard (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm just going to chime in to agree with Neutrality, Black Kite and Chris Howard. This was a poorly considered "sanction" and should be undone. I thank Fram for his efforts here. I also share the serious concerns expressed here about Samsara's actions in this matter. -- Begoon 23:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an inappropriate topic ban. GoldenRing, if you're going to insist it's taken to AE to get lifted, so be it, but with this amount of opposition here, including so many admins, you are making yourself look bad by not simply undoing it right now and saving the red tape. Bishonen | talk 07:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC).
- Bishonen: Recently Hidden Tempo was given an indefinite block under Discretionary Sanctions for a 3RR violation. You endorsed that block but offered to convert it into an indefinite AP2 topic ban. It is difficult to see how an indefinite and broad topic ban is appropriate in one case but a narrow and finite topic ban is out of bounds in the other. Both editors were accused of tendentious editing and battleground behavior and disruption in both cases is confined to politics. Is the 3RR violation the difference? Neutrality (also objecting here) found the indefinite block "within discretion." This seems inconsistent. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- James J. Lambden, you are mistaken about the discretionary sanctions; MastCell's block of Hidden Tempo wasn't per ds, and if I should convert it to an indefinite topic ban from American politics, that wouldn't be per discretionary sanctions either. In the normal course of events, there are only two ways a topic ban can be placed: either by a single admin per discretionary sanctions, or per community discussion on AN or ANI. However, there's a third, rarer way, inasmuch as an admin can negotiate anything they want in return for an unblock — a topic ban or any other sanction they believe would work. The only condition is that the blocked user agrees to the changed sanction. I don't suppose the discretionary sanctions thing was the main aspect of your question, but I still felt I needed to clarify it. For the rest, MastCell blocked Hidden Tempo
"for repeated disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing and edit-warring, despite numerous previous sanctions for similar behavior"
, and the immediate occasion for the block was this ANI discussion. I understand you're making a comparison (a misleading one IMO), but I don't think this thread is the best place for going into detail about Hidden Tempo's block. (There's already a lot of discussion on HT's talkpage.) I'll just answer your question the way you put it: no, the 3RR violation isn't the difference. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC).
- James J. Lambden, you are mistaken about the discretionary sanctions; MastCell's block of Hidden Tempo wasn't per ds, and if I should convert it to an indefinite topic ban from American politics, that wouldn't be per discretionary sanctions either. In the normal course of events, there are only two ways a topic ban can be placed: either by a single admin per discretionary sanctions, or per community discussion on AN or ANI. However, there's a third, rarer way, inasmuch as an admin can negotiate anything they want in return for an unblock — a topic ban or any other sanction they believe would work. The only condition is that the blocked user agrees to the changed sanction. I don't suppose the discretionary sanctions thing was the main aspect of your question, but I still felt I needed to clarify it. For the rest, MastCell blocked Hidden Tempo
Samsara's edit
(and I would still like an explanation for this edit. Especially given the big hullaboo that Samsara is making about me reverting an IP. If it was a mistake, then that's fine, but then one should think about stones and glass houses.) Volunteer Marek 14:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, I can diffuse that for you. Look at the time stamp of the next edit and ask yourself how likely it is that I could have made the correction myself before the other party got to it. If you want to make the case that the banners were helpful, I'm interested to hear how many will agree with you. Samsara 14:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- They would have been helpful if you had just changed "article" to "section". But whatever. So if I understand it correctly you restored misspellings into the article because you wanted to make other changes and didn't look at it closely. Fair enough. Volunteer Marek 14:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Review (by uninvolved editors) of the topic ban of Volunteer Marek
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yesterday, User:GoldenRing issued a 3-months topic ban for Volunteer Marek under the AP2 discretionary sanctions. Such a topic ban may not be overturned by another admin on his own, and GoldenRing doesn't seem willing to overturn his topic ban and bring it here to get a broader consensus for it. This only leaves us, according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Placing sanctions and page restrictions with two options, getting "the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN" or going to ArbCom. So, in light of the above discussion where multiple uninvolved editors agreed that the sanction wasn't warranted, I'll try the first. The proposal is to remove the sanction against Volunteer Marek. Fram (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't see this section, which had just been started when I posted. As I said, I think the topic ban is inappropriate. Fram, perhaps you can just summarize the opposition above? I'm pretty sure it amounts to a consensus of uninvolved editors, and it seems a little awkward that everybody will have to repeat what they've said. Bishonen | talk 07:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC).
- Yeah, well, I was somewhat wrong when I first overturned the sanction, so I try to do it by the book this time. I know that quite a few editors (who as far as I am ware are uninvolved) have expressed misgivings about the sanction, but I would rather have them repeat it here to avoid including involved editors or people who don't really want it overturned anyway. Fram (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose I should put it as by the book as possible, then: Support overturning the sanction. But I also appeal to GoldenRing to just do it and not insist on the red tape. Bishonen | talk 08:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC).
- I support it too, although whether I can now claim to be uninvolved is- questionable? Since the discussion veered wildly between here and my talk while the above was taking place. But pace GR, I think this was heavy handed; I also don't think he needs to be kebabed for what is- whilst wrong- no worse a heavy-handed use of admin-tools than other admins have shown. And some of them, ironically, are in this thread. I echo the request above for a non-process closure, per NOTBURO, as it would demonstrate the utmost collegiality. I also note that VM patrols some of the most toxic and politically virulent pages on our project, and that he should be thanked for it rather than punished. Uuurggh. — fortunavelut luna 08:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note In light of the criticism above, I am reconsidering this (having also slept on it), but would like another hour to read through a bit more history, please. GoldenRing (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think this section even existed when I commented above, but, at the risk of redundancy, since it's requested, I'll reiterate here: This was a poorly considered "sanction" and should be undone. I thank Fram for his efforts here. I also share the serious concerns expressed here about Samsara's actions in this matter. -- Begoon 10:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think there already is a clear consensus of uninvolved editors above, but to formalise it, I think the sanction placed on Volunteer Marek was misjudged and I support removing it. (I also appeal to GoldenRing to simply remove the sanction and save the timewaste of having to forcibly overturn it by consensus.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- (ec with B!sZ) Having spent nearer three hours than one reading diffs, I'm still personally inclined to leave this sanction in place. I got as far as the third week of August through VM's contribs, skipping over some obviously non-AP2-related stuff. My overall impression is that VM has a noticeable political POV but that most of the time he does a decent enough job of not pushing it in disruptive ways. Something about immigration and its intersection with race relations (and in this particular instance the "illegal" vs "undocumented" alien/immigrant debate) gets him hot under the collar and the subject would be better off without his input for a bit. He also has very little time for new and IP editors; fair enough, the proportion of disruption that comes from them is, well, disproportionate; that doesn't mean you get your way solely because the other guy is new or an IP. If anyone desperately wants diffs for the above, ask and I'll do it, but it'll take a while and I'm waaaaay out of time for this today.
- That said, I can read the writing on the wall above and won't waste people's time further by insisting on a formal close to overturn the sanction. VM, please show a little patience with new and unregistered editors and cool it on the illegal/undocumented thing for a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- There are better ways to back down than that. Some of those ways even include a proper apology. -- Begoon 12:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Marek's feistiness is frequently mischaracterized. It has been years (OK, a very long time, certainly) since I have seen them be uncivil or unreasonable. Their comments and criticism are versed in policy, and the topic ban should be rescinded--not out of charity, but because it is the right thing to do. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Schorlomite redirection issue
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When on the Garnet page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnet) and going down to "Garnet structural group" you will see near the bottom of the second table a blue link for Schorlomite. However when this link is clicked you are forcefully redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnet#Less_common_species with no way of staying on the Schorlomite page. This would generally not be an issue if the Schorlomite page was empty or had no valuable information, however for the split second that the page shows up before redirecting to the Garnet page you can clearly see it is full of information that due to the forced redirect is impossible to see or obtain. I apologize if there is a better talk page or way to discuss this issue, I'm still learning the ropes of wikipedia and this seemed to be the most suitable way to get in contact with someone who might be able to remedy the issue.
VivianN Z (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- There is no history or info at Schorlomite just the redirect code. You are seeing the target page pull up before it takes you to the target section. Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I see too. The Schorlomite redirect just directs to a different part of the same Garnet article, and that's all it's ever done - there's never been a specific Schorlomite article in that page's history. What I see is a brief glimpse of the Garnet article from the top, before it scrolls down to the redirect target section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- For future reference, OP, when you are redirected to a page you can go to the redirect page by clicking the link at the top of the article you are redirected to which says "(redirected from $page)". In this case, the redirect page for schorlomite is at [21]; you can verify the lack of content and edit history yourself. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I see too. The Schorlomite redirect just directs to a different part of the same Garnet article, and that's all it's ever done - there's never been a specific Schorlomite article in that page's history. What I see is a brief glimpse of the Garnet article from the top, before it scrolls down to the redirect target section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Unblock request for Pkbwcgs
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) is requesting unblock. He was indefinitely blocked per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Pkbwcgs on December 20, 2016.
I am copying his statement here: I would like to be unblocked from Wikipedia because I fully understand that I have continued to make bad pages even though I have constantly been warned not to and I understand that I have been very disruptive and rude on the IRC channel and I promise I won't do this ever again. I am also no longer being disruptive on any other Wikis and I have also became an autopatroller on Wikimedia Commons and English Wiktionary. If I am unblocked, I will continue my work in editing the train articles and I am extremely sorry for my previous edits. I understand that if I break any of Wikipedia's policies, it will lead to a re-block again. After my 8 month block and reading Wikipedia's policies, I think I have learnt my lesson.
For disclosure: as an admin at the Simple English Wikipedia as well, I encouraged him to request unblock here. He was blocked there on January 17, 2017 under our "one strike" warning for users who are indefinitely blocked on another Wikimedia project. He requested unblock on Simple in August, but I told him to seek unblock here first. I have no view on the unblocking at the moment. only (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Standard offer seems appropriate here (not to mention WP:ROPE), though the editor should be aware that if unblocked, their edits are going to be under significant scrutiny for a while. I believe Pkbwcgs deserves a chance to prove that they have "
learnt [their] lesson
" -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC) - Support - I am not sure if the editor fully understands the problem, but perhaps I am reading too much into the text. I would suggest conditional unblock as long as Pkbwcgs receives mentorship, either someone from the train project or an established editor similar in age. Alex ShihTalk 11:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support. I'm a great believer in trying to help people who wish to become constructive contributors, and I see very little risk here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies, as a semi-involved user, I have already noted that there have been three edits made by that user that already have raised my eyebrows, for example this one to which the user (I assume mistakenly; taking their report on their talk page with a pinch of salt) tagged ANI for speedy deletion, one point the user was criticised on before the initial block, ref. WP:CIR. I note this was picked up by the (assumed) unblocking admin. The second being this one where he placed some additional content without sourcing. I reverted the edit, as what they added was incorrect, a ref further down the article stating that no trains were displaced in the procurement of new stock. I also have noted a third edit here, which is the user deleting someone else's comments off a user page. No matter how incomprehensible a user's comments may be, my personal opinion is if they are on the user's talk page, I leave them there, regardless of context. If I was the one who was interacting with the user, I would have added another note re verification and sourcing. I, overall would've opposed the unblock if I had known they had requested unblock, partially because of my previous dealings with the user. I also note that the suggestion from fellow user Jackmcbarn of taking a year off has not been followed, it has only been 8 months. Nightfury 12:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nightfury, those edits are troubling, and I left a note about two of them. But looking at their other contributions, I don't see any more that indicate we made a mistake here, so for now we'll let this ride. Mind you, I only determined a (quick) consensus here--feel free to ping the other admins who supported this. :) Drmies (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Ethnic Minorities by Country
I AfD'd Dutch Yazidis recently and there have been several similar pages at AfD. After seeing yet another one of these (Liechtensteinian Surinamese) show up on NPP, I think it's time it got wider attention.
What is the standard of notability for these articles? Power~enwiki (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Assuming they are of the list variety, WP:LISTPEOPLE. So if for example Dutch Yazidis had contained a number of notable (read: have their own WP article) Dutch Yazidis, then its a valid list article. (It didn't, so its not) Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- In this case, the article is clearly a spoof of Dutch Surinamese. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax. Largoplazo (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wait. I'm sorry--only yesterday I got criticized for not acting soon enough on a racist comment, but y'all are letting this go by without a vandal report or a quick call to an administrator? The Liechtensteinian thing is pure trolling (there are Dutch Surinamese because of a history of slavery and colonialism--this obviously never happened for Liechtenstein), but surely someone noticed this racist edit and this also totally racist edit. I'm a bit disappointed in the editors who reverted without sounding an alarm. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Unblock request for Allen2
Allen2 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log)
Allen2 was originally blocked on 3 November 2014 for competency issues (WP:CIR). After several failed talk page and UTRS appeals they have asked to take advantage of the WP:Standard offer terms now that 6 months have elapsed since their last block modification on 17 February 2017. In their unblock request posted at UTRS they said:
- "I fundamentally wish to be unblocked on Wikipedia with a very clear reason. I read and agree with the Standard Offer that I refrained from Wikipedia for 6 months since my talk page has been revoked and exhausted again along with my email access (but I did not email users by that time while I'm still blocked before my email access is blocked), and I will promise not to continue my behavior like the last time before I'm blocked in the first place for competency issues. I know, understand, and will be confident and competent about what Wikipedia is now and I will comply with all the rules and policies of Wikipedia when I edit again. Furthermore, you could considerably give me another chance, a second chance on Wikipedia if you believe so, because when I'm successfully unblocked then I will be welcome to make useful contributions and help fix this problem on the encyclopedia. Thank you and sincerely, ~Allen (Allen2)"
I am presently taking no position on this request. I have restored Allen2's talk page for the sole purpose of allowing them to respond to questions on this application. Just Chilling (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, I remember this guy...it's already been 3 years, wow. This unblock request is not substantially different from the half dozen or so currently on their talk page dating back to 2015, all of which have been declined for the same reasons, most recently early this year. I'm no admin, but I don't think that any of the concerns with this user have really been dealt with. ansh666 22:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Could someone please post any previous discussion which resulted in the OP being blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - There is still alot of CIR issues here and whilst I'm all for second chances I think come a few weeks or months time they'd shoot themselves in the foot and will end up reblocked again,
Unrelated but I also have an issue with the quotation marks around every thing they post - It does read as they're being sarcastic and unfortunately if they do the quotation thing on talkpages they're probably going to piss off quite alot of people,Anyway as per the CIR issues the block should remain with TPA being revoked. –Davey2010Talk 00:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Partially struck as not really relevant here. –Davey2010Talk 03:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Per Ansh666, can we see where the concerns leading to the block have genuinely been addressed? I don't really see that in the above statement. -- Begoon 00:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I think all of the necessary reading materials are still on the user talk page. Initial discussion (1). First block, discussion (2) (many unblock requests and shopping later) Most recent discussion (3). It might be worthwhile to look at the revision history too. I am leaning toward oppose unless if the user submits some kind of long-term editing plan. Alex ShihTalk 01:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Absolutely not. This editor has not changed in any substantial way that I can see (or, rather, that I can "see"). He says above that he will comply will all the rules and policies, but makes no mention of what it is he actually wants to do. He was more forthcoming in the third diff posted by Alex above, where he said "The good reason I want to be unblocked is: I "want" to modify my own pages (and contribute occasionally with a substantial edit to the encyclopedic article or page I want to edit)" There's no reason to unblock them so they can fiddle with their user pages and now and then make an article edit. We're here to build an encyclopedia, I have no idea what this person is here for. Keep them blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I may change my mind (doubtful though) if they provide an actual editing plan they would follow if the user was unblocked. One of the most important questions someone needs to answer when they go for a SO is: what can you contribute to the encyclopedia? If you want to just fiddle around with a userpage, perhaps you can make a blog or a Facebook account. Wikipedia is for building content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. I was the most recent declining admin and the same thing applies - I just don't think the competence is there. Any good content he might occasionally contribute will be far outweighed by the time we spend cleaning up after him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Registering my opposition properly after looking through the history for some signs that there might be some "net positive" contributions which this block prevents, and failing to find any. -- Begoon 10:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. The thing about using quotation marks in that strange way was discussed back in February on Allen2's talk page. It seems clear to me that he was not being sarcastic and was doing it as an unusual method of emphasis. He stopped doing it at the point of that discussion and appears not to be doing it in the latest appeal presented above by Just Chilling - so I really don't think that should be considered an important issue now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. Allen2 just does not have the proficiency in English to be a net positive here. Even their statements from earlier this year, after 3 years of being blocked, shows little improvement and smacks of less than adequate reading comprehension in English to the point that they're just not hearing what people are saying (not quite WP:IDHT, but close). Blackmane (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose--In absence of any mentoring and/or long-term-editing-plans, I remain unconvinced to allow the user to avail the standard offer.I had strolled through his t/p some months ago and despite the time-gap, I had no difficulties in remembering the one hell of a journey.Winged Blades Godric 08:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Karlfonza
- Karlfonza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User contributions at Commons
Getting buried and totally ignored at AN/I (maybe more applicable here anyway): I recommend stronger measures for Karlfonza (Commons page has more info/ad content). They continually keep uploading unencyclopedic (often highly artistic) images and adding them to broad-topic articles such as "Word", "Library", "Ant", and "Vase", all in cases where obviously useful images exist, and this editor just wants to tack on their own images. I've been trying to revert most of the edits, though there's a lot. A very small percentage of their photos or actual edits are beneficial, making the work tedious and yet making me hesitant to suggest a sitewide ban, but they clearly don't understand the rules and won't bother to learn them. Any advice? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ɱ: Sorry about having received no response in the earlier post. I will take a look at this. Alex ShihTalk 01:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ɱ: It's easier to receive quicker responses by presenting diffs. Some quick observation of recent contributions:
- Word: Image was hardly relevant to the text, and the caption is almost nonsensical, adding minimal value. ([22])
- Plant: Again, both the image and the caption is fairly irrelevant to the text, probably would serve better in succulent plant. ([23])
- There seems to be a pattern of WP:OR in captions, and adding images when a number of other similar images already exists in the article. ([24])
- The user is certainly contributing in good faith, but the long term problems with the editing pattern of this user is probably best reflected here: Talk:Primary color#Primaries in art. I see a case of severe WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and to some extent WP:OR, but I would wait for more opinions before moving further. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 02:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Diffs would be impossible. I'd say 90% of their 792 edits are problematic. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- And I agree with your assessment, though "good faith" is kinda questionable. It's possible they want to brag about all of their photos that exist on Wikipedia, or something else similar, and the fact that they upload and add such artsy or useless photos to these articles shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. They're not improving the encyclopedia, and I don't see how they think they could be. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ɱ: I think that's speculation, although a reasonable one. I will issue a warning to prevent such edits from happening again if no one else comments. Alex ShihTalk 03:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ɱ: Sorry about having received no response in the earlier post. I will take a look at this. Alex ShihTalk 01:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hillbillyholiday Editing Restriction Violation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Hillbillyholiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Editing restriction: Hillbillyholiday is placed under the following editing restriction: Hillbillyholiday is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the BLP topic area, broadly construed, except in cases of obvious vandalism. Hillbillyholiday is encouraged to take disputes to the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard.
- Noticed placed 14:05, August 29, 2017
- First revert 04:40, August 30, 2017
- Second revert 07:48, August 30, 2017 violating restriction
- User did take the issue to the BLPN
Please enforce as a final warning. It's a little late for a block and might be too extreme, especially since they took it to the BLPN, but I did want to get it on record in case this happens again. — nihlus kryik (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, if this hillbilly claimed the BLP, Black Kite might have something to say, considering this edit. Black Kite, I'm a bit disappointed with that removal--don't you think the world would be a better place if we all kissed a bit more? Esp. if we kissed billionaires? 05:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Drmies (talk)
- "Claiming" BLP has nothing to do with this. The user violated his restriction on reverting BLP articles. — nihlus kryik (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure it would be, but that edit was mainly to stop the BLP focusing on the subject's criminal past; the removal of the tabloid gossip stuff was a by-product. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Having looked at the BLPN thread I agree a 4IM-style warning should be placed on HBH's talk page leaving no room for doubt that claiming BLP without citing a specific complaint does not give them the right to violate their editing restriction. If they are going to try and push for getting an exception to their editing restriction they need to be on 100% solid policy ground and need to be able to cite the exact policy, section, and commentaries to make their case. It be better for them to appeal the case to something like the Talk page or BLPN before breaking the editing restriction as now we're considering the editing restriction (the conduct) over the content (potentially BLP violation). Hasteur (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. A block now for an edit that was a week ago and hasn't been repeated is simply pointless, but they really need to not do it again. If they have a serious BLP concern that isn't vandalism, after 1 revert it must go to BLPN or be pointed out to another editor. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Hasteur: As the person who drafted his editing restriction, it was meant to prevent him from edit warring by citing the BLP exception. That was the entire purpose of the restriction. He is not permitted to use it or to get around his edit restriction in any manner except obvious vandalism. — nihlus kryik (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Khilus Kryik: as the person who drafted the editing restriction and the one pushing for sanctions now, I have a question: Why didn't you jump up and down on the violation quicker? Demanding anything more than the 4IM is Punitive over Preventative. Hasteur (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: I never demanded anything more than a warning. I actually explicitly said I didn't want one. So I don't understand what you are getting at. — nihlus kryik (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Khilus Kryik: as the person who drafted the editing restriction and the one pushing for sanctions now, I have a question: Why didn't you jump up and down on the violation quicker? Demanding anything more than the 4IM is Punitive over Preventative. Hasteur (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
User has made their intentions known to ignore the editing restriction. Will an administrator please handle this? — nihlus kryik (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Complaining about the restriction isn't a violation of it. In this case, we've got one incident a week old, and I think the editor is well aware what the consequences of ignoring the restriction would be. If they actually do, we can address it at that point, but it should be brought up more quickly than a week after the fact. Just for clarity, though, since I closed the discussion, it absolutely was the consensus there that HBH cannot claim the BLP exemption, as poor judgment in use of it was what precipitated the issue in the first place. The only exception would be for blatant vandalism, meaning something that any reasonable editor would agree was vandalism. Otherwise, Hillbillyholiday, bring it to BLPN, it's heavily watched and genuine problems will be jumped on very quickly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: By "handle this" I meant for someone to place a warning on his talk page as a reminder but also as an official act so administrators would be compelled to action in the future if it happens again. — nihlus kryik (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've left a note at their TP. Hopefully it does some good. GoldenRing (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: By "handle this" I meant for someone to place a warning on his talk page as a reminder but also as an official act so administrators would be compelled to action in the future if it happens again. — nihlus kryik (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Filter managers?
If you know how to do filters, first of all THANK YOU and second, maybe you can look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TV5Ozamiz to see if there's something you can do. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested is the proper venue to request edit filters. --Jayron32 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Jayron. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The issue that the closer:User:RoySmith was to decide:
- whether a policy argument had been raised for keeping,
- whether Info was rightly deleted at AfD years ago,
- whether information was unrelated to any actual topic,
- whether the material had never been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace
- what the time component was "for this to go.."
- whether the closer of the MFD discussion (User:PMC)interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
- Whether deletion supporting concerns had had any merit
In closing today in DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30, they applied WP:LOCALCON but also WP:STALE and WP:WALLOFTEXT in ignoring my concerns and the claims of WP:FAKEARTICLE. I believe that WP:STALE should have been taken more into account as neither WP:STALE nor WP:FAKEARTICLE were not ever intended to apply to issues such as this as my drafts were in already in user space draft disrupting editor nominated my draft as stale only 1.5 hours after my last edit! My comments were a bit disorganized but entirely valid and issues over facts or false assertions would have been easily rectified by viewing provided diffs, new evidence, and new WP policy of AUG2017.
My location is in a hurricane zone in the event I am unable to respond in a timely fashion. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note this discussion on AN/I, which seems to have prompted this. ansh666 00:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The death of Dr. Zadeh? (redux)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedHarkening back to this, there's another report that Lotfi A. Zadeh has died, but, like the last time (which turned out not to be true), there's as yet no confirmation from a reliable source, just a user comment in a discussion group [25] and a report from Azerbaijan supposedly based on information from the same person [26], who is said to be a "friend of the family". (The Azerbaijan news outlet is one of the ones which reported him as being dead last time, so it can hardly be called "reliable" in any way that we'd accept.)
It could be true, Dr. Zadeh is, after all, 96, but these two sources (one source, really) are not sufficiently reliable to put a man's death in a Wikipedia article.
I've posted a suggestion on Primefac's talk page -- he's the admin who protected the article during the last incident -- but I don't think he's due online for a while. Could we have full protection of Lotfi A. Zadeh -- without the supposed date of death -- while we wait for confirmation from an impeccably acceptable source that the man is actually deceased?
Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- The latest person to post it cited Zadeh's Facebook page, but to me it looks as if that could have been posted by anyone - perhaps I'm wrong, I'm not strong on Facebook. In any case, it cites the Azerbaijan story linked above, and there are still no other sources reporting it (i.e. no hits on Google or Google News, and my Googe Alert hasn't alerted me). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Protected for a week. Hopefully that will (again) allow the issue to be cleared up. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
So unhappy to post this
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm so unhappy to be raising this today. I so hoped this was solved at the end of June and I've been paying no attention to Godsy's edits until his name popped up on my watchlist 13 times in a row today. I went looking and was shocked at what I found.
Evidence
- An IBAN was imposed on June 30/July 1 [27] which I have very carefully followed.
- I supported the IBAN to get some relief from constant WP:HOUNDING
- Godsy strongly opposed the IBAN [28]
- an IBAN exception was carved out for commenting on XfDs started by the other person.
- The closing admin is away prepping for a hurricane (Prayers for User:xaosflux and anyone else in the path)
- There are about 31 open WP:MfDs right now
- over the last 8 days I initiated 13 of the 31 open MFDs and
- Today Godsy voted against my nom on 12 of the 13 plus 1 other MfD that I'm very involved in [29]
- Each vote was only several words and the 13 votes were rapid fire between 12:07 and 12:11 [Special:Contributions/Godsy]
- until today, Godsy has not participated in MfD since June 27 and did not participate in any other MfD today. He evidently specifically targeted MfDs I'm automatically watching, and to 100% oppose my efforts to delete.
I also was very surprised to find that Godsy's only contributions since the June 30 IBAN have been mostly focused me and my edits. Special:Contributions/Godsy
- a) develop his sandbox3 with my alleged sins
- b) complete filing a ArbComm case against me he started when it was clear the IBAN would pass (rejected)
- c) pop into the Taku AN thread on Aug 16 to comment on a topic highly connected to my editing
- d) requesting permission to comment on a proposal I put forward in the same thread [30] and then opposing my proposal [31],
- e) Vote to Overturn at DRV the close of a Taku page, again, something I'm pretty involved in. [32]
- f) fiddle with and mostly clear User Talk:Godsy and User:Godsy which hides the ANi, block, IBAN posts.
- g) replace all content on User:Godsy with a countdown clock that ends the moment he can appeal the IBAN on July 1, 2018 [33] which suggests planning a year in advance to step up his campaign against me.
- h) make a comment on Jimbo's talk on 1:47 July 16 [34], just under 6 hours after I was specifically invited on my talk page to comment there [35] Good chance he followed the link from my talk because I've seen nothing to suggest he is very interested in ACTRIAL and he was not notified of that discussion.
- i) edited zero articles, initiated zero XfDs, and done zero to move the project forward.
I'm definately not welcome on his talk [36]
Also I never noticed before that on June 28 Special:Contributions/Godsy he engaged in extensive canvassing to alert editors (a majority of whom just voted against a 1 way IBAN on Godsy) about the proposed two way IBAN, likely hoping for a repeat result.
Questions
1. Do these sections of WP:NOTHERE apply?
- General pattern of disruptive behavior: A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions. and/or
- Treating editing as a battleground: Excessive ...escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia... A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing.
2. Is this editing pattern continued WP:HARASSMENT even if it is barely within the bounds of the IBAN?
3. This makes me feel like I've got an enemy watching my every move who is dancing along the edge of the IBAN. Am I being too sensitive here?
4. What, if anything should be done about this behaviour pattern? Thank-you and again, so sorry to be bring this back to the community. Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
On (3). You are being about 15% too sensitive. About 115% of what would be healthy. It's weird, but mostly harmless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Some of the stuff seem harmless. I mean it's well established that editors can remove nearly everything from their talkpages per WP:USERTALK so there's zero point getting worked up if they do so. Godsy is clearly aware of the iban. Likewise, even if the case is rejected, I'd be very reluctant to say someone preparing a case for arbcom is wrong. (The problem is when people seem to be taking forever to prepare the case so it stays in wikipedia all this time.) But I do have concerns (if it's true) about someone making a countdown clock for being allowed to appeal. Although even in that example, I'm not sure if there's much point worrying about it. All they're doing is ensuring that their appeal will fail. More concerning still would be, if it's true, that they suddenly appeared in MFDs and only in MFDs with LegacyPac's involvement. Yes there was an exemption but it wasn't intended (at least on my part) to allow Godsy to continue to pursue LegacyPac. Still I'm not sure there's enough for any action, so I would just let it be. Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not complaining about him cleaning up his userpage. I'm just pointing out that is the only other thing he's done that is not related to pursuing me. Just click edit on User:Godsy to confirm the countdown clock is set to July 1, 2018 exactly one year from the date of the iban imposition. Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/Godsy shows an editor who needs a long wikibreak. Godsy has exploited the technical wording of the IBAN statement to further their campaign against Legacypac. The statement did not cover the obvious, namely that it was expected that each editor would find something useful to do other than hound each other. Therefore, voting at an MfD started by the other was seen as a reasonable activity for someone following WP:HERE. However, Godsy prefers to fan the flames. In this edit Godsy placed an image of people "most miserably tormented" with a countdown timer showing how much time Godsy needs to wait before the IBAN can be appealed. It is rare to see a contributor unable to hide their hostility after so much disruption. Options are an extreme final warning or preferably a one-week block. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
New section post-close-reversal
@Primefac: thank-you and I'll happily agree. For absolute clarity this means no more commenting on XfDs started by the other party correct? That would be "reply to each other in discussions"? That is how I read the section just above WP:BANEX.Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry Legacypac, Godsy seems to determined to wikilawyer this one to death. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Proposal
In light fact that Godsy apparently has nothing better to do than sidle up to and drool all over the exceptions carved out during the previous discussion, as well as wikilawyer this thing to death, I am proposing the the IBAN expanded; the only exceptions will be those stated in WP:BANEX and resets the one-year counter for appeals. Legacypac has already agreed above to accept these terms. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Just noting that I believe you have the authority as an admin, if you believe that Godsy's editing is WP:DISRUPTIVE, to unilaterally impose any sanction you think is appropriate. It would not, of course, then be a community sanction which can be overturned only by the community, but a normal sanction, which can be overturned by any admin -- although discussion with the admin who imposed the sanction is the recommended usual procedure before overturning. Given those limitations, you don't necessarily need to have the community's approval to impose your suggested change to the current sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was hoping to ignore all of this, the nonsense that it is, but it appears I will not be able to do so.
- An accurate characterization of my editing:
- An interaction ban was imposed on July 1 which I have followed.
- I have never harassed anyone, and the community has never found my actions to constitute harassment.
- I opposed the interaction ban for reasons I clearly express there.
- Xaosflux is still editing, but at a reduced rate.
- Many miscellany for deletion discussions are open right now.
- Some individuals initiate more than others, and some consistently present poor rationales for deletion.
- I participated in ones that interested me, as I am allowed to do, most of which were in the old business section (the ones most in need of more participation).
- I had several miscellany for deletion discussions open at one time on September 7, and saved them all at around the same time, which is perfectly acceptable.
- I've largely been on a break since the interaction ban was implemented, and still am.
- I've edited very little since the interaction ban, only things that I believe need my attention the most when I happen to pop in:
- a) See User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017#A community interaction ban has been imposed on you and User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017#RFAR in regard to the arbitration case filing.
- b) see a).
- c) I'm allowed to comment at the administrators' noticeboard.
- d) I'm allowed to ask for clarification of the interaction ban and edit accordingly, see User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017# A community interaction ban has been imposed on you.
- e) I'm allowed to participate at deletion review.
- f) I archived my talk page to User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017.
- g) There is nothing inappropriate with my userpage, it meets all applicable policies and guidelines.
- h) User talk:Jimbo Wales is one of the most, if not the most, watched talk page on Wikipedia.
- i) I'm allowed to spend my time editing as I see fit.
- ) I have not engaged in canvassing in the past, rather, I have sent out appropriate notifications.
- Questions:
- No.
- I have never harassed anyone, and the community has never found my actions to constitute harassment.
- This whole thing is nonsense.
- Nothing, it is entirely appropriate.
- @Nil Einne: See above.
- @Johnuniq: I put a picture of Saint Blandina on my userpage. She is the patron saint of the falsely accused and tortured. I think that fits my current situation well, though "tortured" is too strong of a word.
- @Primefac: Process is important and you must remain neutral when closing discussions.
- I knew things like this would pop up, which is why I limited my editing and continue to, only addressing the most important matters. User talk:Xaosflux#Objection - ADMINACCT is another example. The individual I am banned from interacting with wants the interaction ban to be much, much larger than what one entails. We disagree about drafts and whether or not things should be deleted out of process or for no good reason. They seem to want me banned from all such discussions regarding those issues. They are involved in seeking sanctions against others they simply disagree with, e.g. TakuyaMurata in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata and have done the same to others in the past. I believe they think causing drama like this will result in expanded sanctions allowing them to effectively silence someone they deem to be an opponent. Free, open, and civil discussion from those with all reasonable viewpoints is a pillar that holds Wikipedia up, and I hope the community does not allow it to be crushed. I would suggest the community either 1) close this by adding a sanction to the original poster of this thread which states matters concerning this interaction ban may not be brought to the administrators' noticeboard or subpages of it by said party, accept to appeal the ban at the appropriate time if desired. Said party may only bring matters concerning the interaction ban to the closing administrator (i.e. Xaosflux) or the arbitration committee (this will largely avoid further disruption and drama, the intent of the interaction ban) or 2) send this matter to the arbitration committee. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support: Listen, I will be the first one to say that I have had run ins with both Legacypac and Primefac and am not huge fans of theirs at the moment. Nevertheless, the behavior displayed by Godsy is petty and borderline WP:NOTHERE. Responding to legitimate problems with "take it to Arbcom" is exceedingly worrisome. Complaining about the community's ability to enforce restrictions by saying it goes against Wikipedia policy is further pettiness and the community should not waste further time on someone who is trying to game the spirit of the sanction, aka "the nonsense that it is". — nihlus kryik (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Nihlus Kryik: I believe the community has shown an inability to handle this matter, hence my suggestion to kick it to the arbitration committee. Even if the interaction ban is converted to a traditional one, it will not prevent me from doing things the individual I'm banned from interacting with deems inappropriate and they'll cause a fuss if I engage in them. E.g. to quote WP:IBAN, "Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other." The individual I'm banned from interacting with doesn't want me to edit pages they do, evidenced by their complaints that my name shows up on their watchlist (i.e. "Godsy's edits until his name popped up on my watchlist 13 times in a row today") and other more explicit statements in the past. It would be good for the arbitration committee to decide whether or not unambiguously improving pages another has edited constitutes harassment, as that is where this matter stems from, and the community has been unable to deal with the matter (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?). The situation is too complicated, and I feel like I may be rambling, so this will be all I have to say (tonight at least, if not for much longer). Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- It seems fairly straightforward to me. WP:IBAN: Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to:
- edit each other's user and user talk pages;
- reply to each other in discussions;
- make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
- undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
- use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
- Nothing about that is confusing. Now, editing only pages that they edit could be considered WP:HOUNDING and would be a violation of the spirit of the ban, like you've done up until this point. — nihlus kryik (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- It seems fairly straightforward to me. WP:IBAN: Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to:
- @Nihlus Kryik: I believe the community has shown an inability to handle this matter, hence my suggestion to kick it to the arbitration committee. Even if the interaction ban is converted to a traditional one, it will not prevent me from doing things the individual I'm banned from interacting with deems inappropriate and they'll cause a fuss if I engage in them. E.g. to quote WP:IBAN, "Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other." The individual I'm banned from interacting with doesn't want me to edit pages they do, evidenced by their complaints that my name shows up on their watchlist (i.e. "Godsy's edits until his name popped up on my watchlist 13 times in a row today") and other more explicit statements in the past. It would be good for the arbitration committee to decide whether or not unambiguously improving pages another has edited constitutes harassment, as that is where this matter stems from, and the community has been unable to deal with the matter (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?). The situation is too complicated, and I feel like I may be rambling, so this will be all I have to say (tonight at least, if not for much longer). Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support anything up to and including an indefinite block of Godsy. The extraordinary nonsense posted above means no crystal ball is needed to know the future of this sorry episode. @Godsy: We each have a private list of people we think should not be here. On the one hand, it is nice that you are so transparent, but on the other, it is not good for you or the community. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement, but the "they" I use above is a singular they, to refer the individual I'm banned from interacting with (whose name I don't care to type or use). It isn't meant to refer to anyone else or a "list of people". Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for confirming that your list consists of a single editor. But why in the world would you want to post that clarification? The point of the IBAN was that the community does not give a damn who started it or who is at fault—we want it to stop. I recommend taking a wikibreak of at least three months. At the end of that time, if you feel any compulsion to check what Legacypac has been up to in your absence, take another three months. Repeat until cured. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement, but the "they" I use above is a singular they, to refer the individual I'm banned from interacting with (whose name I don't care to type or use). It isn't meant to refer to anyone else or a "list of people". Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Godsy already took his concerns to ArbComm who unanimously refused to hear the case [37] but hey he knows where to file again. I'll probably waste less than 9 words on the next filing. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: I'm not familiar with all the details but I do share the impression that User:Legacypac has a behavior problem: that they tends to seek blocks/sanctions against anyone who disagrees with them. The proposed ban only permits such a problematic behavior to be tolerated; very detrimental to the health of the community. It's ok to disagree; it's not ok to try to silence the other side by any means. (At least this is how I understand the situation.) -- Taku (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please note that the editor above, TakuyaMurata is involved in an extended dispute with Legacypac, which can be found above on this page, at #Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata, and may therefore not be unbiased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Godsy protests far too much, but I'm not entirely sure what he's being accused of here. WP:MfD is a small place; and an exemption to the IBAN was specifically created to try to allow both to participate in the area. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Good faith is nice, but please have a look at Special:Contributions/Godsy before commenting. I count half a dozen edits that Godsy has made since early June that are unrelated to pursuing Legacypac. Per not bureaucracy, the IBAN was worded in a way that means Godsy did not violate the letter of the IBAN but the intention was clearly violated. The current proposal would stop the pursuit. For anyone checking the contribs, please be aware that the mutual support between Godsy and TakuyaMurata is because both oppose Legacypac. It is painfully absurd. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Suppose - Godsy this obsession with Legacypac derailed your RfA, resulted in a brief block, and an IBan you are wikilawyering around. Consider this proposal a benefit to you; cut your loses and perhaps take a wikibreak before more serious sanctions will be put to the drawing board.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support I was initially minorly supportive of Godsy (I mean when I first read this about this a couple or so months ago on ANI), but it's become increasingly clear I was wrong. I don't know, and frankly don't care why Godsy doesn't understand we want them to leave LegacyPac alone, and their actions are harming the encyclopaedia. And note, I've said before and I'll say it again, there do seem to be at least some minor issues with LegacyPac's edits, so this has nothing to do with any personal favouritism towards LegacyPac. In fact frankly I find it disgusting that Godsy who claims to recognise problems with LegacyPac's edits is making it difficult to actually work towards resolving those concerns by continually making us go through this nonsense. But whatever the reasons, Godsy is clearly unable to understand they are now the key problem, so we need to force them to. While the countdown clock by itself may not be enough for action it actually demonstrates the point very well. As I said in my first response, if it stays up it's a guarantee that any appeal by Godsy will fail. (If it's removed depending on other stuff there's a chance but the clock would definitely not help.) the fact they put it there can only suggest they don't understand this basic and obvious point. Frankly I've lost my patience enough that I would also support a completely community ban, or an admin deciding to just indef. And so would also support such if there are any further attempts to wikilawyer around it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Neither oppose nor neutral in the spirit of [38], which seems a bit too lawyer-like for me. Κσυπ Cyp 07:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support along with a warning that if Godsy doesn't find something to do other than be a Legacypac-focused SPA, an indefinite block is the next step. His
hairuserpage should also be deleted as POLEMIC. On a side note, administrators do not have authority to unilaterally modify community bans, though why Godsy feel arbitration policy is relevant is beyond me. GoldenRing (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- I believe than an admin can impose a stricter sanction on top of a community-placed sanction. If that admin-imposed sanction is removed, the community-imposed sanction still remains, until lifted by the community. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's how I interpret the relationship between sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- That is correct. An admin could place an editing restriction that was stricter or made the community sanction irrelevant, but if that restriction is lifted, the community sanction remains. The most common example would be community placed editing restrictions where the editor is subsequently blocked indefinitely. Even if the block is lifted, the original sanction remains. Arbcom is a different matter and has been handled in different ways by different arbcoms. Some have replaced community sanctions in entirety, others have incorporated them into Arbcom sanctions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- That is true of blocks, which can be imposed unilaterally on discretion, but administrators do not have the authority to impose bans unilaterally, so they also don't have the authority to modify bans (eg the scope or duration) unilaterally. According to the banning policy, bans can be imposed by community consensus or the arbitration committee. The only complexity is where discretionary sanctions apply, in which case administrators have a delegated authority from the arbitration committee to unilaterally impose bans. That doesn't apply here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the correction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
| Over-analysis |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Support - Shortening my over-analysis to a few simple sentences. I am not absolutely sure that an IBAN would cover noms from Legacypac. If it is covered, then no harm no foul. If it isn't covered, then you know, extend the terms to carve in a sanction. The thing that does it for me is that it's impossible to explain away the fact that even the small amount of editing that Godsy is doing is almost exclusively forcing some interaction with Legacypac. 12 MfD votes, 11 of which are Legacypac noms themselves. Jimbo's talk to the same section that Legacypac had been invited to hours earlier. The IBAN references on both the talk and user page of Godsy. It's clear that this pattern isn't going to change without a solid, bolded, instruction to
stay away
. I'm sorry Godsy, you satisfied my concerns last time by pointing to the fact that many of your interactions with Legacypac are unavoidable due to MfD. This time, however, all I see in your contribs is Legacypac. I looked at your contribs as a whole, 23k edits in 3 years. That's a lot more than I'm going to have at the same mark. Prior to the IBAN your contribs covered MfD, AfD, RfD, Article space, Draft space, etc. Some of it overlapped with Legacy, but, there was something other than just Legacy there. Now, it's almost all tied to Legacy. Either a full IBAN is going to push you somewhere else, or, you'll just leave the encyclopaedia. Hopefully, it pushes you into other things. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ouch! I was counting Godsy's comment at Jimbo's talk as one of the handful not concerning Legacypac. How naive I am! Kudpung invited Legacypac to comment in the section at Jimbo's talk at 02:57, 16 July 2017. Before Legacypac responded, Godsy opposed what would have been Legacypac's position at 08:47, 16 July 2017. QED. @Godsy: Sorry, but you have to let it go, permanently. Life is not fair, and Wikipedia cannot provide satisfaction to all parties. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Mr rnddude: I read your full analysis. Since receiving the interaction ban, I generally only check into Wikipedia once a week and for only a few minutes; some weeks I don't even make any edits. I only edit in places that I feel are most important (e.g. doing my part to prevent a user who seemingly didn't break any policies or guidelines from receiving an editing restriction at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata because others don't like their seemingly reasonable actions). I have some free time in the morning two days a week, so I thought I might ease back into participating at miscellany for deletion. Would it matter if I had made a couple thousand edits over the past few months with the edits in question sprinkled in? It should not; they are either appropriate or not. The reason the individual on the other side of this interaction ban is so eager to accept it and all new conditions, is because it really doesn't effect their editing practices. They can continue seeking the deletion of things, a lot of which clearly should not be deleted. If it were "miscellany for keeping" or "criteria for speedy keeping", and nominations were made to keep things, it would affect them and not me. I'd be happy to accept, instead of the interaction ban, e.g. a 2 year ban from nominating drafts (i.e. userspace or draftspace henceforth) at miscellany for deletion, nominating drafts for speedy deletion, redirecting drafts to the mainspace, and moving pages from the draftspace to the userspace, if the individual I'm banned from interacting with is also given this restriction because it would affect their editing practices and not me. That would prevent any further disruption, and eliminate the cause of interactions the community has deemed disruptive and that have caused all this drama. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - This apparent obsession of Godsy's with Legacypac has to stop, and as he won't willingly stop it, it has to be forcibly stopped. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and as for "the individual I'm banned from interacting with (whose name I don't care to type or use)" - how pathetically childish is that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: I originally had something else written instead of that which was not civil, and perhaps even bordered on a personal attack, and I apologize if my avoiding engaging in incivility came off as childish to you. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- And you think that makes you sound better?! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: I originally had something else written instead of that which was not civil, and perhaps even bordered on a personal attack, and I apologize if my avoiding engaging in incivility came off as childish to you. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and as for "the individual I'm banned from interacting with (whose name I don't care to type or use)" - how pathetically childish is that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Johnuniq Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Suppport I had actually been wondering the other day if Godsy was active again (in a good way), then I went to their user talk and became alerted to this mess. Please let's stop this disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I don't know if Godsy has some sort of "thing" for LP or what but regardless this whole thing is beyond pathetic and childish and FWIW I would support banning Godsy from this place altogether - An IBAN isn't hard to follow but anywho if BANEX is violated then indef blocking should be next on the menu. –Davey2010Talk 16:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Godsy needs to take a wikibreak; I said that I felt at the last AN discussion that he would find a way to wikilawyer out of the iban and it appears he has. Bordering on WP:NOTHERE territory, frankly. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support It's time for this fiasco to stop and if Godsy won't stop it, it has to be stopped for him. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support regretfully. Legacypac's handling of the situation back when this first became an issue, coupled with the original unwarranted block of Godsy, both contributed to the problem and I can understand why Godsy has had a hard time letting it go. Legacypac is a problematic and overly sensitive editor, but Godsy does not seem to understand where the line is and he keeps stepping across it. Lepricavark (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @User:Lepricavark it appears your assessment refers to how I handled this situation in June 2017, however the harassment I've been receiving dates back at least a year before that. Your post illustrates the unreasonable amount of damage this war against me has done to my editing reputation, which leads to my Additional Proposal below Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't quite agree. My viewpoint is that Godsy saw various problems in some of your editing and sought to rectify those problems. He probably should have done more to treat you as a good faith editor (and the same applies to your treatment of him), but I do believe his objective was to address issues with your editing, not merely to hound and harass you. Your June complaint led to a premature block that unfortunately escalated the problem, as Godsy now felt that you were trying to silence him. Your proposal below further reinforces that perception. Lepricavark (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- The block was not premature (you are echoing Godsy's exact and consistent phrasing by the way) but long overdue. His harassment sunk his RfA long before that block was imposed. His hounding already drove me off wikipedia for months before his failed RfA, so who is trying to silence who exactly? Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- We seem to be at cross purposes. I have felt strongly ever since the block was handed down that it was completely premature (and if you have some point to make about my phrasing, then come right out and say it instead of dropping hints), and I disagree with your insistence on labeling his pre-iBan edits as hounding and harassment. I'm less than thrilled that we have likely lost Godsy as a valuable contributor, but he's done nothing to help his cause in the past few months and frankly he has brought this on himself. I get that you two don't like each other and I'm not surprised that you have consistently refused to assume good faith on his part, but I don't share your perspective. Lepricavark (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- If anyone engaged in the kind of war he has engaged in but against you, you would he screaming about it. Why are you defending his WP:STALKing exactly? Godsy has not been "lost" and definately his behavior is not a result of anything I've done or any block. He quit being a productive contributor some months ago completely of his own accord. I don't know him, so I can't dislike him. In fact I wish him the very best, doing anything anywhere not involving harassing me. His long term pattern of behaviour is beyond acceptable and there is no reason the entire community needs to put up with it anymore. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- We seem to be at cross purposes. I have felt strongly ever since the block was handed down that it was completely premature (and if you have some point to make about my phrasing, then come right out and say it instead of dropping hints), and I disagree with your insistence on labeling his pre-iBan edits as hounding and harassment. I'm less than thrilled that we have likely lost Godsy as a valuable contributor, but he's done nothing to help his cause in the past few months and frankly he has brought this on himself. I get that you two don't like each other and I'm not surprised that you have consistently refused to assume good faith on his part, but I don't share your perspective. Lepricavark (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- The block was not premature (you are echoing Godsy's exact and consistent phrasing by the way) but long overdue. His harassment sunk his RfA long before that block was imposed. His hounding already drove me off wikipedia for months before his failed RfA, so who is trying to silence who exactly? Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't quite agree. My viewpoint is that Godsy saw various problems in some of your editing and sought to rectify those problems. He probably should have done more to treat you as a good faith editor (and the same applies to your treatment of him), but I do believe his objective was to address issues with your editing, not merely to hound and harass you. Your June complaint led to a premature block that unfortunately escalated the problem, as Godsy now felt that you were trying to silence him. Your proposal below further reinforces that perception. Lepricavark (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @User:Lepricavark it appears your assessment refers to how I handled this situation in June 2017, however the harassment I've been receiving dates back at least a year before that. Your post illustrates the unreasonable amount of damage this war against me has done to my editing reputation, which leads to my Additional Proposal below Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I hope at some point the community reviews the "although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other" part of WP:IBAN, and has a discussion at WT:Banning policy. Though the policy states that, at least the community participating in this discussion does not seem to agree with it. I also find the concept of a "no-fault two-way interaction ban" to be abhorrent; no editor deserves an editing restriction unless they can be shown to have broken a guideline or policy (i.e. actually done something wrong). Two-way interaction bans should only be used if there is dual-fault. That aside, if a deletionist and inclusionist (not quite accurate, but works as a generalization) are banned from interacting with one another, if the inclusionist isn't the one creating the pages which caused the disagreement themself, the deletionist walks away unhindered and perhaps even empowered. I also find complaints that I commented on thing(s) that the individual I'm banned from interacting with was notified about ridiculous. To avoid that, I would have to check their talk page before commenting anywhere. I also find the notion that if I had made many other edits, and these were just sprinkled in, they would be okay. Contributions are either appropriate or not, they should stand on their own merit. The sentiment expressed by some here regarding the "spirit" of the interaction ban would basically would de facto prohibit me from participating at miscellany for deletion (where the individual I'm banned from interacting with probably makes 30% of the nominations and participates in others), and discussions about drafts (an area in which the individual I'm banned from interacting with likes to propose new ways to delete them) among other crazy extra-broad non-enumerated restrictions. I regularly participated in those areas before the interaction ban. I concur with Power~enwiki and would like to thank Mr rnddude for their in-depth look at the matter. I think I will take a wikibreak until the Christmas holiday, if not longer. Many things to consider. Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Inregards to would basically would de facto prohibit me from participating at miscellany for deletion and discussions about drafts - Well you'll have to find other places to edit then, Not to rub it in but you had plenty of oppertunity to stop this but you carried it on so it's only your fault it's lead to this, –Davey2010Talk 21:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt we need to review the policy. AFAICT, very few people here seem to think people are, or should be, forbidden from ever commenting on XfDs someone they're ibanned with is also involved in. Such co-participation may happen on occasion and provided both parties act resonably, there's no reason to forbid it. The specific issue here for me, and I think most others, is we don't think you should be concentrating on participating in XfDs with someone you've been ibanned from especially when that iban largely came about because you just wouldn't leave LegacyPac alone. Yes LegacyPac opens a lot of MfDs but it's very difficult to argue it was just an accident you came to those they were heavily involved in (mostly opened), and I'm not even sure you're claiming that. In other words, we don't mind and have no reason to forbid incidental indirect interactions and the policy and guidelines reflect that. But we do mind, and do forbid intentionally continuing to pursue another editor using whatever means you think are technically allowed when you've be told, repeatedly, to stop it. And the evidence shows that even putting aside the MFDs, nearly all you've done since the iban came into effect has somehow involved your dispute with LegacyPac. The fact you don't seem to understand all this, is of course good evidence we're right to restrict you. Per WP:NOTBURO it's unlikely we need to clarify policy or guidelines to tell people that when they've been told to leave another editor alone, they need to do so, not find whatever ways are technically allowed and continue their campaign simply because we also say we not going to punish incidental indirect interactions. As Davey2010 also said, if you've earned community sanction which prevent you editing in your preferred area, you'll have to find somewhere else to edit. P.S. I'm AGFing that you really don't appreciate all this rather than just trying to be difficult, but it's getting harder. P.P.S. I'm saying all this in the hope it will finally get through to you since I have a nasty feeling if it doesn't, the next time I read your name it's going to be a case of "OMFG, not again" when it comes to a full community ban of you from en.wikipedia, although I suspect this won't happen since an indef block which I hopefully won't have to hear about is more likely. As also indicated before, even without a block or ban, unless you understand all this, it will be a case of OMFG when you appeal your i-ban and I suspect just reading you appeal will be enough to tell me it's doomed to fail as I see with appeals way too often. It sounds like you were a good contributor once, my ultimate hope is you can somehow get back to being that. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - The community's time is being wasted with this stuff; we could currently be writing featured articles. In fact, why don't you try and write one yourself, Godsy? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support, per basically everyone above. Davey2010's comment just above this post is especially on-point. There would be no IBAN, and no discussion to expand on the IBAN, if Godsy hadn't nickel and dimed this issue to the absolute limit of credulity over the past few months (including arguing that he had an intrinsic right to indent Legacypac's comments after being explicitly told to stop, because indentation is that important). He has had every opportunity to put down the stick and he chooses instead to find new ways to poke the bear with it and then acts surprised when the bear snarls at him. Go do something else here, Godsy. Anything. Pick a pet backlog and clear it out. Take RileyBugz' suggestion and write a FA. Go work with AfC or NPP and help new editors get their drafts published and kept, if you're so dead set on the staggering importance of keeping stuff in draftspace. Anything. Just drop the damn stick. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Blatant harassment despite having an interaction ban. People have been indeffed for less. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Godsy seems to delight in pushing the envelope ever further- too much so for my liking. — fortunavelut luna 10:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Wow, how wrong was I here?! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support per above. Clear instance of NOTHERE; many other users have been blocked for much, much less. -FASTILY 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Additional Proposal
- Godsy and his two alternative accounts be INDEF'd for WP:HARASSMENT
- convert the two way IBAN into a one way Standard IBAN in favor of Legacypac
Proposer's Rational: All the stuff above.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Proposer's additional detailed rational for anyone that really needs it: Since multiple new sanctions against me have been proposed by Godsy in this thread, it seems ok for me to propose a solution. Godsy continues to claim he has never harassed me and insists the community never found he has harassed me a clear statement is required. Since he is clearly WP:NOTHERE and has turned a thread about his harrassment into a forum to make additional outrageous inflammatory statements, he needs to be stopped. Since he has twice lied here about how he ended up at Jimbo's talk page, and told other fanciful stories here about his MfD participation, why should we believe he plans to take a wikibreak? There is no agreement from him to find something productive to do, only complaints he'll be unable to continue his crusade. As for the IBAN mod, Godsy says above I also find the concept of a "no-fault two-way interaction ban" to be abhorrent so we should take away his reason to be "abhorred" by making it a one way. This way my account can be cleared of this mess, and in case he ever gets editing privileges back he'll still have to find an editing interest unrelated to harrassing me. Believe me - I've got zero interest in interacting with him and will meticulously be staying away voluntarily, but I would hate to be tripped up in some technicality or accidental interaction. |
Respectfully Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to oppose a one-way iban on the usual philosophical and practical grounds. I wouldn't oppose an indefinite block, so long as the text included that any uninvolved admin could unblock on presentation of a reasonable plan of editing that avoids the problems described here. I think Godsy has been a productive editor in the past and should be given a decent opportunity to return to it. GoldenRing (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- One way i-bans are almost always a disaster. I would oppose that. Let the above remedy work. Take the high road. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to one-way IBans per se - I see many fewer problems with them than some other editors do, but I think this particular situation really does call for a two-way IBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, with three respected editors opposing changing the IBAN its pretty clear I need to WITHDRAW the modification to the IBAN part of the proposal. After the ANi beating I took in June plus the comments above defending WP:STALKING as OK, its pretty clear the community feels my contributions are so worthless that there is no value in protecting me unless I'm equally restricted as well - confirming to Godsy the unfairness of the "no fault" IBAN and confirming that he has done nothing wrong and is the bigger victim. I get wikipedia is not fair, but I've tried very hard to avoid Godsy for over a year and a half already. My reward is I'm even worse off than the aggressor because I got a Move restriction in June based on the outright lies Godsy told at ANi and lost NPP rights for a few days. Thanks for the feedback though, at least I know where I stand. I do appreciate those that voted to expand the IBAN as it's easy for me to continue my long self imposed avoidance program. Now, can someone SNOW close the IBAN modification above to shut down Godsy's latest forum for attacking me? Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- For the record: just another evidence that User:Legacypac is only interested in silencing anyone opposing them. It's too bad Wikipedia lacks an effective tool to deal with problematic users like them. -- Taku (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Go work on your all important drafts and stop trolling Taku. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: While you are clearly emotionally involved, I honestly think you would be well advised to walk away from this and leave it to the rest of the comminity to deal with. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Go work on your all important drafts and stop trolling Taku. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. There's no need for escalating personal tit-for-tat, and Legacypac needs to do some stick-dropping too - I think the 2-way IBAN needs to remain. The main IBAN extension proposed above should be sufficient, and other things should only be considered if that doesn't work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Something to keep in mind
In a recent spurt of well-meaning CSD nominations there were a huge group of G8 "bad redirects" that were actually a result of xqbot not hitting a double redirect before the first redir was deleted, as well as some obvious vandalism. I had to undelete a group of the pages that shouldn't have been deleted.
I suppose my point is just as a nice note that while the S in CSD does stand for "speedy", we should still be doing our due diligence (checking history, talk pages, etc) before pulling that trigger. Thanks to GB fan for also noticing that and helping clean up. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Undeletion and userfication
Hi, could someone undelete and userfy Markovian parallax denigrate for me? It was deleted several years ago by Cirt, who has been inactive since 2016. The deletion discussion is here [39] with the deletion rationale being that there were no reliable sources covering the event, however I've found three (more recent than the AfD) with a simple Google search [40], [41], [42]. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Handled at WP:REFUND, thanks. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 22:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There appears to be sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maziar Sarmeh, and admin attention may be appropriate briefly. A good closer can discount the unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Disregard that. The closer ignored the unregistered editors and deleted the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Suspicious offsite blog
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I found a blogger on Medium (an alternative to Wordpress and Blogspot) who claims to be a feminist who wants the notability policy to be abolished. I think this is the work of a troll group. KMF (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- And? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think that this is a troll because, well, it's pretty obvious. Using "it's racist" or "it's sexist" as an excuse and trying to get rid of a major Wikipedia content policy are both pretty suspicious. First they're trying to abolish notability; next thing you know, they'll be trying to abolish NPOV or NOR. KMF (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Rangeblock needed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See WP:AIV. There's an IP-hopping harasser using an IPv6 address in the 2605:A000:F8E0:9F00 range who needs a rangeblock. I'm not skilled enough to handle it, if someone who is can pop over there and investigate, it'd be much appreciated. --Jayron32 11:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- /64 blocked 1 month -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Jayron32 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hillbillyholiday Editing Restriction Violation (again)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is already a discussion regarding this editor, but as this was a different article I made a new report. Feel free to add this to the current report if that's better.
This editor is subject to a 1RR/72 hours on anything related to BLP. [43]
They have already been reported [44] however, it was a little stale.
However, this editor seems to have broken the 1RR/72 hours again. (hardly surprising, as they said they would break it - [45] )
Here are the two reverts within 1 hour 13 mins.
[46] [47] (this was a cheeky revert - (-7,388) but marked as a minor edit?)
There is a discussion regarding this content on both the article talk page and the BLP noticeboard, this editor has not attempted to join either discussion, despite having that course of action recommended when the 1RR/72 sanction was imposed on them.
This most certainly isn't a case of removing vandalism, it's a mere content dispute - content that is correctly, reliably and verifiably sourced.
Sorry, but I can't think of a more blatant example of being here just for drama, than someone who got an editing restriction two weeks ago, stated that they would break that restriction and then broke it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Does Hillbillyholiday think that BLPVIO means leaving absolutely nothing negative whatsoever? — fortunavelut luna 14:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Pacquiao's trainer Freddie Roach has had suspicion of Pacquiao's former strength and conditioning coach Alex Ariza. Roach stated that Ariza had been giving Pacquiao "special drinks" without his permission. Roach also stated "One of the reasons I don't work with him [Ariza] anymore is he's a little shady. He used to give Manny a drink before workouts, and I asked him what was in the drink and he would never tell me. I told him I need to know what was in the drinks because you're giving it to my fighter."
The given source, kdramastars.com, is not good enough. In fact the entire section is cobbled together from primary sources of varying quality. One is a copyright-violating youtube clip. It needs to stay out until a consensus has been reached on whether to include it, and if so, how it should be worded. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- "Hillbillyholiday is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the BLP topic area, broadly construed, except in cases of obvious vandalism unrelated to sources. Hillbillyholiday is encouraged to take disputes to the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard." [48]
- Sorry, but not liking ONE SOURCE, out of many that include The Times, The Guardian, NBC etc is not a good enough reason to break your editing sanction.
- Let me quote this one section from the sanction "except in cases of obvious vandalism unrelated to sources" which this most certainly was not.
- you should have gone to either the article talk page, or the BLP noticeboard and discussed this. But hey, at least you're honest, you said "I will revert back if I think it's necessary. This restriction is ludicrous and actually quite offensive considering I have done as much as anyone here to improve BLPs. I'm afraid it's IAR all the way, baby." and now you're doing exactly that. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
As this is the editor's second violation of the editing restrictions (first violation resulted in a warning rather than a block), I've blocked for one week and warned them that future violations will result in more severe sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of process deletion - Medha Khole
This article was recently tagged {{db-person}} by 91.207.57.43 (talk · contribs). I declined the speedy because a search for sources show it is possible to write an article on this subject; however I have deleted the article anyway per WP:BLPDELETE as the two sources given do not verify any claims in the article. I would rather somebody rewrote the article from scratch. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- A short-term news scandal over the past 24 hours, should subside soon. —SpacemanSpiff 10:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- She's not notable for anything else, so an obvious BLP1E anyway, and even the 1E doesn't appear as if it'll be that notable or lasting. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- It has been recreated - the content created was a copy paste copyright violation from the Hindu. Medha Khole . Perhaps a good idea to block Medha Khole from being created. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Current practice is to do that after the second re-creation, i.e. third creation. Samsara 20:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Blocking policy and IPv6 ranges
I am usually an idiot about this, treating IPv6 addresses as though they are IP addresses and only blocking the one. Once in a blue moon I remember. We don't seem to say anything about this in our blocking policy. We'd also need to spell out how to identify the appropriate range, etc. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Should we include advice to block an IPv6 range, not a single address? and then realised people don't seem to read that page. Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses also needs updating. Credit to Bish for this by the way who reminded me about it recently. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder if a technical change would be feasible (and a good idea), to automatically offer the /64 range as an option when blocking an IPv6 address? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- A technical change (as suggested by Boing) or at the very least some wording changes would be greatly appreciated. I think it's fair to say the number of IPv6s editing has increased year on year (75% of all percentages are made up on the spot), so this is probably more of an exposure thing -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 18:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is more complicated than people make it out to be. Generally, blocking the /64 is the right thing to do, but not always. A /64 could represent a large number of customers in certain unusual situations. I don't see any reason to deviate from our usual practice. If you see them using more than one IP address, block the range from the start. Otherwise, just do one IP. If you see them come back, then it justifies a range block. ~ Rob13Talk 18:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: What I'm suggesting is that we have a section in the blocking policy with advice on how to deal with IPv6 editors. I agree that there are times when blocking the range would be a bad idea, but wouldn't that show up if you check the contributions from the range? Doug Weller talk 18:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- As you almost suggested above, this would probably be an idea on the WP:IPB page, but I don't think it's good for a policy page. And I can give a handy example for not using /64 blocks (and indefinite blocks): Special:Contributions/2600:387:*. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- zzuuzz for you information the above IP6 search is not a /64 subnet; it is a /32 subnet. as such is could represent as many as 4,294,967,296 different /64 connections. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, please pick any subnet within it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well you could pick Special:Contributions/2600:387:0:802:* , a /64 subnet, and it looks like a single user. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Any subnet except that lone example. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well you could pick Special:Contributions/2600:387:0:802:* , a /64 subnet, and it looks like a single user. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, please pick any subnet within it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- zzuuzz for you information the above IP6 search is not a /64 subnet; it is a /32 subnet. as such is could represent as many as 4,294,967,296 different /64 connections. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- As you almost suggested above, this would probably be an idea on the WP:IPB page, but I don't think it's good for a policy page. And I can give a handy example for not using /64 blocks (and indefinite blocks): Special:Contributions/2600:387:*. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: What I'm suggesting is that we have a section in the blocking policy with advice on how to deal with IPv6 editors. I agree that there are times when blocking the range would be a bad idea, but wouldn't that show up if you check the contributions from the range? Doug Weller talk 18:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Phabricator tasks of interest: RFC: IPv6 contributions and talk pages, Should block IPv6 addresses at /64 instead of /128, and Have one aggregated talk page for ipv6 /64. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is more complicated than people make it out to be. Generally, blocking the /64 is the right thing to do, but not always. A /64 could represent a large number of customers in certain unusual situations. I don't see any reason to deviate from our usual practice. If you see them using more than one IP address, block the range from the start. Otherwise, just do one IP. If you see them come back, then it justifies a range block. ~ Rob13Talk 18:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think we're seeing more and more IPv6 addresses editing the 'pedia and, yes, it would be helpful to incorporate some advice in the blocking guidance. mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 has some useful information. Typically, an IPv6 /64 subnet is allocated to a household or a location and we would block a /64 subnet as we would a single IPv4 address but only after checking the range, satisfying ourself that it is stable and that a single user is using that range. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Any admin worried about blocking /64 subnets should not be overtly worried: it's roughly equivalent to blocking a single static IPv4 address. If you look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375 at The Internet Engineering Task Force it quite clearly explains the reasons why:
Using a subnet prefix length other than a /64 will break many features of IPv6, including Neighbor Discovery (ND), Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971], privacy extensions [RFC4941], parts of Mobile IPv6 [RFC4866], Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) with Embedded-RP [RFC3956], and Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (SHIM6) [SHIM6], among others. A number of other features currently in development, or being proposed, also rely on /64 subnet prefixes.
Nevertheless, many IPv6 implementations do not prevent the administrator from configuring a subnet prefix length shorter or longer than 64 bits. Using subnet prefixes shorter than /64 would rarely be useful; see Appendix B.1 for discussion.
However, some network administrators have used prefixes longer than /64 for links connecting routers, usually just two routers on a point-to-point link. On links where all the addresses are assigned by manual configuration, and all nodes on the link are routers (not end hosts) that are known by the network, administrators do not need any of the IPv6 features that rely on /64 subnet prefixes, this can work. Using subnet prefixes longer than /64 is not recommended for general use, and using them for links containing end hosts would be an especially bad idea, as it is difficult to predict what IPv6 features the hosts will use in the future.
So any ISPs worth their salt are going to allocate /64 subnets for connections, as allocating any larger subnet could cause all sorts of end-user problems. Of course this doesn't mean you're necessarily going to be blocking a single user, but neither did blocking a single static IPv4 address necessarily imply this either. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, by this definition of "worth their salt", many ISP's, especially in Asia and Africa, are not. I've seen IP-hopping throughout much greater ranges (e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar). One of our incentives for enabling IPv6 was to allow more granular targeting of a single user not possible with IPv4 - we shouldn't impose IPv4's limitation here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry but can you explain how Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar demonstrates this? I can't understand how it does, there are no IPv6 socks at all listed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- I should've been more clear. Look at the investigation on June 13 where a CheckUser says a rangeblock won't be feasible. I linked the contributions page of an IPv6 sock during that investigation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that that indicates a greater than /64 subnet, there could be other explanations such as a mix of Ipv4 and IpV6 addresses, or uncertainty about Ipv6 rangeblocks. I'm not sure this is a good place to discuss it, but you can on my talk page if yo so wish. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- There are many ISPs that fail to live up to your expectations of how things should work. Although many ISPs allocate a /64 for each customer, others allocate customer IP addresses from a very wide pool, typically a /40 or /42, though I've seen them range anywhere from a /60 to a /36. These are a pain to deal with. User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat is one particularly frustrating example. There are many others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate Looking at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat, these less than /64 (i.e. wider) ranges seem to be for wireless broadband. Now wireless broadband suppliers can use many /64 connections for the supply: the end result is that the range is far greater (or/<64). The reason for this is because in these circumstances radio towers (or combination of radio towers) will have access to many /64 connections; just like a wireless radio tower IPv4 would use a large variety of dynamic IPv4 addresses. Basically this is analogous to using several dynamic IPv4 connections, it implies nothing about connection subnets.
- I see no particular evidence that ranges with a greater than /64 subnet are active; but even these can be explained by router alllocations giving a bigger than /64 (or narrower range) which is well within protocols; routers have no compulsion to use entire /64 ranges when allocating /128 addresses, only the connection itself must be at least /64. All this gives the impression of non-/64 connections which is simply not true.
- Another way of looking at this: let's say I had a router with a /64 connection which allocated the same IPv6 address each time to my laptop. Now as far as my editing goes it would look like I was using a /128 subnet (i.e. a single IPv6 connection). While this would be true, nevertheless my connection to the ISP would be /64. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- The theoretical role of /64's is subordinate to their roles in practice, which is that since they don't necessarily represent single users and we want to utilize the finer granularity of IPv6 to reduce collateral damage, we can't treat /64's the same way we have been treating single IPv4 addresses.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's true in theory but in practice Wikipedia has to be defended from brain-numbing nonsense that will eventually wear down the most dedicated editors. My suggestion would be to block IPv6 /64 when that is shown to be needed after blocking one or two individual IPs. Anyone adversely affected would have to make their case. Or, any concerned registered editor could point to a case where blocking a /64 resulted in a loss of encyclopedic content. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- The theoretical role of /64's is subordinate to their roles in practice, which is that since they don't necessarily represent single users and we want to utilize the finer granularity of IPv6 to reduce collateral damage, we can't treat /64's the same way we have been treating single IPv4 addresses.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- There are many ISPs that fail to live up to your expectations of how things should work. Although many ISPs allocate a /64 for each customer, others allocate customer IP addresses from a very wide pool, typically a /40 or /42, though I've seen them range anywhere from a /60 to a /36. These are a pain to deal with. User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat is one particularly frustrating example. There are many others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that that indicates a greater than /64 subnet, there could be other explanations such as a mix of Ipv4 and IpV6 addresses, or uncertainty about Ipv6 rangeblocks. I'm not sure this is a good place to discuss it, but you can on my talk page if yo so wish. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- I should've been more clear. Look at the investigation on June 13 where a CheckUser says a rangeblock won't be feasible. I linked the contributions page of an IPv6 sock during that investigation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry but can you explain how Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar demonstrates this? I can't understand how it does, there are no IPv6 socks at all listed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
ACE2017 request for comment
Normally we start this September 1, but this year we're a bit behind schedule. The RfC that will determine the rules and procedures of the 2017 Arbitration Committee election is now live: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017 (WP:ACERFC). Feel free to add new discussion topics as level 2 headers. Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
IP's edits at Sorted magazine article
At Sorted magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an IP is repeatedly removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced material, promotional language, and spam. See here and here. In the version before the IP's edits, the text states that Russell Church launched the magazine and that "the title was geared to the lads' mag market." In the IP's version, it states that Steve Legg launched the magazine and that it "has been voted the world’s most wholesome men’s magazine with 100,000 readers in 21 countries." I warned the IP twice. I then reported the matter at WP:AIV, but, when no administrator picked up the case, I decided to bring it here instead. If I request page protection at this time, I'd likely be declined because there is not enough disruption and it's just one IP. Furthermore, editors might confuse this as a content dispute since the IP claims to be "removing incorrect data." I don't particularly care about the article; I came across it via WP:STiki. I do care about inaccurate information being added to it. I'm not sure if two different magazines are being confused or what. For reference, this is the source the IP keeps using. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can see they're actually both correct. The original magazine was published by Church and was indeed aimed at the "lad's" market. However it appears it was taken over by Legg's publishing company later on and repositioned as a Christian men's magazine. So the "wholesome" cite is correct as well (although it's a primary source). Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting, Black Kite. The issue I see is that the IP keeps removing material about the original launch and other important material. The IP's edits are not only repeatedly removing this important information, but are replacing it with unsourced, boastful information. I have seen that Viewmont Viking has been reverting the IP, and that Viewmont Viking has reverted again. Perhaps Viewmont Viking is willing to weigh in here. From what I can see, the back and forth reverting will continue if the article is not semi-protected. The IP will simply get a new IP, and might later edit as an account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Flyer22, unless the IP editor comes with sourced NPOV information we should keep the article as is and semi-protect it. --VVikingTalkEdits 20:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Viewmont Viking, if it continues, we can obviously list the matter at WP:Requests for page protection. I think it would get declined for protection right now. But if the IP strikes again, a case can be made, with this thread cited as part of the argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk)
- I agree with Flyer22, unless the IP editor comes with sourced NPOV information we should keep the article as is and semi-protect it. --VVikingTalkEdits 20:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting, Black Kite. The issue I see is that the IP keeps removing material about the original launch and other important material. The IP's edits are not only repeatedly removing this important information, but are replacing it with unsourced, boastful information. I have seen that Viewmont Viking has been reverting the IP, and that Viewmont Viking has reverted again. Perhaps Viewmont Viking is willing to weigh in here. From what I can see, the back and forth reverting will continue if the article is not semi-protected. The IP will simply get a new IP, and might later edit as an account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
G13 eligible Sandboxes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are 140+ sandboxes that were AfC rejected. Can someone use a tool to bulk delete or blank these pages? I already processed all the non-sandboxes there. [49] Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Checking some sockpuppet cats
I am checking the accuracy of the following cats:
Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand
I don't see any evidence for them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand/Archive. Am I looking in the wrong place? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: Sockpuppets are often blocked without an SPI if evidence is compiled off-wiki or the admin doing the blocking is the one who discovered the sock. SPIs are a place to submit evidence if it needs admin review or warrants a CheckUser, but it's not the only way to get a block for sockpuppetry. If you think any of the blocks may not be correct, talk to the blocking admin. ~ Rob13Talk 04:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ah. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I am going to start by simply asking User:Δ: [50] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- What good would that do? If Betacommand denies that a particular account was a sock, are you going to believe him and remove that account from the category? Don't you think that any puppetmaster has a vested interest in being blamed for fewer sockpuppets? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ah. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I am going to start by simply asking User:Δ: [50] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Jay Kristopher
There are some issue regarding a recent created article Jay Kristopher as I have tagged it for deletion the author has written a note on the article stating if you need anymore sources ill give you more sources this is my sons wikipedia page that i created and these things are all true he's everywhere else but here he likes wikipedia and September 12th is his birthday don't delete his page he always likes to see himself on wikipedia refreshing the page his birthday is in 1 day wikipedia administrators don't break my sons heart. Admins take note of this as per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:ONEDAY. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 10:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection backlogged again + some comments
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection was heavily backlogged in the morning (30+ items, some of them being there for 24h). I cleared most of it, but now I will not have time to do it anymore, and any help will be appreciated.
While I am at it, may I please suggest that all of you (not only administrators) occasionally take an effort to send public thanks for (uncontroversial) administrative actions. That used to happen a lot when I started to work at RFPP a couple of years ago, and it hardly happens anymore. Very few of us (possibly none of us) enjoy routine administrative work, but we are doing it because we feel responsibility for the project and find the janitorial work important. It is thankless, takes time, and typically it takes time from doing here what we really enjoy (in my case, writing articles). There is not much what can be done about it, but public thanks are cheap and kind of give us that little motivation which we may be missing by doing this day by day without any feedback. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Should be de-backlogged now. Plus I completely endorse the comment above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Dear admins, on behalf of the community, please accept this vacuum cleaner. It's more efficient than a mop, and really helps you clean those hard-to-reach corners, like RFPP. TJWtalk 13:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Ymblanter. Can I tag on to the end of that the musing that some of us have become rather tired of attending to situations that require full protection (per policy, no less), because it is, by its very nature, ALWAYS controversial, and we seem to get hardly any support from the rest of the admin corps for doing such policy-based actions? Thanks, Samsara 17:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: thanking Admins for page protection and other noticeable routine tasks is a really good idea. I will be doing this from now on. Thanks very much for the suggestion - because these efforts are really appreciated. And thanks Ymblanter and Ritchie333 for clearing out page protection today. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ymblanter. Can I tag on to the end of that the musing that some of us have become rather tired of attending to situations that require full protection (per policy, no less), because it is, by its very nature, ALWAYS controversial, and we seem to get hardly any support from the rest of the admin corps for doing such policy-based actions? Thanks, Samsara 17:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Possibly compromised account
Reported at WP:AIV, the account of User:Zawl has been blocked indef by me as a possibly compromised account. This has been questioned at User talk:Zawl. — Maile (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Maile66: there was quite a bit of activity. The AIV cited "bad redirects" but those I checked out didn't seem bad, although a few didn't seem necessary (but I'm not an expert on the subjects presented). Why do you believe the account is compromised? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I linked the report above. Do you suggest I unblock with an apology? — Maile (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not yet!
. Why do you think the account is compromised? The AIV report didn't list any diffs, the redirects don't seem out of charachter, and I don't see any attempt to communicate with Zawl (but please note I'm slow and still looking). 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- It was that whole slew of redirects over the past few days that made me think this is possibly compromised. But I'm open to be proven wrong. If this user was blocked in error, I'm sure they would like to be unblocked as soon as possible. — Maile (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Aspro: which edits do you think are vandalism? Since I'm seeing so many recent edits (which is not out of character from this editor who has recently re-named their account), they are between obviously "constructive" edits, and Zawl may be unaware of them. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Aspro also posted at WP:VP regarding one of the redirects that went to a deleted article. — Maile (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Maile66, Zawl did not make a redirect to a deleted article. Zawl created Bhad Bhabie at 10:49, 11 September 2017. Zawl then changed the target of the redirect Danielle Bregoli at 10:50, 11 September 2017 to point to Bhad Bhabie. Then Magnolia677 stated at the village pump they weren't sure what to do about the change to the redirect at 11:20, 11 September 2017. Aspro then complained village pump about the edit at 17:18, 11 September 2017 and again at 17:22, 11 September 2017 and for a third time at 17:33, 11 September 2017 without ever stating what is wrong with that or any other edit Zawl had made. I think Floquenbeam is spot on about Aspro and their reports. ~ GB fan 19:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Aspro also posted at WP:VP regarding one of the redirects that went to a deleted article. — Maile (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Aspro: which edits do you think are vandalism? Since I'm seeing so many recent edits (which is not out of character from this editor who has recently re-named their account), they are between obviously "constructive" edits, and Zawl may be unaware of them. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- It was that whole slew of redirects over the past few days that made me think this is possibly compromised. But I'm open to be proven wrong. If this user was blocked in error, I'm sure they would like to be unblocked as soon as possible. — Maile (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not yet!
- I linked the report above. Do you suggest I unblock with an apology? — Maile (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I do not see anything that indicates the account has been compromised. The edits seem to be in character. The redirects do not look "bad" as originally reported. If there are all these "bad" redirects why has no one nominated them for deletion? Zawl should be unblocked. ~ GB fan 18:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict):::::::What is a little disconcerting is that it does not appear anyone attempted to talk with Zawl. I have found him to be the epitome of WP:BOLD, but also willing to discuss things. Regarding the VP, Zawl recreated an article, with many more sources than the version that was deleted, and he believes it to pass the notability threshold. Maybe it does or doesn't, but I'm not sure the edit history was checked. I'm definitely leaning towards immediate unblock absent further evidence. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I unblocked the account. If it later turns out to be compromised, there will be evidence of such. But in the meantime, I believe I acted too hastily. — Maile (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ummm, for everyone's future use: please do not take any admin action based on accusations by User:Aspro. Longtime lurkers at the Village Pump and Reference Desks will tell you ... how can I put this without getting blocked? ... his judgement is questionable quite a bit of the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for mentioning. Not my best action, but it was a lesson for me. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @ User:Floquenbeam.Where did I make accusations against this editor ? I said 'Possibly compromised account' and expressed straight from the start that he was an experienced editor. Which means I had his best interest at heart incase his account had been compromised. Pity you didn't way-in earlier and sort this out yourself instead of coming back 'after' the conclusion with what amounts to: Avec le recul, je pense que nous nous y serions pris autrement.. I know how to reply to you without getting blocked – by leaving it to other editors who have come to know me over the years - to make their own judgments. Aspro (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- original reply: My time machine is in the shop; I expect to be able to sort out things that happen before I see them sometime next week, when I get it back. And it's "weigh in".
- more on-point reply: My comment wasn't meant to solve this problem after the fact; it was meant to lessen the likelihood of future problems, by trying to get admins who see this to realize that you can almost always be safely ignored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @ User:Floquenbeam.Where did I make accusations against this editor ? I said 'Possibly compromised account' and expressed straight from the start that he was an experienced editor. Which means I had his best interest at heart incase his account had been compromised. Pity you didn't way-in earlier and sort this out yourself instead of coming back 'after' the conclusion with what amounts to: Avec le recul, je pense que nous nous y serions pris autrement.. I know how to reply to you without getting blocked – by leaving it to other editors who have come to know me over the years - to make their own judgments. Aspro (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Request Admin close AfD
The discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three simultaneous Atlantic hurricanes (2017) has a reasonably good turnout and it seems merge is and probably will be the consensus decision. I am the article's creator and I also just Ivoted for "merge". Rather than continuing to extend the discussion in time and attract attention to a discussion that may not need this attention or more editor's time, I am requesting an Admin close this AfD per the perceived consensus. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Seems a little unnecessary to me to close this early. I also think in general that AfDing anything because it supposedly doesn't have enduring notability a few days after the event is amazingly premature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus:. I thank you for saying this. I was thinking along similar lines, and have become very frustrated having to deal with an AfD this soon after creating the article. It doesn't give me much time to come up with more material - if any shows up. It's like, by the time that happens the horse has left the barn. I wanted to say something like this at the AfD, but I didn't want to come across as whining and so on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my request for early close on this AfD. Please let the AfD run its course. This AfD happened way too early, in my opinion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus:. I thank you for saying this. I was thinking along similar lines, and have become very frustrated having to deal with an AfD this soon after creating the article. It doesn't give me much time to come up with more material - if any shows up. It's like, by the time that happens the horse has left the barn. I wanted to say something like this at the AfD, but I didn't want to come across as whining and so on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:REFUND could do with some attention
There are about a dozen unanswered undeletion requests at WP:REFUND, with the oldest dating back to 8 September. Looking at the archives, prior to this week they were generally answered within a day. - Evad37 [talk] 01:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)