Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:46, 2 August 2014

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use 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 opening a close appeal, 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.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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 {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169#Proposed_topic_ban_on_Adamantine123_from_caste_topics

(Initiated 12 days ago on 10 October 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 73 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#RfC – In the article section about "Haifa", should the following paragraph be added?

(Initiated 39 days ago on 13 September 2024) RFC tag has been removed by the bot. Last comments over a week ago. TarnishedPath^talk 07:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Assassin's_Creed_Shadows#RfC:Should_Assassin's_Creed_Shadows_include_the_Re-enactment_flag_controversy_and_Japanese_reaction?

(Initiated 27 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Edward_Heath#Rfc_on_lede_image

(Initiated 25 days ago on 26 September 2024) An RfC about changing the lede picture for Edward Heath. There has been no activity on the RfC in 17 days, and the consensus isn't immediately clear about the changing of the infobox picture. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Oct	Total
CfD	3	3
TfD	5	5
MfD	0	0
FfD	0	0
RfD	62	62
AfD	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Category:Riize

(Initiated 28 days ago on 24 September 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Category:Tourist attractions in Salem

(Initiated 27 days ago on 25 September 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Centuries in Landskrona‎

(Initiated 25 days ago on 27 September 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#!(*$

(Initiated 20 days ago on 2 October 2024) Cremastra (u — c) 20:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Category:Wikipedia pages with colour accessibility problems

(Initiated 9 days ago on 13 October 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 147 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

(Initiated 70 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

(Initiated 66 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 57 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond

(Initiated 45 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Czech_Republic#Moratorium

(Initiated 5 days ago on 17 October 2024) Follow-up to recent closed RM (one of many over the years). Discussion has died down. A close on the moratorium-issue would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Revdel requests (RD1)

FYI, Category:Requested RD1 redactions doesn't seem to be monitored. (One of the two listed has been there for three months.) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two? I only see Origin of the Romanians, but you're right it's been there quite a long time. I cleaned up a dozen or so in the past few weeks, this particular example, if I recall correctly, would require over 1,000 revision redactions, which is quite a pain to do manually. Not having run into such an example, I wouldn't mind advice about the relative practicality vs. importance of this request per Wikipedia:Revdel#Large-scale_use, I'll be happy to break out the time to actually do it if people think it's necessary. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's not necessary. I've no idea how this came to be a request as I dealt with the original (possible) infringement two years ago and I'm not sure how someone would suddenly have come across it earlier this year. Anyway I deliberately didn't revdel then as I commented on on the talk page (now archived here) and I still think it's unnecessary now. There's very little confirmed copying in what was removed (see talk page comments) and most of it was removed pre-emptively. As such there may be good material in those revisions. For the same reason I would say it also doesn't meet the "blatant copyright violation" criteria of RD1 as we have no idea which revisions actually contain copyvios. All in all I think it's best to just leave this be, although it may be worth to add a note to the talk page so future editors are more likely to be aware of the potential problems. Dpmuk (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Decker: At the time of the request there were two. I handled one of them since then. To be compliant with the GDFL and creative commons license, you could perform a selective history deletion, but that would require you to sift through the edits and identify every editor who has made a contribution to the most recent version. (See WP:RUD) Also, I think the caution of large scale use of revdel is directed more towards the second criteria of revision deletion (grossly insulting material) rather than copyright issues. Having run into this issue on Trinity College, Kandy it's actually more efficient to perform the mass revision deletion. Regretfully, each edit has to be selected individually as there isn't an invert selection as there is for restoring deletions. I wouldn't try and do it in one fell swoop by manually adjusting the revision limit in the URL. (i.e. increasing the revision count above 500) You'll run into a 414 error. Mike V • Talk 03:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The precise text of RD1 reads (bold beyond first 3 words not in the original):

Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion.

I would say that, if it went with the copyvio there for that long, it probably can't be RD1-ed. And probably few admins have the patience to actually check this, in order to accept or decline the request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution is just identifying the user who made the contributions. The criteria is stating that RD1 can be used to redact the revision's text, but not to redact the revision's username or IP. Mike V • Talk 19:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a good time for me to apologise for the large number of copyvio-revdel requests I make, and thank those who take the trouble to respond to them so promptly, including specifically Joe Decker and Mike V. It may be that the wording of RD1 should be revised slightly, as I don't see any possibility of conflict between this criterion and our best practice for removal of copyrighted text (as far as I understand it). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies required, first, thank you for all your incredible work dealing with copyvios.

In view of the above, I've gone ahead and performed the RD1 reactions. I thought it would take a while, but I downloaded an extension to save my checkbox-clicking finger. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion from January, WT:Revision deletion#RD1 wording, about a similar objection to the use of RD1 based on its wording. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with a particular {{unblock}} request.

As all the positions taken are either basically neutral or in favor of an unblock, and as the AE portion of the block is expired, I think there is sufficient consensus for an unblock with a reminder to the editor that all previously enacted editing restrictions remain in force. Monty ₈₄₅ 12:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Affected user: TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background: TrevelyanL85A2 was blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise back in September 2012 due to violation of a TBAN/IBAN, both originated from the Race & Intelligence RFAR review. The block was specifically indef + concurrent 1 year AE-block, and in October 2013 TrevelyanL85A2 requested an unblock, which was declined procedurally because he wished to have an ArbCom member review it.

Yesterday, TrevelyanL85A2 has posted another {{unblock}}. I request discussions about this request.

Disclaimer: I know TrevelyanL85A2 in real life because of a mutual friend, and therefore I do not feel I am neutral enough to perform administrative actions regarding this request. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have informed both TrevelyanL85A2 and FPaS of this thread. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment Since you've raised this here, I've declined the unblock request procedurally, figuring that it's best that all discussion take place here. Please don't take my action as an attempt to say that TrevelyanL85A2 shouldn't be unblocked; I have no opinion on the matter. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I'm reading the history correctly, the block is under the perview of enforcing arbitration remedies and therefore should be referred exclusively to BASC for consideration. If BASC agrees to let the community at large decide, that's a new can of worms. I would however prefer to see a demonstration by the blocked user of their positive contributions to other projects. Hasteur (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 1 year AE-block has expired. What remains now is the standard indef-block. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Salvidrim! said is correct. This is why that referring this to Arbitration Amendment would also be of no help either, so this matter belongs on this board. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the original blocking admin: since the block has been in force for a long time, and Trevelyan has made a reasonable-sounding request saying that he intends to abstain from the contentious topic and start working on other areas again, I would see nothing wrong with an unblock. It is my understanding that the underlying topic ban, as originally imposed by Arbcom directly, remains in force, is that correct? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the TBAN/IBAN remains in force, although TrevelyanL85A2 has never tried to appeal it. It would be highly unlikely for him to succeed on appealing the TBAN at this time. I believe the second part of the TBAN (which is effectively an IBAN?) could be challenged and modified, but that is not what we're discussing here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion on the unblock request. I do have a tangentially related abstract question, though, about unblock decision thresholds. For people considering the unblock, I'd be interested to hear their estimates of the likelihood of constructive editing vs. the likelihood of further disruption, proxy editing, and boundary testing if this user is unblocked. Of course, I recognize these are only predictions, but presumably these are the (subconscious) calculations that we make when deciding whether to support or oppose an unblock. For example, is a 10% chance of constructive contribution and an 85% chance of proxying/meatpuppetry/disruption acceptable, for instance? I guess that's where I'd place my bets based on prior behavior in this case, and I'd argue that's not really a favorable ratio, but I'm curious how others perceive the likelihood of unblock outcomes. MastCell ^Talk 00:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, we would have to look at his previous edits. However, the fact that he has only edited twice (both {{unblock}} requests) since he was banned means that we cannot use recent behaviors to assess this situation. Therefore, I'd fall back on WP:AGF - but that's just me. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I' a bit less analytical and go with my 'informed gut feeling'. I generally look at through the guise of AGF. Has the user done something recent which makes me think that they won't be a positive, do they understand the reason they were blocked and how to comply with policies, guidelines, sanctions etc. Have they demonstrated maturity during the unblock process (eg regularly filing unblock requests isn't mature). How long have they been blocked. What have they been doing since they were blocked: stay away from WMF, editing another project, sockpuppetry. Plus a few other things, but those are the big ones. Particularly in a case like this where it's been so long. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my reasoning above I'd be comfortable with an unblock. Though I would also remind TrevelyanL85A2 that they have a short leash and anything which smells like a TBAN vio will very likely be met with an indef block and/or community ban discussion. Also violations of basic policies (probably including edit warring) won't bode well and will very likely see an indef block again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This will probably end up being handled amicably, but some matters need to be decided first. The complex background can possibly be summed up like this: battles raged at R&I topics for years (see WP:ARBR&I); Mathsci ended up being the last person standing, but irritated a lot of people in the process and was subsequently hounded by socks and WO, and was eventually banned after an egregious IBAN violation; a long-term abuser separately hounded Mathsci (and apparently others) on an unrelated matter; the abuser hit upon the tactic of posting "helpful" messages on talk pages of Mathsci's R&I opponents; people edit warred over whether the banned user's posts should be removed. For example, in June 2012 TrevelyanL85A2 restored one such post that I had removed (diff). My request is for any unblock statement to clearly state that TrevelyanL85A2 has an interaction ban with Mathsci, and will not restore comments relating to R&I or Mathsci if an editor in good standing has removed them (TrevelyanL85A2 could always ask an admin for assistance if a problem arose). Re talk page removals: see Arbcom motion and short discussion. If Mathsci ever requests an unblock, a similar arrangement can be made. (Perhaps an IBAN is in place? I forget, and cannot find a log.) Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, there was no specific IBAN - but TrevelyanL85A2's TBAN prohibits him from commenting on R&I editors' conducts anywhere (even if the conduct is not about issues related to R&I). I do not know whether that part of the TBAN was specifically raised because of Mathsci, however. I would support asking ArbCom to amend the TBAN to specifically convert that part into a two-way IBAN between TrevelyanL85A2 and Mathsci (if needed), but that can be done later and is not what we should focus on here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say why not unblock. The nice thing about a wiki is that if you make a mistake you can fix it. We can always block again. I cannot speak to the TBAN/IBANs but I see no reason not to unblock. Chillum 02:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A major aspect of the old R&I disputes was endless wiki-litigation over all and sundry. Appeals, enforcement requests, amendment requests, etc. It was a massive time sink and a pain. Due to that potential for wiki-lawyering it would be helpful if all of Trevelyans current restrictions were spelled out here plus whatever new restrictions they may have put on them as a condion of their unblock (promises being only semi-enforcable) including a restriction of when they can appeal again. Seriously, if you leave it even kind of ambiguous you will regret it. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that prior to any unblock the conditions of editing need to be clarified and reiterated. If someone familiar with the case can find the exact wording of the sanctions and the user agrees to abide by them then I think there is a reasonable consensus to proceed with an unblock.

Repeat of past behavior would most likely lead to an indefinite block only to be undone by further community discussion. Not saying that is a rule, just how it is likely to turn out. Chillum 19:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppetry investigation of Afro-Eurasian

Would it be appropriate to open a long term abuse case regarding the user User:Afro-Eurasian? You should read the sockpuppet investigation regarding this user: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afro-Eurasian. This user has constantly evaded his block and I think a long term abuse case plus a report to his ISP should stop this user. Checkusers have confirmed many sockpuppets. Thanks! :). --電子888^說-TALK 03:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so. LTA reports should be made only if there is useful information that can be summarized, and per WP:DENY LTA pages should be avoided, but are sometimes necessary. Information about socking is on the SPI page and should not be duplicated elsewhere. Unfortunately, it's up to an individual to make a report to an ISP although it should be a WMF function. Johnuniq (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at both the current and history SPIs and didn't see any IPs. So it's only the WMF or checkusers who can file an abuse report. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fake source?

I am fairly certain a source has been faked, and have some circumstantial evidence to that conclusion, but am unsure how to proceed. May I have some guidance about how to proceed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:RSN might handle issues like this. If by "fake source" you mean a source with fake information it is clearly in RSN territory. If you suspect that someone has referenced a source that doesn't exist I'm not entirely sure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inventing or misrepresenting a source, if that's what "faked" means, is a user conduct issue, which is not the purview of WP:RSN. If you want proof that the source has been faked, you'd need to specify it, as you may be able to get confirmation via a relevant wikiproject. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second situation, Paul. Without outting a user, I suspect they might have fabricated a source in order to overcome a hurdle in a content dispute. I am unsure how to proceed, as noting that info here would reveal details of the user. What if I am wrong? I want to tread very carefully here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is too hard for anyone except the originator to check the source then it probably runs foul of WP:V, in which case WP:NORN is the place. You can also write to an uninvolved administrator by email (not me, please, getting ready for travel) to discuss the specific details and decide on the best course of action including what can be exposed publicly. Zero^talk 00:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll find out who's available. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sebastian, I'm not sure if I'll be able to help but I'll certainly give it a shot if you would like. NW (Talk) 12:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2014): Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 27 August 2014.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Worm^TT(talk) 08:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jaša Tomić (Sečanj)

Resolved

There's a SNAFU concerning Talk:Jaša Tomić, Sečanj (or Talk:Jaša Tomić (Sečanj)), which was speedied per db-move following consensus on the talk page by Bearian, and was followed by an incomplete move. To cut the long story short, some of these two pages carries history that should be restored to Talk:Jaša Tomić (Sečanj), with the article. Since Bearian is currently offline, I'd ask a kind administrator to sort it out. Thanks. No such user (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted out by Fut.Perf, thanks. No such user (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

The kudzu-like tangle of requests on RFPP has returned, we're upto 35 pending requests and though a lot are stale can someone care to take a weedwhacker to some of these? tutterMouse (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are external links allowed in Userpage

see diff [1] and [2] and [3], some links removed twice--Musamies (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with why haven't you tried discussing your concerns with Smile Lee or even notify them of your post here? Next what are your concerns with the links? They aren't overly promotional, they are buried in with information about the editor. GB fan 12:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I'd say no, per WP:NOT#Promotion and ask the user to remove it. Kosh Vorlon 15:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)_{Smile Lee's been notified now. Kosh Vorlon} 16:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't find these overly promotional and don't think they run afoul of WP:UP#PROMO. Nothing to fret over. –xeno^talk 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who originally removed these links (and more) from this user page, I agree that they are inappropriate. These links should be viewed in light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming (2nd nomination), a promotional article written by this user about the very company he is now providing links to from his user page. Sorry, wikipedia is not there to promote your company, and your user page is not a fallback if your article gets deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general external links are fine on userpages. We want to worry about promotion or "using wikipedia as a webhost", but to be perfectly honest the latter concern is totally mooted by the web changing around wikipedia since NOT was first written. In 2002, someone might create a userpage as a "home page" of sorts because the alternative was to invest time and expertise (and money) in building an actual web site. Now I can make something nicer looking that a user page in a dozen places around the web (and at a nominal cost).

We also focus way, way too much on policing userspace when in reality it doesn't matter. Smile Lee's user page has been viewed a whopping 370 times in the past 90 days, most of that I'd wager from editors involved in their recent dispute. At a first approximation, nobody on earth has read their user page, so our zealousness in enforcing policies and guidelines WRT that page should reflect this. I don't think we internalize this enough. User pages don't impact anyone except the editor who writes them and anyone who cares to read them (which you never have to do, in any case). There's almost no upside to enforcing these rules except where the page is obviously being used mostly for promotion or is a fake article. Otherwise what's the benefit to the project? We get to feel good that we've told someone "Sorry, wikipedia is not there to promote your company, and your user page is not a fallback if your article gets deleted"? Protonk (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking to notify me about this User:GB fan and User:KoshVorlon. The links were removed by User:RoySmith, on 28 July 2014, which I honestly didn't even notice until 1 August 2014. The links aren't being used as overly-promotional; it's just saying who I am, what I've done, and where to find my blog on the internet. Originally the names of my comics, novels, and other junk, were linked to; which to be honest I hadn't even noticed were so obnoxious. I have instead opted for the titles, for people to search for themselves; I agree that the links were initially obnoxious, I honestly just wish that I had just been notified. I don't bite. If I wanted to promote myself; I'd link to my Twitter, about.me page, Country Music Television page, IMDB, or something like that. If they are still annoying I could turn the Tumblr link into a userbox, but I honestly don't see the point. I would also like to say, I didn't create the Heaven Sent Gaming article, been on here for a pretty long time, and I have no interest in creating an article about me, Isabel, my cat, Heaven Sent Gaming, my Grand Am, or my baby blanket. I will remove the links if they are found to be promotional, but I've seen user-pages with entire bibliographies, that I've found useful when looking up an editor; again these links only serve to tell people who I am, and what I'm doing. And, to User:RoySmith, those links were initially added back in January 2012 they are completely unrelated to the deleted article. Smile Lee (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the more standard user infobox. Smile Lee (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about user that refuses to use the talk page

This is not an incident notice, more of a general question with a novel situation. While I tried to communicate with Medgirl131, I found that apparently she does not want to talk in public, claiming reasons of privacy. Now, that's all fine, anyone has their preferences/quirks... except that, on WP, I find worrying to have a user with whom we cannot communicate in public. I would expect, for reasons of transparency of the process, that any conversation about WP editing should take place in public WP pages as much as possible. Of course it is impossible to enforce public communication -if editors want to email, they can of course- but to actively refuse communication on a talk page is unsettling to me. Is this behaviour allowed/encouraged? What should be done? --cyclopia ^speak! 15:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not encouraged; I left them a note [4]. –xeno^talk 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't think that email-only communication means disclosing editors' email addresses - that is another excellent point.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Unfortunately, it seems they Don't care. In this instance, my suggestion if you don't want to email would be to simply leave whatever collaborative note you feel is necessary and hope they govern themselves accordingly. –xeno^talk 15:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If she makes beneficial edits and uses edit summaries (something that may be an issue) and doesn't otherwise make any trouble, it's not worth making a fuss over. If she gets into a conflict of some sort, then she can't demand that other editors only communicate with her by email; her two options in such a case would be to communicate with other editors by accepted channels (talk/WP:-space pages) or to back off immediately. Again, that's her problem. In the meantime, there's no particular reason to poke the bear.

I will note that privacy concerns cut both ways. Using Wikipedia's "Email this user" tool reveals your email address to the mail recipient. Email addresses and headers can often contain information with significant privacy implications; this is something that anyone using email should be aware of. Medgirl131 should not be surprised if other editors decline to email her. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her edits look okay to me, but she definitely does not use edit summaries. That's how I noticed her -I've seen some sourced info removed without explanation on an article I follow; I reverted, then I looked at contribs, and understood that she was removing redundancy since the information had now a full article by itself. So I wanted to nudge her about using edit summaries, and then I found the notice when trying to edit her talk page.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I further note that Cyclopia's latest edit to Medgirl131's talk page – trying to force her to keep a message on her talk page (despite saying that she "can blank as much as she likes") and insisting that she must post on talk pages – is heading towards harrassment. Cyclopia, it now looks like you're just trying to pick a fight with an editor who hasn't seemed to have caused any concrete harm. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to pick any fight, nor I was trying to force anything or even harass anyone. Just reverting a blanking on a talk page is hardly harassment. But I disagree that this doesn't cause any concrete harm. Actively refusing collaboration poisons the environment, makes everything harder, and if you add that she almost uses an edit summary, you get a recipe for trouble. I have no problem leaving her alone so far, but when some communication will be needed I guess this will need to be solved quickly.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's not "actively refusing collaboration". She is restricting the way in which she chooses to communicate with others. There is a difference there, and it's extremely unhelpful that you're taking a quirk (see Tarc's comment below) and using it as an excuse for demonization and hostility. This is someone who is obviously uncomfortable with communicating in a public space, and you're making repeated attempts to force her to do so.

You've been around long enough to know that users are entirely within their rights to WP:BLANK their own talk pages (certain very narrow exceptions – none of which apply here – notwithstanding) and that blanking a comment counts, as far as the community is concerned, as an indication that it has been read. (And, for that matter, she has indicated explicitly that she has read and understood the comments on her talk page: [5].) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly aware of WP:BLANK, and I wouldn't have any problem with regularly blanking pages after a discussion has been done. But she simply refuses to talk. She will simply not answer to any communication on the talk page. One thing is blanking talk pages, another is refusing public communication tout court.

There is no practical difference between "refusing communication" and "restricting the way in which she chooses to communicate", in this case. Excluding public communication on talk page flies in the face of transparency and the openness of WP process, hampers communication between multiple users, makes it impossible to evaluate user behaviour, etc. WP is based on the fact that it is a public collaboration environment. I have no problem with people having different preferences, but such preferences are incompatible with working on WP long term.

Also, I find it ironic that you accuse me of "demonization and hostility" -while I haven't demonized or otherwise behaved in a hostile fashion to anyone, it is hostile to accuse me of such behaviour. I see also no "repeated" attempts to force anyone to do anything -I reverted a blanking once, adding a comment while keeping the previous for context, and didn't touch her page again. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is intriguing; I have an acquaintance who also does not wish to write anything in public spaces, as they fear their particular text patterns and phraseology can be scraped and analyzed, thus busting any sort of anonymity. So, unless a specific problem comes up...revert wars, ideological pushing, etc...I'd say just let this person putter on. Looks like they mostly do wiki-gnomish like maintenance/technical edits. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with Cyclopia, one can certainly "not care". If they're disrupting articles or doing things which require discussion but refusing to participate, that's on them. If instead they're editing articles and not mucking things up (as they appear to be), what are we really supposed to do? Threaten to block them for being insufficiently chatty? That sounds glib (and it is) but what's the remedy here? Let's not elevate talk page discussion above its station. WP is a collaborative project but a huge majority of the work doesn't require collaboration. And it certainly doesn't require us to impose the collaborative spirit on someone who seems to be minding their own business improving articles on subjects which interest them. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for what it's worth, the user in question seems savvy on biomedical topics and is making constructive contributions generally. he/she doesn't use edit notes much which I have asked her/him to do.... and i have advised them (enough with "him/her") that if they make an edit that is reverted, they should let the reversion lie rather than edit war, since they are not willing to follow WP:BRD. if it comes to edit warring, they should be blocked like anybody if they violate WP:3RR. communication quirks seem completely OK to me but edit warring is out of line, regardless of the motivation. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Drollinger

I have set out an explanation[6] at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ralph_Drollinger, but have not dealt with a situation quite like this before, so I would welcome a review of whether my actions are appropriate, or whether anything else should be done.

I have no interest in the topic, and am only concerned to end the edit war and uphold WP:BLP. Please feel free to revert any of my actions or add to them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable - I'd then (1) conduct an RfC and invite comment on how much weight to give to the issue - a bit like what was done at Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#RfC:Right_then.2C_how_many_paragraphs_should_the_Climate_change_section_have.3F and after this, leave semiprotected indefinitely, as all edits should be accountable and attributable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cas Liber. An RFC sounds like a good idea, but I will leave it to anyone else to set up an RFC if they see fit.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...I am totally unfamiliar with the subject. I will take a look and try to frame something on the talk page. I just think we need to obtain and then set the local consensus, so that anyone watching the article in future can refer to it to help adjudicate future disputes...which seem likely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right - have added RfC but we need to publicise it broadly. Right now it is the middle of Saturday here and I have a number of chores to run and do. Anyone is welcome to circulate else I will do in several hours. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to Template:Coiq

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Coiq#Parameter to suppress first line?. Thanks. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 == Need help with a particular {{tl|unblock}} request. ==
+{{archive top|As all the positions taken are either basically neutral or in favor of an unblock, and as the AE portion of the block is expired, I think there is sufficient consensus for an unblock with a reminder to the editor that all previously enacted editing restrictions remain in force. [[User:Monty845|<font color="Green">Monty</font>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub><font color="#A3BFBF">845</font></sub></small>]] 12:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)}}
 Affected user: {{userlinks|TrevelyanL85A2}}
@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 Repeat of past behavior would most likely lead to an indefinite block only to be undone by further community discussion. Not saying that is a rule, just how it is likely to turn out. [[User talk:Chillum|<b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:DarkRed">Chillum</b>]] 19:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
+{{archive bottom}}
 == Sockpuppetry investigation of Afro-Eurasian ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards