Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 40 | 9 | 49 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 52 | 31 | 83 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
- 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 8 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 122 sockpuppet investigations
- 8 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 5 Fully protected edit requests
- 2 Candidates for history merging
- 6 requests for RD1 redaction
- 110 elapsed requested moves
- 4 Pages at move review
- 34 requested closures
- 118 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 16 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appealing Topic Ban on Sports Articles
Revisiting a long term case that was related to my disruptive editing on NHL Players Statistics back in the 2018-19 season since I like to have my topic ban appealed because I understand that when it was first issued, it was to educate me in what reliable source means when I update NHL Teams and why other editors want the correct procedure. When I first started to update statistics within NHL Team articles, I assumed the information I get comes from the recap games they played.
| Courtesy collapse. ——SN54129 18:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was their any other way around the topic ban? Answer: Their was no other way. The topic ban was the only way for me to realize what reliable source means even though I was interested in other areas besides sports prior before the topic ban. You say hockey is the only thing I contribute. I asked the same question what my most interest was. NHL Hockey was indeed the most topic I contribute. The other areas you asked what I made positive contributions outside of hockey articles were transportation, 9/11, Nazi Germany but you would have to see me from the IP address I was in before I had an account. Also keep in mind that the information recognize where it got to from the start had to come from my edits from when I first started editing hockey articles back in June 2015. It will not work when I look back from where I first edit back in April 2018 since I was already contributing Wikipedia on June 2015. Even though the recap game stats are just as reliable as the official team stat website. I should know that I still should check the official team stat source to make sure my information is correct based on Goaltenders GAA Average, some examples of my corrections to stats based from official team stats and recap game sources are listed below: (Correcting Steve Mason’s stats) Note that these corrections had to come for specific reasons: 1. This had to come with a lot of experience of editing hockey stats in previous years 2. The sources from the game statistics and previous edits on achieved areas were the reason to why I was able to correct a few areas of incorrect stats 3. The corrections I made during the 2018-19 season did not just happen even when I use the sources from the game stats and previous edits on Wikipedia that were reliable. If I continued to use those sources, I had to make sure I added in the accurate information by not rushing. This relates to my experience. 4. This comes on other editor’s part of editing since I notice some of my information I added was incorrect prior before, I somehow manage to catch some of my mistakes since I was told to use the official nhl stat source which I eventually did so in some cases. But for at least one correction I made, it had to take at least 4 websites to correct Oliver Klington’s Plus Minus rating including previous edits by me and Yowashi, recap game stats, and the official team stats page since I was using game statistics and previous stats on Wikipedia as my primary source of editing in the first place, otherwise, it would have been incorrect later on since the official team stat source was not updated at the time and I used the recap game statistics as my primary source.
Some edits that I will provide that I could have been told back in April 2017 (I was never aware that the statistics scale should be arranged from most points to least) Compared to the NHL 2018-19 season. Here are some examples where I used the official team stat source to get information that is from these edits (Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source) (Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source) Note that the official team stats source does not provide the full list since some players get traded unless I go to NHL.com source to see the full list. In previous years since the 2016-17 NHL season when I had been updating the stats, I did not know I should obtain the NHL.com source since it was the most reliable until 2018-19 NHL season. Anywhere else that said I did not know about the most NHL reliable source till the 2018-19 NHL season?] Here are other examples of when I should use the NHL.com website to check that the information I added from the game only stats from recap games is corrected to what is reported on NHL.com. It is best to wait for at least a day after the game concludes because some of the information get revaluate overnight. That site that I was told of is actually way more accurate than it is on game only stats recap (Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 playoffs) (Edmonton Oilers December 23, 2018) (Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 playoffs stats) (Montreal Canadiens December 26, 2018) (Toronto Maple Leafs December 26, 2018) (Oilers Goaltender stats January 9, 2019) When I update NHL Statistics Teams. The sources I use to update teams for every game are listed below Recap Games that I can add from the game on to the statistics on Wikipedia. Adding in the information from game stats recap means it must be added carefully. It also contains the boxscore in who had the total number of goals and assists if I checked it. It is still recommended to use the official team stat source to make sure the information I added in is correct according to the NHL Team official stats. This source I used was what I thought was reliable since when I obtain this literally since the 2016-17 season. When I update for every game, I use the recent game the team has played recent to add on the previous stats on Wikipedia. Previous differences in edits on Wikipedia. This is useful to make sure that the information I get from the game recap statistics and official team stat source are accurate. I since had this during the 2018-19 season. NHL official team stat source for information that I can check to make sure I information is matched to the official source when I was first told of it. This can be useful to check my information to make sure my information does not have any mistakes combined together with the game statistics recap.
(March 7, 2019 Mike Smith’s saves total should have been 920 since he had 26 saves.) For Ottawa Senators update stats are the examples where I discovered some of the information from NHL.com (I at first thought I obtain these numbers literally since I thought that the last time someone else updated the stats were correct so I add in the numbers from the game they were playing but I realize some of the information from NHL.com get revaluate) At first, I thought updating NHL player statistics in articles were allowed every game as soon as a game concludes by adding in the information from the recap game they played on to the current stats although it is still recommended through the following recommendations I had been told of Updating the stats from recap games must mean I have to add in them in a orderly way meaning I must added the stats from their going from the top row of the list to the bottom (left to right when adding the numbers) I would need to use previous stats on Wikipedia to make sure the stats are correct Sometimes, I may miss some information from their which I should have added it in, so its recommended that I should still use the NHL.com team stats that has the full accurate information. If I use the NHL.com team stats, its recommended to wait at least a day after the game is finalized because some of the information tends to get revaluate overnight. When the ANI Discussion started back in February 22, 2019, noting that when I first started the ANI Discussion, I did not started because I just did that. I did it because editors disagreed on my editing on NHL Hockey articles and that I was noticing what was going to happen when they were going to report me. When the ANI Discussion started back in February 22, 2019, noting that when I first started the ANI Discussion, I did not started because I just did that. I did it because editors disagreed on my editing on NHL Hockey articles and that I was noticing what was going to happen when they were going to report me. You also asked why I was not able to discuss probably about the issue on nhl players stats on the ANI discussion a year ago? Its because I had been assuming for a long time that the stats I updated when I really started doing this since the 2016-17 NHL season was verdiable even when I corrected some of my own mistakes, I would have thought already the information was not original research. I also learned that to avoid making more inaccurate information, I should be getting the official team stat source to make sure the information is accurate. If this ban is lifted, should I still discuss the issue of what sources should be used for the purpose to update NHL Hockey Team stats at Wiki Ice Hockey Project? NicholasHui (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC) |
- All things being equal, NicholasHui, in the world of Tban appeals—or any other—brevity is your friend :) ——SN54129 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- No one is going to read all of this (which you just deleted in a subsequent edit). Consider shortening your appeal to a more concise summary. See WP:NICETRY.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please simplify to 1) what you did wrong before and 2) what you will do to correct it. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on redaction @NicholasHui: You really should have followed WP:REDACT on your deletion, or just started a new request, since now it makes everyone's response look out of context.—Bagumba (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
1. What I did wrong before was I thought I add in the information properly but editors disagree because they believe I was adding it in my own knowledge
2. What I will do to correct it is to use most reliable source whenever I update NHL Hockey player stats articles or other articles in different topics NicholasHui (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Here are some examples that I will show you that I did before
(Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)
(Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)
These sources I used didn't provide me a full list of stats on nhl teams because they trade away their players. In previous years when I updated the stats since the 2016-17 NHL season, I thought updating the stats was only adding all the stats from recap only games stats from each game the team played without knowing I could have just simply refer it to NHL.com stats NicholasHui (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Maple Leafs game 2 2018 playoffs stats For this edit here, some of my information did not matched to the official source because I thought that is the way NHL updates its stats.
for the Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 regular season stats here, the information I put in was not all correct because at the time, I disregarded reliable sources, its later fixed by another editor here. NicholasHui (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC) (Keep in mind that even without an account I used, it still counts as my editing regardless whether I edited while logged out.)
- Comment I was notified of this discussion by NicholasHui on my userpage, who I think took an overly broad view of the notification requirement. I was part of the discussions that implemented the TBan. For y'alls convenience: here is The ANI that ended in a TBan, whose wording included
Lifting of the topic ban will be contingent on NicholasHui's edits and behavior showing that they fully understand WP:V and WP:OR.
The TBan was an alternative to an indeff at the time, and seen as a last chance. I currently have no opinion on lifting the topic ban. I do have some questions however about NicholasHui's logged out editing. Nicholas, have you made any logged out edits in the last year? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you saying I made edits while logged out last year? I used edit while logging out when making edits to my archieve page on my Userpage most recent. Another thing interesting was that I had the same habits before back a long time ago before I even used this account when I was editing NHL 2018 playoffs while under the IP address 24.84.228.210 by editing the NHL stats by not most points to least and using only recap game stats. You think its odd that 24.84.228.210 is inactive when I started using an account to continue edit player stats on NHL Canadian teams that time but it clearly had been me editing NHL 2018 playoffs stats before. When I got topic banned from editing Hockey Articles, their was no point for me editing under IP accounts to edit NHL Hockey stats that I was banned from unless you think their was something different about my edit logout habbit NicholasHui (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- According to those 2 IP accounts, you were commenting on the very topic you were barred from. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have zero interest in being involved with the final decision on NicholasHui's topic ban. To comment on NicholasHui's usage of IP accounts, I have noticed multiple Vancouver based IP's interact with my account over the last several months that I could tell that they were used by him. Yowashi (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Well I was too obsessed in looking at your contributions. My apologies. Its just that my mind has been too fixated with your editing. Should have known better next time. (Noting that I previously was not in a habit like this before although I was around on NHL Hockey articles since June 2015, I only started to become fixated with certain contributions since 2019 because over time, I would have been more interested to know how users communicate on my talkpage.) NicholasHui (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Any other comments to say about my appeal? NicholasHui (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I would have to say, with your behavior here alone, I have no confidence whatsoever that you would not return to your old ways. You seem to just make a mess of things that others have to clean up. Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to make a mess of things that others had to clean up. Its just that when I updated NHL player stats, I did not realized that using recap game only stats was not the most reliable source. NicholasHui (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@NicholasHui: I would suggest that you withdraw this nomination and perhaps try again after some time when 1) you can succinctly explain what you did wrong before and why the community should no longer be concerned 2) have stopped editing while logged out, which only raises more questions (right or wrong). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: 1) Why the community should no longer be concerned about my topic ban on Sports stats articles is because I finally understood that I should have established consensus at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey because editors could not agree with the content on player stats. Prior before the dispute when I wondered was I doing the stats hockey update properly? I expect myself to figure out whether or not I done it properly. Even though I realized my own mistake once I was notified by the editors who watched me do it. I corrected. Unfortunately, they disagreed still.
2) I have been editing while logged out with stuff with my userpage archive. The problem is that my mind in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions. I just couldn't help it.
3) I will agree that even though my appeal is accepted, I will try to follow the community's advise that I should try to establish consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey.
4) I am here to make productive contributions understanding that I should cite the sources especially if I add in a lot of details of events or other topics in articles and I will try to stay calm if others disagree with what I edit. Does that sound fair? NicholasHui (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@GoodDay: It was because for one good reason was that I was editing my User archive page. NicholasHui (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Why would you need to edit your own archive page, logged out? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
To save some flooded information on my user account contributions. Also, you know hockey is really not my only thing I edit on, take a look on my user page of why I have those IP accounts listed on my userpage NicholasHui (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- NOTICE. The editor in question has breached his topic ban and made an edit at 2016–17 Winnipeg Jets season. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I just was a bit too impatient. My mind gave off. NicholasHui (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Reluctantly oppose lifting or easing of topic ban. NicholasHui is well-intentioned but unfortunately, in their eagerness and impatience to edit NHL related articles, they cannot abide with the accepted consensus, editing-conditions and collaborative norms. In the most recent instance this is demonstrated by their editing while logged out because "in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions", and violating the very topic-ban they are appealing while the appeal is being discussed because they got "a bit too impatient." Given the recent and past behavior, which has led to protracted discussions (see this and this in addition to their talkpage) and greatly taxed the time and good-faith of other editors active in the area, I cannot see the lifting of the topic-ban to be in interest of the project.
- PS: I have been previously involved with the user as an admin in issuing a block and executing the (community-imposed) topic ban; see the linked discussions for details. Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Another thing I should note is some asked before why I have all the IP accounts on my user page? The answer is that I cared what my own editing history was. I could tell it was me that edit those articles before. (Am I wrong?) NicholasHui (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting topic ban: Violating the topic ban while logged out and then violating the topic ban recently while the appeal is being discussed demonstrate a failure to abide by community consensus. — MarkH21talk 04:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @MarkH21: I understand its failure to abide by consensus because I have gone through previous mistakes many times through (understanding past mistakes) since June 2015 when I started to edit Wikipedia on NHL Hockey assuming that this one was simple but it was not. NicholasHui (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Wish this request would get more attention. It's not doing NicholasHui any good, being kept in suspense. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Failed login attempts
I'm getting notifications about repeated attempts to log into my account from a new device over the past couple of hours. I'm confident my password is strong but it's probably worth being on the lookout for any accounts going rogue if whomever is behind this finds a way in. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Chris: I'll keep an eye on your contributions, but if you somehow get locked out, I'm emailing you my mobile number in case you don't already have it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I was mainly meaning to keep an eye out for any other accounts in case it's not just me that they're trying. The Jytdog arb case is the only vaguely controversial thing I think I've been involved with of late, so if it is targetted it's most likely related to that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Seeing the same thing, also (peripherally) involved with that case. Qwirkle (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, I'm also seeing the same thing (6 failed attempts, according to the notice) and am also involved with that case. I'd appreciate it if my account could also be kept on watch for strange behaviour. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- This kind of thing happens every now and then. There's not really any way to tell if you're being targeted specifically or if it's random. As usual, the advice for anyone who doesn't want their account compromised is to to use a strong password that you don't use anywhere else, and for admins to consider enabling two-factor authentication. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's certainly good advice to use a strong password that you don't use anywhere else, but I'd never advise anyone to use the 2FA currently in use on Wikipedia. Considering that "Some 314 mobile phones are stolen on London's streets every day, according to the Metropolitan Police", the sheer hassle of recovering your Wikipedia account following the loss an authenticator must outweigh the extra effort required to have a really strong password. As mine is presently over 30 characters in length, it would take rather longer than the heat death of the universe to crack it by brute force using current technology. Of course that's just my opinion on 2FA. YMMV. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- I know at least one person who was an active admin until he lost his phone and decided he couldn't be bothered to go through the hoops needed to recover his account, so I wonder if our 2FA-required policy is truly a net positive; how many other admins suddenly went inactive because they lost their authenticator and didn't want to go to the trouble of recovering the account? rdfox 76 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Don't understand why people don't back up their 2FA stuff. Even with stuff like Humble Bundle, Ubisoft etc I'd never consider not backuping up 2FA stuff no matter if it's easier to recover. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- 2FA is one of those areas where Wikipedia just feels really behind the curve compared to the rest of the tech world (captchas being another). Every other tech website implemented 2FA years ago for all users, whereas here it seems to exist only in beta form and only for a small subset of users. Sdkb (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne:
"Don't understand why people don't back up their 2FA stuff"
– possibly because that means you have to secure the backup at least as strongly as its contents. Otherwise anybody who can hack the backup can "recover" your 2FA information in the same way you can. Turtles all the way down. --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Don't understand why people don't back up their 2FA stuff. Even with stuff like Humble Bundle, Ubisoft etc I'd never consider not backuping up 2FA stuff no matter if it's easier to recover. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- I know at least one person who was an active admin until he lost his phone and decided he couldn't be bothered to go through the hoops needed to recover his account, so I wonder if our 2FA-required policy is truly a net positive; how many other admins suddenly went inactive because they lost their authenticator and didn't want to go to the trouble of recovering the account? rdfox 76 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's certainly good advice to use a strong password that you don't use anywhere else, but I'd never advise anyone to use the 2FA currently in use on Wikipedia. Considering that "Some 314 mobile phones are stolen on London's streets every day, according to the Metropolitan Police", the sheer hassle of recovering your Wikipedia account following the loss an authenticator must outweigh the extra effort required to have a really strong password. As mine is presently over 30 characters in length, it would take rather longer than the heat death of the universe to crack it by brute force using current technology. Of course that's just my opinion on 2FA. YMMV. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I was mainly meaning to keep an eye out for any other accounts in case it's not just me that they're trying. The Jytdog arb case is the only vaguely controversial thing I think I've been involved with of late, so if it is targetted it's most likely related to that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- I believe this merits more complete investigation, given that the three editors reporting issues here have been in varying degrees involved in the Jytdog ArbCom case. I'd suggest outreach to determine if others in the case are experiencing similar failed login attempts, as a start. Jusdafax (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- In the past there have been massive attacks by automated systems attempting to log in to hundreds (thousands?) of accounts. Speculation was that someone had one of the large password dumps from hacked websites, and was trying those passwords against accounts here. All I can find at the moment is from May 2018. I thought there was a very large attack last year. The bottom line is that log in attempts can be ignored provided you are not using a password that has been been used at any other website (because those websites get hacked and the passwords leaked). See WP:SECURITY. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I have also participated in the Jytdog workshop and I've got 4 emails about repeated login attempts. The last notification had 12 failed attempts so there might be a brute-force attack.--Pudeo (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've just had a notification about 15 failed attempts. They only seem to be occurring in the evening and early morning UTC. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've also been involved in the case, and have been getting 50+ failed login attempts each day in recent days. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 21:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Same here. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I (and others) got them during the Kudpung arbcase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_SandyGeorgia SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I've been getting the same thing. Hundreds of failed attempts each day. I can venture a guess as to who it is, based on previous M.O., but I'm not interested in giving the guy his jollies by mentioning him. ♟♙ (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Although of course it's theoretically possible that specific editors are being targetted, it's far more likely that crackers are simply working their way through the entire list of Wikipedia user names. isaacl (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- ...and yet so far, all, or all but one, do seem to be describing connected behavior. That’s a rather large trout in the milkcan. Qwirkle (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve had the same thing happen to me (3 in two days, starting yesterday) and that was when I weighted in on the workshop components (and was attacked for one of my comments over on the talkpage). So add me to the metoo list for these. And I’m a very small fish in this pond, compared to Voceditenore, Coretheapple, Thryduulf... Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I experienced several attempts during Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung but, after changing my password to something more complicated, none in the Jytdog one. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC).
- I had more of them this morning. Incels gonna incel, I guess. ♟♙ (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Non-admin here: I'm pretty active and report a lot of linkspammers and other COI profiteers (i.e. focused activity on getting numbskulls blocked). And I've never had this happen. But I've never contributed anything to any discussion of an Arb. Com. proceeding. In the event I ever feel an Arb. Com. thing mandates that I prairie-dog myself in this regard, I'll keep a record. Wishing all of you non-infectious fortitude from my universe... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Voluntary IBAN: Elizium23 / Contaldo80
- Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
For too long, I have been fighting over Catholic topics with this editor, Contaldo80. I have been rude and I have edit-warred and I have failed to assume good faith. I go to confession to a priest and tell him how angry Wikipedia makes me, because of Contaldo80. It's not his fault. I have a tendency to be a hothead and this relationship brings out the worst in my personality. I want out. I volunteer for an interaction ban on any articles edited by Contaldo80. It will last 6 months with an option of renewal before the expiration date. Contaldo does not need to volunteer for a 2-way IBAN, that is totally optional and not something I am requesting here. I am requesting that I be held to my word by sanctions if I violate the boundaries. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I won't be offering myself for a voluntary ban. Having not edited wikipedia for a while (because of a number of unpleasant interactions with other editors) I was taken aback by your quite confrontational approach on Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church. I think your suggestion that you step back from editing is a prudent one as you've made a very personal attack on me above - about going to confession and complaining to your priest specifically about me. I'll leave to administrators to make a judgement as to whether this falls into personal harassment and should therefore result in a formal block or censure. It's disturbing to say the least.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oh please. I was complaining to a priest in Confession (which is about the penitent's sins and not others) about how angry I became on Wikipedia, not about anything you did. Not a personal attack. The reverse. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- I find it weird and unsettling that you have gone to a priest to tell him how angry I specifically make you feel because of my editing. I really don't think this is acceptable. I actually feel harassed. I'd like an administrator to exercise judgement as to whether this is acceptable behaviour? Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oh please. I was complaining to a priest in Confession (which is about the penitent's sins and not others) about how angry I became on Wikipedia, not about anything you did. Not a personal attack. The reverse. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) And as someone who watched your recent inappropriate actions against Elizium at Talk:Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church#Today's_edits_reverted, I think it weird and inappropriate that you are calling for this. You should own up to the problems of your own behavior, not act like you're violated by someone having a reaction to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nat - you evidently have a problem with me. I've been respectful and polite but honestly I think you're starting to get a bit carried away. Following me to this discussion to chip in your two cents is probably over-reach for a non-administrator. Can I respectfully ask you to please back-off. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- So you come to my Talk page as part of your campaign against Elizium and specifically tell me to come see this thread, but then want to squelch me from responding? No. No, you have not been "respectful and polite", you've been attacking Elizium over their taking care of your bad edits while you've been going around boasting about how great you've been in this matter. Your complaining about me having "followed" you to a thread you told me to come see is another example of you inventing a way for you to be a victim rather than taking responsibilities for your own actions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nat - you evidently have a problem with me. I've been respectful and polite but honestly I think you're starting to get a bit carried away. Following me to this discussion to chip in your two cents is probably over-reach for a non-administrator. Can I respectfully ask you to please back-off. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) And as someone who watched your recent inappropriate actions against Elizium at Talk:Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church#Today's_edits_reverted, I think it weird and inappropriate that you are calling for this. You should own up to the problems of your own behavior, not act like you're violated by someone having a reaction to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- I drew attention to his comments so that you would see that he had become personally abusive and your interventions were not helping to calm that (nor are they still). Discussing me before a priest (a third party) because of my edits is a violation of my personal privacy. I still think this frankly a disgraceful thing to say - and a way to intimidate me.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussing me before a priest (a third party) because of my edits is a violation of my personal privacy.
No, it is absolutely not, and that's an absurd claim. Grandpallama (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support One-way Iban as requested. (Non-administrator comment) --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 05:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Any such one-way IBAN would be a travesty of justice. At Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church it is Contaldo80 who has been inserting names in contravention of WP:BLP and making personal attacks, and Elizium23 who has been removing the names, in accordance with that policy, and not making personal attacks. Such behaviour has continued above in this very thread. If any sanctions are taken they should be against Contaldo80, not Elizium23. Much as we might admire Elizium23's "turn the other cheek" attitude that shouldn't get in the way of our seeing who is in the wrong here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Can you please cite the personal attach I make. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Naming a specific person as gay in a Wikipedia article is a tricky issue, especially if we don't already have an article on that person which specifiies their sexual orientation. WP:ETHNICRACECAT says "a person may also not be described or categorized as LGBTQ on the basis of allegations or rumours that have not been confirmed by the subject's own self-identification." In my opinion, this complaint against User:Contaldo80 might be closed if they will agree not to add any more names of individuals to Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church without getting a talk page consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have made no complaint at all against Contaldo80. If there are complaints against him, they belong to other editors and not me. This thread was opened as a request for administrators to enforce a one-way IBAN against me. That is my only purpose of opening this thread. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but to be clear I wasn't the one that added names in the first place. I just restored the initial edit until Elizium clarified why he had cited WP:BLP. It wasn't clear to anyone (except himself) as to where BLP had been violated. If I want to I can just restore the names in the article and attach a source to a mainstream media showing that these priests have publicly come out as gay - this would not violate WP:BLP. The reason why I eventually supported the removal of the text was because a closer look at the article showed that it could not be established that the priests cited came out as gay because of a statement made by Pope Francis. That was the problem. This doesn't resolve the issue, however, that another editor has admitted that they personally discuss me edits with a priest and the feelings of rage this creates in him. This is intimidating me and I don't think this is acceptable. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- "It wasn't clear to anyone (except himself) as to where BLP had been violated." That's false. You were the only one who claimed it was unclear, and frankly, with the length of experience you have on this site, it's hard to believe that you didn't understand why the unsourced claim that certain priests had announced themselves to be gay would be a BLP problem. But even if we accept that you're that ignorant of BLP, why, if there was even a question in your mind that there might be a BLP problem, you would re-add the material? When you're wasting people's time with such actions, it should not come as a surprise to you that they have an emotional reaction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I am fed up with edit-warring against consensus in Eastern European articles
I was reverting disruptive editing for about ten years. I was by far the most active and often the only admin willing to look at topics related to Russian-Ukrainian, Russian-Belarusian, Tatar, Estonian etc issues. Sorry I can not do it anymore. It is too much for me. Formally, I was broken by this series of edits. The consensus to use Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) has been well established, but these driveby editors just do not care. They come, change the spelling, and disappear. This is not just about Belarusian spelling, it is about pretty much every Russian, Ukrainian, or Belarusian topic where any issues can appear - and they always appear (Kiev/Kyiv being the most notorious example, where for the first time in my life I encountered an admin who refused to accept a RfC outcome). Some of these users stay a bit longer to accuse me in being a Russian government propagandist, a Ukrainian government propagandist, a Russian hater, a Ukrainian hater, a jerk, an asshole, a retard, a moron and so on. This happens on a daily basis. I reverted this particular edit, but I am sure by the end of the day I will be reverted back, with the user claiming that the marginal publication in English he found beats the general consensus on Romanization. I managed to get a couple of these guys to the Arbitration enforcement and get them topic-banned. Each time I had to spend half a day of my life to find the diffs. I can not do it for every disruptive editor with more than 20 edits, otherwise I will only be doing this. More often, they appear out of nowhere and turn out to be socks, after I have wasted enormous amount of time thinking they are new editors. I blocked hundreds of them, one (a pro-Rissian one, for the record) still continues to harass me using IPs. I do not feel that dealing with all this shit is why I came to Wikipedia. Somebody else will have to do it.
This is not really a request for help or a call to action, though it would be useful if more people would have eyes on the thousands of articles in the topic. I just felt I need to express this before taking hundreds of these articles off my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- (As I anticipated, my edits were reverted with an edit summary "Reverting Russian nationalist edit" by a user with 52 edits who has not yet posted in this thread [1]--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC))
- For me, just to avoid being referred to as Russian imperialist editor - disruption from another side, [2] a clarification "Ukrainian source" is added to the material sourced to the Japan Times. (This one was an IP, so just a revert has done the job).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Are these articles covered by DS? We could, for a start, semi protect the lot of em and see what difference it makes. ——SN54129 09:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, sure, we have discretionary sanctions. However, (i) I probably should not be the person mass-protecting such articles since pretty much everyone, after learning that my mothertongue is Russian, assumes I am involved (never mind that I am a Dutch citizen and live in the Netherlands, and have been to Russia once in the last five years - I have been to Canada or Portugal more often during this period) and (ii) I am generally not sure whether the community would like the idea of indefinite full protection of thousands of articles. The most problematic one, such as Kiev, have been semi-protected for ages.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you just can't trust those Dutch-Canadian-Portuguese editors to understand the Ukrainian language... :-) It doesn't have to be full protection, it sounds like pending changes or extended confirmed protection might help? Do you have a list of the Most problematic articles somewhere? Also, if it's the same edit being made on a number of articles, is edit filter a possibility? It's terrible what you're going through, and no one editor (or group of editors even) should have to manually police so many articles from the same disruption day after day. It's not a sustainable model for building an encyclopedia. We should look at implementing a solution that won't cause us to lose editors to frustration. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 11:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) You are not losing me as an editor, I am around, editing and performing admin tasks, not yet planning to retire. However, indeed, this area just became too poisinous. I do not have a list of problematic articles, I do have a list of sub-areal where editing against consensus occurs on a regular basis, but collecting the diffs to prove it on the level of AE or even ANI is just too much. For example, the above example refers to a group of editors promoting an alternative Belarusian alphabet against consensus. This alphabet has some status in Belarus, and this is why they are not prepared to negotiate, they just come, move/ edit and disappear, they are typically active in one of the two Belarusian Wikipedias. Right now I have discovered an attack at Barysaŭski trakt (one user moved the article without consensus, another onbe, belonging to the same group, opened a RM,. and they will make sure that the name would stick).However, collecting all this would probably occupy me full-time, and I do not feel I am here for this. The sky probably is not going to fall on the eath if these nationalists rename all Belarusian-related articles, it 's that just this has nothing to do with the Wikipedia policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you just can't trust those Dutch-Canadian-Portuguese editors to understand the Ukrainian language... :-) It doesn't have to be full protection, it sounds like pending changes or extended confirmed protection might help? Do you have a list of the Most problematic articles somewhere? Also, if it's the same edit being made on a number of articles, is edit filter a possibility? It's terrible what you're going through, and no one editor (or group of editors even) should have to manually police so many articles from the same disruption day after day. It's not a sustainable model for building an encyclopedia. We should look at implementing a solution that won't cause us to lose editors to frustration. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 11:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, sure, we have discretionary sanctions. However, (i) I probably should not be the person mass-protecting such articles since pretty much everyone, after learning that my mothertongue is Russian, assumes I am involved (never mind that I am a Dutch citizen and live in the Netherlands, and have been to Russia once in the last five years - I have been to Canada or Portugal more often during this period) and (ii) I am generally not sure whether the community would like the idea of indefinite full protection of thousands of articles. The most problematic one, such as Kiev, have been semi-protected for ages.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, I think I speak for many admins when I say, I think you should be able to do as you see fit as an uninvolved admin, including but not limited to using the DS, liberally, if need be. If you feel it's time to escalate — escalate. We don't have enough admins reviewing this key topic area, during these times, especially. So, you have my support. El_C 11:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for support.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, I echo El C's support. I respect the idea that if a minority see you as involved it makes it harder for you to act as an admin in a conflict area but that doesn't mean you are involved or have acted inappropriately. We're all volunteers so if you want to take a break you should. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for support.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- The results of this consensus: English Wikipedia vs. Reality --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody apart from you expressed an opinion there as to how we should transliterate, so it is certainly not a consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think what Чаховіч Уладзіслаў means is that the result of the consensus on Belarusian transliteration on en.wp is that we use names for the Minsk Metro stations that are at variance with the Latin-script transliterations that will be actually encountered in the stations. Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- That is what was meant by the original post at the Village Pump, but what Чаховіч Уладзіслаў said above is that that position had consensus created there, when in fact nodody else expressed an opinion either way. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, that is not the interpretation my mind leapt to when I read his comment here (I interpreted "consensus" to mean the 2006 one, so pointing to the an exposé of how the results of this consensus create an absurd-seeming situation), although I can see how it could come about due to its terseness. Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I see now. That wasn't my initial interpretation, but you are probably right. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, that is not the interpretation my mind leapt to when I read his comment here (I interpreted "consensus" to mean the 2006 one, so pointing to the an exposé of how the results of this consensus create an absurd-seeming situation), although I can see how it could come about due to its terseness. Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- That is what was meant by the original post at the Village Pump, but what Чаховіч Уладзіслаў said above is that that position had consensus created there, when in fact nodody else expressed an opinion either way. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think what Чаховіч Уладзіслаў means is that the result of the consensus on Belarusian transliteration on en.wp is that we use names for the Minsk Metro stations that are at variance with the Latin-script transliterations that will be actually encountered in the stations. Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody apart from you expressed an opinion there as to how we should transliterate, so it is certainly not a consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- When was the "consensus" adopted? Where can I read the discussion? --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- For the first time, as far as I know, here in 2006, and has been confirmed multiple times afterwards.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just another interesting detail for community of English Wikipedia is that one of the biggest supporters of Russian system here was User:Kuban kazak using the symbol of Russian Nazi. I believe there are circumstantial evidence to assume a connection to this topic and keep it in mind during considerations of all this situation. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- How is this relevant? Do you want to say that I am related to the Russian web brigades?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I just show that the users who oppose the Belarusian naming system and support the Russian system for Belarus are somehow connected to Russia. It will be unwise for the community of English Wikipedia not to consider a possibility of Russian state involvement in its editing by some tricky means. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- That is a very serious accusation, and you need to provide evidence or withdraw it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- The obviously false (fake) statements by User:Ymblanter like Russian is still the mothertongue of 95% of the population of Belarus looks very close to disinformation campaigns to promote <...> pro-Russian propaganda. And I hope that it is hard to deny Russian nationalistic views of User:Kuban kazak, who took the most active part in so-called consensus (that is actually a messed discussion which became obsolete after issuing Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script) referred by User:Ymblanter. It look like the community of English Wikipedia feels OK with discrimination Belarusians by one particular administrator, who just use the uncertainty of current messed situation instead of trying fix it according to the latest updates. And I don't see a big difference if he acts voluntary in such way or not. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- That is a very serious accusation, and you need to provide evidence or withdraw it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I just show that the users who oppose the Belarusian naming system and support the Russian system for Belarus are somehow connected to Russia. It will be unwise for the community of English Wikipedia not to consider a possibility of Russian state involvement in its editing by some tricky means. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- How is this relevant? Do you want to say that I am related to the Russian web brigades?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- But the official Instruction was approved only in 2007... --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just another interesting detail for community of English Wikipedia is that one of the biggest supporters of Russian system here was User:Kuban kazak using the symbol of Russian Nazi. I believe there are circumstantial evidence to assume a connection to this topic and keep it in mind during considerations of all this situation. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- For the first time, as far as I know, here in 2006, and has been confirmed multiple times afterwards.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I had minimized my participation in English Wikipedia long time ago, because the current situation with the names of Belarusian places here is completely insane. The inactive state of Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus proves that I'm not the only one with such opinion. Чаховіч Уладзіслаў has provided quite enough evidence to show the whole absurdity of the Russian fairytale naming in here. So the long-term discrimination of Belarusians in English Wikipedia is a big stain of shame that is hard to wash away. All who support this situation are part of this discrimination and finally leave such "great" legacy. Think about it carefully. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you guys have just zero respect for our policies and consensus-driven processes. You just know the TRUTH and do not care about anything else.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's false accusation as for now there is no policy or consensus Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic): "This proposal has become dormant through lack of discussion by the community". --Red Winged Duck (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody claimed it is a policy. However, it was added 14 years ago followed a discussion, and was kept there without being challenged since. This is a de-facto consensus, even if your group does not accept it. You would need to open a new RfC, announce it properly, and get consensus to introduce Lacinka. What is happening now is a guerilla war, not a process to establish consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's false accusation as for now there is no policy or consensus Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic): "This proposal has become dormant through lack of discussion by the community". --Red Winged Duck (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you guys have just zero respect for our policies and consensus-driven processes. You just know the TRUTH and do not care about anything else.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter obviously should take a break from editing topics related to Eastern European articles as "a group of editors promoting an alternative Belarusian alphabet against consensus", "another one, belonging to the same group" and same statements are not neutral and looks like conspiracy theory rather than efforts on making Wikipedia better. All of his statements clearly show that rules need to be reviewed to reflect current situation of naming conventions in all eastern european states (at first Ukraine, Belarus mentioned here) rather than ones invented in soviet times not taking in account national language traditions. Simple example: Serbian language has both latin & cyrillic version and Wikipedia using national latin version not any way of transliteration. For obvious reasons people from Belarus and Ukraine are more intrested in topics related to these countries so calling them "some groups" does not meet Wikipedia standarts on neutrality and politeness. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. Instead, I think some topic bans should be considered. Please apply to whomever is disrupting the project, Ymblanter. El_C 15:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am afraid at this point it would be considered at least by a significant minority as actions of involved admin who wants to get an advantage. Never mind I do not care what transliteration is used, I am just trying to enforce consensus and keep the policies homogeneous. The last thing I need at the moment is an ArbCom case against me for violation of ADMINACCT.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I wish I could assure you, Ymblanter. Your uninvolved admin status in this matter has not been disputed by any admin or established outside editor. I don't think an Arbitration case is likely, or if it is filed, it is unlikely to be accepted by the Committee. El_C 15:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. Instead, I think some topic bans should be considered. Please apply to whomever is disrupting the project, Ymblanter. El_C 15:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not just canvassing, but battlegrounding: "Come help in the fight against transliteration from 1979 on the English Wikipedia". Unfortunately, Belarussian is so far removed from my own languages that I had to resort to google translate. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Based on that, I think a year-long topic ban to the culprit (under DS) would be appropriate, unless anyone has any objections. Clearly unacceptable behaviour. Number 57 15:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Belarusian is one of a few languages (I believe along with Serbian/Croatian) where the users could not agree on the spelling and two Wikipedias had to be created. The same group of people who could not even agree with their compatriots on which spelling of Belarusian to use is consistently pushing one particular version of romanization here.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Another one important detail was skipped. The situation with two versions of Belarusian language was created artificially by Russia. So it's not about agreement between Belarusians, it's about classic divide et impera. Moreover, there is no discussion about Belarusian Latin names between Belarusian users, the official Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script (not patriotic Belarusian Latin alphabet) is accepted by the users of both Belarusian projects as a consensus for now. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not just canvassing, but battlegrounding: "Come help in the fight against transliteration from 1979 on the English Wikipedia". Unfortunately, Belarussian is so far removed from my own languages that I had to resort to google translate. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Is there a consensus? The relevant page you mention is tagged as a dormant policy proposal that never went into effect. If this is the case, and there is no enforceable guidance elsewhere, that would seem to be a massive problem for a language in which there are numerous different ways to Romanize it, and the only guidance is an unofficial stale policy proposal that says to use the British/American system rather than the official Belarusian one, which seems like it would be understandably controversial to begin with. Yes we can and should sanction editors, but shouldn't we also examine the context of why this is happening and what can be done about it? ~Swarm~ {sting} 16:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- It is a de-facto consensus which was followed by the majority of users who were willing to discuss anything for 14 years. I am not against a new discussion (see though Masem's comment below) but it has not even started.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- May be a comment I left a few days ago about a similar but completely unrelated case (no relation to anything Belarusian whatever) could be also useful to understand a general landscape of this editing area.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- At the larger problem 1) it seems odd that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) is not yet a guideline, and that should be reviewed and reassessed. and 2) as en.wiki (not ru.wiki or uk.wiki or whatever), that we're likely going to favor the Romanization spelling of odd character sets like Cyrillic as we already do with things like Japanese and Chinese to make it easier for English readers, accepting that this is not how native Russian/Ukraine/Belarus/etc. would spell it. It's one thing to incorporate the single character accent marks, but its the diacritics that are what make it harder for English readers. But that's my opinion and something to be used to establish point #1 - get that guideline actually to a guideline, at which point it becomes a no-brainer that DS on those users trying to switch to versions away from that guideline are violating. --Masem (t) 15:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Masem, could you please describe a proper way to accept Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) as guideline as it obviously needs new discussion for every language mentioned there and maybe even split by language as it cannot be accepted for all languages at once. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just follow the process at WP:RFC to lock it down: Add an RFC tag to the talk page, add a simple question, like "Should this document be promoted to a guideline?", and then maybe promote it at WP:CENT, WP:VPP, and if there are relevant wikiprojects in this area (yes, I know, may be tempting fate) , there too. You can explain - after setting up the RFC - that's its been a de facto guideline and you just want to formalize it now, and thus aligning with how we treat other languages (ala Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) , Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek), and several other language-specific in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (which, only just doing a quick survey, all support romanization even if we can type out the ISO character). In other words; the current draft/essay for Cyrillic follows the same pattern and thus should be a no-brainer for consistency across WP, and thus should be trivial to keep. Then after 30 days, you'll get a neutral admin to review and close by looking at the arguments (not the !votes) to make the call. I would think that if the situation is as you describe above, you'll have a clear P&G based reason to promote this as a guideline even if the !votes are outweighed by new editors to the discussion that says "But you aren't respecting the culture of X!". --Masem (t) 16:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Does it also apply for new discussion (per Swarm, Double sharp's comments) to create separate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Belarusian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian) etc. or should it follow some other process? --Red Winged Duck (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Red Winged Duck: I think it is best not to bundle the discussion, as the situation will be different for each Cyrillic-script language. Separate pages for each one seem reasonable (indeed, the Ukrainian one seems to be a separate page already). Double sharp (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) I don't know enough on the differences in the languages or any official national guidance as like discussed below, but I would assume that if the Belarusian guidance is different from what the current guidance is for Cyrillic is, then yes, a separate guidance would be reasonable. You'll see we have many per-country level naming conventions, so there's no hard to that, but you still want to establish them as guidelines, ideally using the romanization approach that the other country-specific guidelines use, so that the issue that Ymblanter is fighting against doesn't have to be an issue. --Masem (t) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Does it also apply for new discussion (per Swarm, Double sharp's comments) to create separate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Belarusian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian) etc. or should it follow some other process? --Red Winged Duck (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just follow the process at WP:RFC to lock it down: Add an RFC tag to the talk page, add a simple question, like "Should this document be promoted to a guideline?", and then maybe promote it at WP:CENT, WP:VPP, and if there are relevant wikiprojects in this area (yes, I know, may be tempting fate) , there too. You can explain - after setting up the RFC - that's its been a de facto guideline and you just want to formalize it now, and thus aligning with how we treat other languages (ala Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) , Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek), and several other language-specific in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (which, only just doing a quick survey, all support romanization even if we can type out the ISO character). In other words; the current draft/essay for Cyrillic follows the same pattern and thus should be a no-brainer for consistency across WP, and thus should be trivial to keep. Then after 30 days, you'll get a neutral admin to review and close by looking at the arguments (not the !votes) to make the call. I would think that if the situation is as you describe above, you'll have a clear P&G based reason to promote this as a guideline even if the !votes are outweighed by new editors to the discussion that says "But you aren't respecting the culture of X!". --Masem (t) 16:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Masem, could you please describe a proper way to accept Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) as guideline as it obviously needs new discussion for every language mentioned there and maybe even split by language as it cannot be accepted for all languages at once. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Judging by what Swarm points out, I think a new discussion on our naming conventions for Belarusian would be a sensible way to get closer to a solution. Since the old consensus seems to be from 2006, the latest iteration of the official Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script is from 2007, and the recommendation that it be adopted as the international transliteration system for Belarusian geographical names dates from 2013, there does seem to be a good case that the old consensus needs to be relooked at due to intervening changes in the situation. Then a discussion can take place and provide a new consensus that should remain valid until the situation shifts again, regardless of what it ends up being. Double sharp (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be a good idea to discuss this in good faith, but a discussion is not in good faith if there is editing going on in the background that changes things from the current consensus. As an example of this not happening we have User:Чаховіч Уладзіслаў, to whom I suggested discussing the issue here, who started a discussion but when it wasn't replied to in a few days acted as if there was consensus for the changes. This is clearly a contentious issue, so we need to take our time to discuss it properly before implementing any changes. I say all this as one of the few native English speakers with no family connection to Russia or Belarus to have attended a month-long Russian language course in Minsk (in 1978), so I'm sure anyone from either "side" who treats this as a battleground will characterise me as an enemy. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, we clearly need an agreement from all parties that changes away from the current guideline's recommendations should not be made before or while the RFC is in process, and that the eventual results of the RFC once it is closed will be respected. Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is just to emphasize that the scope of the problem is much broader than a handful of Belarusian nationalists disrupting our project. And now I really start unwatching articles, I will only keep my own creations on my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- If anybody would ever need my experience / subject knowledge / institutional memory in the area I will be happyto help, but I will not be patrolling the articles anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the spelling of that city's name is something that people should be sanctioned over if they refuse to follow consensus. There have been many rename discussions which have all concluded with the spelling remaining "Kiev". The irony here is that people claim that "Kiev" is a transliterated Russian spelling. It is not: that would be "Kiyev". "Kiev" is the English spelling. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- "a handful of Belarusian nationalists disrupting our project" - nice example of this sysop "neutrality". --Red Winged Duck (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- If the shoe fits... El_C 09:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- If anybody would ever need my experience / subject knowledge / institutional memory in the area I will be happyto help, but I will not be patrolling the articles anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter just undid my correction claiming that Russian-language version of Kyiv name ("Киев") has to be placed along with Ukrainian-language version on the reason that Russian is spoken by significant part of the city population. If you follow this logic and want to be truly unbiased (as Ymblanter pretends here) you have to correct respectively articles about other cities with similar cases. To name specifically, Riga or Tallinn, where Russian is a language of significant part of the city population (in case of Riga not less than in Kyiv). Articles of these cities do not contain mentioning of the Russian names of the city. So, either you follow same rules to all similar cases or you recognize that you have "special rules" for Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroserhi (talk • contribs) 10:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NCGN (which is a guideline) is very clear on the subject: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages – i.e., (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken). Separate languages should be separated by semicolons. A suggestion that in otder to implement a guideline I should go through every page and implement it at every page I find to be honest ridiculous. Adding Russian name to Riga is certain to cause a reaction from another group of nationalists, and the whole purpose of this thread is that I can not stand this on a dily basis anymore. However, I already removed Kiev from my wtchlist, you can start edit-warring, I will not notice it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have upgraded the protection for Kiev to extended confirmed, indefinitely (Arbitration enforcement). El_C 10:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I do not argue with guidelines (though I may disagree with some of them), but I just draw attention to Wikipedia double standards. In your response you prove to have biased attitude to specific nations. Additionally, your irresponsible branding of everyone, who disagree with your vision, as "nationalists", confirms your political motivation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroserhi (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- May I please draw your attention to the fact that the Russian name was already in the article, and actually quite for some time. This is a situation different from Riga. If you imply that I am actually, in violation of WP:NPOV, push pro-Russian POV into the articles (and you would not be the first one, there is at least one more user implying the same in this very topic), this is plain bullshit. I had plenty of pro-Russian users claiming I am on the Ukrainian government payroll, for example, for not letting them to replace annexation of Crimea with voluntary accession of Crimea. The whole point is that what I was doing was to implement the policies. I do not care whether policies at this point favor pro-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, pro-Belarusian, or pro-Reptilian view. They just need to be respected. Unfortunately there are just too many people around who stop caring about policies if they are not aligned with what they want to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NCGN (which is a guideline) is very clear on the subject: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages – i.e., (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken). Separate languages should be separated by semicolons. A suggestion that in otder to implement a guideline I should go through every page and implement it at every page I find to be honest ridiculous. Adding Russian name to Riga is certain to cause a reaction from another group of nationalists, and the whole purpose of this thread is that I can not stand this on a dily basis anymore. However, I already removed Kiev from my wtchlist, you can start edit-warring, I will not notice it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
An RFC has been started by User:W at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Problem with transliteration of Belarusian geographical names. Double sharp (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- I do not feel strongly about the issue (despite many attempts of the users above to imply the opposite) and would be fine with any result of the RfC, however, I feel obliged to note that the discussion so far has been dominated by users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia (in particular, the starter has less than 50 edits total).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: Welcome to the party. As you know, we've been dealing with these exact same problems (and much more) around Poland TAs - the sourcing, the reversals, the name calling, the accusations... you name it, we had it. You've seen a tiny bit of it on AE just the other week, didn't you? Well, that's how it looks from inside. François Robere (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- This might not be entirely connected to the problem, but Rolando 1208 (talk · contribs) has been going around in Belarusian pages and removing Russian names. For example, at Belarusian People's Republic. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Probably not connected. There is a lot of quite diverse disruption ongoing in all these articles for quite a long time. And even if one manages to reason and talk to one user and to convince them to stop disruption (like the above example may show), another one soon will be back doing exactly the same things. May be indeed blank ec protection of these articles on a random version could be a partial solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is happening regularly (eg. just last week) with German place names on Polish articles, and admins know about it. François Robere (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thing is - I and the rest aren't admins - we can't deal with it using the same tools you guys and gals have, it's ever more more frustrating because of that. François Robere (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a new problem (WP:GDANZIG anyone?). We have WP:NCGN, created to deal with this issue. People who consistently ignore it need to be warned and if they ignore this, well, that's where admins can come in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NCGN is great but it does not determine for example whether the article's title should be Stoŭbcy, Stowbtsy, or Stolbtsy. For Ukrinian names, at some point, consensus was found - that, with a very few exceptions, the localities do not have established names and have to be Romanized, but, apart from Kiev/Kyiv issue we have a bunch of other things - for example, if a Ukrainian government renames a locality is exercises no control over, should the article be moved? I used to revert these moves back (now I unwatched all these articles), but the user would disappear and a new would come in half a year and move the article again. Without even trying to discuss anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- I would just mass move-protect all articles on geographic places that are on the receiving end of nationalist language fights. WP won't come to a screeching halt if that's done, and it forces discussion in order to change the page name. I have a real favoritism towards coming down hard on nationalist battleground behavior as it makes the project a worse place and chases away good contributors. The supply of Internet users who are only interested in coming here to import ethnonationalist feuds is unfortunately much greater than that of good contributors, and we want the project to be welcoming to the latter, not the former. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NCGN is great but it does not determine for example whether the article's title should be Stoŭbcy, Stowbtsy, or Stolbtsy. For Ukrinian names, at some point, consensus was found - that, with a very few exceptions, the localities do not have established names and have to be Romanized, but, apart from Kiev/Kyiv issue we have a bunch of other things - for example, if a Ukrainian government renames a locality is exercises no control over, should the article be moved? I used to revert these moves back (now I unwatched all these articles), but the user would disappear and a new would come in half a year and move the article again. Without even trying to discuss anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a new problem (WP:GDANZIG anyone?). We have WP:NCGN, created to deal with this issue. People who consistently ignore it need to be warned and if they ignore this, well, that's where admins can come in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thing is - I and the rest aren't admins - we can't deal with it using the same tools you guys and gals have, it's ever more more frustrating because of that. François Robere (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- This might not be entirely connected to the problem, but Rolando 1208 (talk · contribs) has been going around in Belarusian pages and removing Russian names. For example, at Belarusian People's Republic. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: Welcome to the party. As you know, we've been dealing with these exact same problems (and much more) around Poland TAs - the sourcing, the reversals, the name calling, the accusations... you name it, we had it. You've seen a tiny bit of it on AE just the other week, didn't you? Well, that's how it looks from inside. François Robere (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked User:Greg McGroarty
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All of there edits recently appear to be simply to promote themselves.[4]
Any thoughts? They were warned before the block. Happy for anyone to unblock if they think this person can contribute positively. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I support this block. Obviously an appropriate unblock request could be considered but good block in my book. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Seconded. Looks like good action all around. El_C 17:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thirded, Good block. –Davey2010Talk 18:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse the block. Clear-cut promotion. --Kinu t/c 22:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Unban request by User:Alexiulian25
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user is requesting a reversal of the community ban imposed here. A previous review in April 2017 was not officially closed but showed a very clear consensus to retain the ban. Alexjulian25 has requested that his appeal be posted to an administrative noticeboard via UTRS, and so I am posting their last unblock appeal below:
I'm really sorry for what I did and I can make you sure I'll not do it again. I understand what I was ban for and I will make more productive contributions instead. I intend to contribute at the encyclopedia because I really like to do it. I want to improve Romanian football and create usefull articles as I did before. Also I want to ask an administrator to copy my appeal to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard where it can be addressed by the community.I assume my mistakes and I hope you can understand me.
Thank you!
A CU check shows Alexjulian25 as the only user on his current IP. Please indicate below whether you support or oppose unblocking this account. Yunshui 雲水 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose My usual - I don't see a clear explanation that they understand what they did wrong, and after looking at the discussion which led to a CBAN, there's a lot to account for (primarily the edit-warring, PAs, and socking). creffett (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Yep, creffet is absolutely right - particularly the PAs and socking. They aren't inherently hostile to the encyclopedia, but their previous editing was both somewhere between rude and hostile to other editors and not contributory to a better wikipedia. I'm usually pretty rope-happy on this timescale, but too many weighty aspects not considered. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- After looking at the previous record (I wasn't familiar before I saw this appeal), the ban discussion, the UTRS tickets and the user's talk page, I'm not confident that the user has the ability to return and be a competent and helpful member of the community. I don't question a degree of sincerity in their requests, but as I look at the language of the requests, I see desire to come back but I don't see a full understanding and acceptance of why they were banned to begin with. I find the overwhelming number of requests underwhelming in their content. Because of that, I would Oppose unbanning at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per everyone above - I did want to support however I'm not seeing any understanding from this user. their block log as well as the various things listed at the last unblock also put me off support unblocking and I fear if unblocked they'd gradually return to the behaviour that got them indeffed in the first place. –Davey2010Talk 15:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Let's do it. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, and we can't remain angry at any mistakes they have made forever. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Disclosure: I supported Alexiulian25's ban 4 years ago. There is no demonstration of understanding what they did, no attempt to address each issue that led to their ban. Furthermore, unless they have significantly improved their command of English in the last 4 years, there is a high chance that history will just repeat itself. Blackmane (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Unable to Edit Talk:Main Page ?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I am trying to start a discussion on Talk:Main Page, but I can't seem to find any place to add a section (is that because it is split up?) or edit the page? Thanks. 2601:181:C381:6C80:8803:458B:250C:70F8 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- The page is currently protected from editing by users who are not autoconfirmed due to disruption. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's semi-protected I'm afraid; usually we have a sub page for unregistered comments in that situation. ——SN54129 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Wiki-wide database problems
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know this isn't really AN material, but wanted to spread the word. If you're getting weird errors when editing a page, see T249565. I'm sure the devs are in full panic mode by now and don't need to be distracted with more tickets and emails reporting the problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Indeed, "full panic mode" sounds pretty right. The issue is under control, but there will likely be interwiki issues for a bit while the database table is being rebuilt DannyS712 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is mostly being discussed at WP:VPT#Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Boris Johnson missing interwikies
Can someone have a look at the interwikies for boris Johnson. And maybe the Wikidata item as well? Breg Pmt (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- There's a technical issue ongoing at the moment which is affecting inter-wiki links. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Accidentally published a draft page in main space
ResolvedHi, I managed to publish Vickers Light Dragon in mainspace rather than User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/Vickers Light Dragon by leaving out the all-important / . I get a message that I can't move it because of a double-namespace prefix, although no explanation is provided. Sorry. Thank you. >MinorProphet (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- @MinorProphet: That one displays because you had User in the fill in field and User in the drop down. I've moved the page for you. --Izno (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Izno: Many thanks for your help. MinorProphet (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Can a sysop please help delete corrupt versions of
File:Toronto from John street roundhouse.JPG? I was exporting it to Commons but failed. I think the two corrupt versions are blocking it. Thanks!--Roy17 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Review of RfC close by User:Cunard
Wondering if I could request a review of the close of this RfC by User:Cunard here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_Article_readability.
Supposedly it looks a specific version of the lead of that article into place. I am not even sure what the RfC was proposing with the dif provided being the fixing of a pipe link.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like the two "versions" he was referring to side by side are seen here. It's easy to compare two "versions" as a single diff, so I'm confused as to why he would present them as separate diffs in which you could not actually see the specific changes, nor expect your average RfC respondent to figure it out. Setting that aside, the line of questioning itself seems to be in violation of RfC guidelines. RfC questions must be "brief" and "neutral". "Version 1 or version 2?" is a brief and neutral question. However that's not how the decision was posed. Instead, users could choose between version 1 by simply taking the position statement that it "is preferable" to version 2. On the contrary, the only way to prefer version 2 was to agree with the a specific, predefined argument written out by the OP, who favored version 1. In other words, your choices were to choose the OP's preferred version or be pigeonholed into making a specific argument written by the OP. There was no option presented to choose version 2 in any other way. This seems like a gamey tactic, whether it was intentional or not. So, given the confusing way the diffs were presented, in addition to the non-neutral way the question was presented, I would move to strike the reading of consensus in favor of version 1 from the close. ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Doc, it's surprising that you didn't see what the RfC was proposing, because you are the person who asked for it. Specifically: I boldly made a series of changes to the lead, after which the article looked like this. You rejected the majority of the changes and, when challenged, you suggest I try a RfC. I begin the RfC you asked for on the same day, and Cunard closed it 41 days later. You have subsequently claimed that you thought I'd begun a full RfC about a pipe link, but it's hard to reconcile that with the sequence of events. Swarm's allegation that I was gaming the system is ludicrous.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) In terms of closing the questions as presented, there is unanimous consensus in favour of statement 1 and against statement 3. Statement 2 was also unequivocally supported but less strongly. I would have said there was no consensus regarding statement 4 but I can see why the closer did find consensus for it. As for presentation of the diffs and understanding of the questions, the only person commenting who seems to have had any issues was Doc James, who failed to explain his issues in a manner that anyone else seems to have understood. I agree the RfC was not brilliantly worded (and was also not brilliantly attended) although it was possible for editors to oppose both statements 3 and 4 if they preferred version 2. I don't see a need to rip this up and start again, but rather use it as a starting point for a better discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I did not claim that you "gamed the system", I highlighted an obvious, straightforward procedural failure in your wording of the RfC, in violation of the RfC rules, and said that it appeared to be a gamey tactic, whether or not it was intended to be. Rather than becoming defensive, a good faith user should presumably understand the concern of gamey or non-neutral RfCs in a discretionary sanctions area, and acknowledge the problem and pledge that it will not happen again. The concern is rather straightforward, as I explained, and why you would go straight to attacking it is confusing. Regardless, I think it's something that you should take seriously. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- You did say
This seems like a gamey tactic...
any editor would assume you're trying to implicate them if you say it like that. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)- Exactly. The RfC was perfectly neutrally-worded; only one participant had any trouble following it; and I categorically reject the allegation that any "tactic" was employed.—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- You did say
- I found a clear consensus for position #4 to reinstate the article version #1 referenced in the RfC. Here are what RfC participants said about position #4:
- S Marshall wrote, "Support positions 1, 2 and 4."
- EllenCT wrote, "I've already stated I prefer the newer revision of position 4."
- Jd4x4 wrote, "I've voiced my opinion for Version 1 in the RfC but the entire reason I involved myself here is because the 'stable' version was painful to read" and "To clarify my position, I agree with Position 1 at the time the RfC was raised, disagree with Position 3, and currently agree with Position 4 should it be decided to revert the lead from what it currently is."
- Darwin Naz wrote, "I am opposing position 4, primarily for the Nicotine part in Article 1's lede. This is an encyclopedia and not an editorial or an essay written to persuade readers against smoking."
- Yrwefilledwithbugs wrote, "I think I like 4 also, but it's because I believe it has more info which isn't a bad thing; it just needs to be consolidated and/or broken apart some. It's a massive amount of info though which is really difficult to get through"
One editor, Doc James, did not understand to the RfC statement. He was confused about the links to the article versions. S Marshall explained the links to him, after which Doc James did not respond to the explanation. From reading the other RfC participants statements, it was clear that the RfC statement did allow them to explain which article version they preferred. Position 4 said "Article version #1 is preferable to article version #2." Article version #2 was the version of the article when the RfC began. If editors had preferred the status quo of article version #2, they could have opposed position 4 which means no change to the article. The RfC opening statement presented a list of statements and asking editors if they agreed or disagreed with them. The RfC statement could have been phrased more clearly as a yes–no question but that is not required and does not invalidate the RfC. RfC participants could have added more position statements if they felt the existing statements would have inaccurately framed their arguments. RfC participants have done that numerous times in past RfCs. No one did that in this RfC. I see no gaming or even appearance of gaming in the RfC statement.
- {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Unblock appeal user:Zenkaino lovelive
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have received this unblock request at UTRS for this user under the Standard Offer. Bringing here for discussion.
"'I'm Zenkaino lovelive. I'm blocked on enwiki since April 2019 and I'd like to take the Standard Offer to request unblocking. This was my first block. I've learned that using two accounts is not acceptable. I'm sorry for making this mistake, and I do not intend to use multiple accounts User:ABOChannel again. See: [5]. 6 months ago I've stopped editing enwiki, and I've made many useful edits in manuwiki. I evaded block by using 3 IPs (*************), and the last day is 6 Oct 2019. 6 months later, now, I understand, what sockpuppetry and block evasion are, and I'll follow the rules and use only one account in any article, discussion, and votes. Even, I won't edit by using IP anymore. Plus, I won't lie anymore about my evasion. I'd like to use the account "Zenkaino lovelive". Could you please unblock me? Thank you for your consideration. Also, please restore my talk page access."
I will restore TPA so they can respond here. If someone could please add that to their watch list and copy and paste responses.
Pinging Bbb23 as theblocking CU. 5 albert square (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please read the extensive discussion on user talk:Zenkaino lovelive . --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- ...a part of which has now been deleted by the appellant. Special:PermanentLink/937465766. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is too early for my liking, and the clear misunderstanding about the "6 months" doesn't cast a good light on the appellant. If my personal, non-policy-based opinion is asked for here, revoke TPA and do not restore until 2021, even when begged for via e-mail. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose due to the user's repeated disruptive use of sockpuppets, and their repeated lying about it. And yes it is a CU block. ST47 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per talk page concerns. user was advised that the earliest they would be eligible for SO would be June of this year. That edit was removed somehow. No idea if there has been recent socking. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Concur w/ ToBeFree on revoke TPA till 2021 and adding "or via UTRS". --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- And per Nosebagbear --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Being told to wait six months is for a reason. It shows you are willing to listen to the community and administrators and act appropriately. The fact that the user was socking as late as January, which I did see on the user talk page, means it's too soon for me to think the user has true sincerity with this request. I would tell the user to wait the whole six months, show you can do it without socking, and in the next appeal apologize for the recent socking on top of everything, and explain why it was wrong. Red Phoenix talk 23:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Let's go ahead with it. The user has insisted that they have not socked in six months, and has shown a willingness to follow the rules. Besides, everybody has to remember that CheckUser is not perfect and makes mistakes. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- The user has shown a willingness to insist on the wording of essays while misreading them – and then complaining about the same wording when noticing that it is unexpectedly against their favor. I don't want to see them applying the same gaming behavior to editing policies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly Opposed. There's a question of when they last evaded their block. I note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#Meta_email_use_by_blocked_sockmaster shows problematic behaviour in January, 2020. They've previously been told they should not request an unblock prior to June 7, 2020. And given that they attempted to mislead us back in December and have apparently been bothersome on IRC, I suggest we reset the timer again. No unblock request prior to 9 October, 2020. --Yamla (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: Clearly more of a disruptive presence to this site than not. I also note the CU remark made by SlitherioFan2016; suffice it to say that I'm with Yamla, in that the user should not request an unblock prior to June, at the very earliest. And I might still back Yamla in his longer proposal, too. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose: So far this editor is a classic example of WP:DISRUPT, specializing in WP:ICANTHEARYOU. They need to at the very least sit tight until June, and maybe October. AND if they persist in being disruptive on the various avenues for off-wiki communications by hounding admins on IRC or spamming UTRS folks then, again, the block should be extended. Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know about anybody else but after pinging multiple editors to their talk page within a fairly short amount of time while offering no new evidence, reasons, or coherent thoughts, I am inclined to think it might be time to revoke the editor's TPA and extend the block. Shearonink (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - even if, for the sake of argument, it was six months since their last socking incident, then I'd still be inclined to oppose this appeal. This editor gives every sign that additional problems would be caused, with a distinct dislike of following a process, and denying responsibility for their actions. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Unconstructive edits
User Res Iudicata is keep revrting my edits eventhough I have adviced this user to keep WP:DR policy. Also this user has added several inccorect information on the article and deleted well sourced items due to original research. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
I think this user at least be warned about these beahaviors to prevent futher demage on WP articles. Thank you for reading. Jeff6045 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute. I warned both users 3RR restrictions. Both users may be blocked if edit warring continues.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Creation request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It would make sense to have a redirect from )))(((] to Triple parentheses#Response analogously to ((())). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- For future reference, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories (WP:AFC/R) exists for requests of this nature. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: As far as I know, that page is not for creation of pages in the blacklist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Promotion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have blocked this account
User:Despinahernandez who is also User:67.69.228.6 and is trying to promote their alcohol gel.
There initial upload to Commons was a copyright image used to promote this product. Any thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- I knew there was something fishy going on, but if the account is a spam-only account, maybe report at m:SR/G#L? Aasim 02:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- What's your question? {{uw-spamblock}} is absolutely appropriate here. Are you simply wondering what to do at other projects, like Awesome Aasim is thinking? Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- User:Nyttend Because I also edit the article on hand sanitizer were they are causing problems. I am requesting a review as some might claim I am involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, I missed that. I've just glaced at the user's edits, and agree with your decision. If anyone complains, tell him that I'm in agreement and am willing to unblock and reblock if he really wants to be bureaucratic about it. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Nyttend :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, I missed that. I've just glaced at the user's edits, and agree with your decision. If anyone complains, tell him that I'm in agreement and am willing to unblock and reblock if he really wants to be bureaucratic about it. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- User:Nyttend Because I also edit the article on hand sanitizer were they are causing problems. I am requesting a review as some might claim I am involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- What's your question? {{uw-spamblock}} is absolutely appropriate here. Are you simply wondering what to do at other projects, like Awesome Aasim is thinking? Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Help please!
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you please delete the files in this category? Thank you--Hippymoose17 01:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Remember to WP:NUKE!--Hippymoose17 01:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody is going to nuke that category. Each image needs to be individually checked. This is not high-priority work. Please be patient. Someone will get to it.— Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Will you do it? :)--Hippymoose17 14:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- No.— Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Why? Won't someone else do it? Maybe @Magog the Ogre:?--Hippymoose17 18:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Dude, this is a lot of effort you're asking other people to do, and is not high-priority. Continually pinging people and pestering them (I see you're doing it on a couple of talk pages, too) is beginning to get annoying. And please, don't reply by asking me to do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Why? Won't someone else do it? Maybe @Magog the Ogre:?--Hippymoose17 18:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- No.— Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Will you do it? :)--Hippymoose17 14:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody is going to nuke that category. Each image needs to be individually checked. This is not high-priority work. Please be patient. Someone will get to it.— Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Move request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please move the following uncontroversial move. The article passes WP:GNG and doesn't need disambiguation. NetSol Technologies (company) → NetSol Technologies. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Suspected undisclosed paid editing / single-purpose account editing at Kayvan Khalatbari
Unusual use of external links prompted me to look into the article history of Kayvan Khalatbari. What I found were the following accounts:
- Kaydubco (talk · contribs · logs)
- Caitlinmckennie (talk · contribs · logs)
- Mgt33139 (talk · contribs · logs)
- Catarina 210 (talk · contribs · logs)
- Timmitown (talk · contribs · logs)
- HilaryConstable (talk · contribs · logs)
All of these accounts have either only edited that article or a substantial majority of their edits have only been to that article. Kaydubco is the exception; it has also edited a few other articles, but at least one of them, Sexpot Comedy, is closely associated with Kayvan Khalatbari.
I suspect that this is a collection of undisclosed paid editing accounts, possibly all sockpuppets of one another. However, with the exception of HilaryConstable, all of them are extremely old.
Is anything here an issue? If so, is it actionable? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- The Squirrel Conspiracy, I think it likely they're all throw-away accounts of the same sockfarm. Certainly, the edit comment on this edit makes it pretty clear this is paid PR work. But, given that most of them are inactive, I'm not sure there's much point in blocking them, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Holy moly that article needs more pruning than I can handle right now. What a bunch of vanispam. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I just received an email from Mgt33139 stating that they are not a paid editor and are not connected to the other accounts. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
ListeriaBot blocked an urgent resolution is needed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hoi, user:ListeriaBot is an essential tool for the management of projects and information on many Wikipedias including the English Wikipedia. It is used in projects like Women in Red, Covid-19 personal projects like I have on my user page. Because of a copyright dispute where an image is free to use on Commons and not free to use on English Wikipedia (really..) this bot has been blocked.
A few points to consider:
- English Wikipedia has the privilege to have its own pictures. The point is that it does not want to comply with the stricter Commons rules. The blocking admin should know this and enforce Commons as an alternative to take the route of least resistance.
- The point of Listeria is that it makes timely changes to information. Consequently there is no room for long deliberations.
- Please guys this is egg on English Wikipedia's face this is how we all lose.
- Note: A more substantial discussion of the issue (with the actual background) is at User talk:Magnus Manske. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- [Copying over my comment from Magnus' user page here]: It's not that "English Wikipedia has the privilege to have its own pictures"; the problem is that (many of) those pictures that English Wikipedia has locally are non-free pictures and as such may not be mechanically copied into all sorts of lists by a bot, because that violates our non-free content policy. The other, technical, problem is that in the cases at hand, a (supposedly free) image on Commons and a (non-free) local file were accidentally stored under the same filename, and the bot was mistaking the one for the other. Frankly, I'm not sure whether we should expect of the bot that whenever it's taking a reference to a (supposedly free) Commons file it should first double-check whether that file reference might be shadowed by a non-free local file before inserting it into articles. But, well, I do suppose it would be possible for it to do that. Inserting images, anywhere on the project, is a highly risky operation for a bot to do, so if it's going to have that functionality it had better be written with an abundance of safety checks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
When you are done congratulating yourselves for doing a good job, you again feed the resentment for the WMF using Wikipedia as the brand we should be known by. When we analyse the situation, when English Wikipedia has a better picture than Wikidata knows from Commons based on license information at Commons, it is none of English Wikipedia's business. When the English Wikipedia picture is used on English Wikipedia and another picture on another Wikipedia, it is still none of English Wikipedia's business. So consider what is happening and appreciate why Wikipedia is not what we all are, certainly not want to be. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Good block, and JJMC89 should be congratulated for acting so promptly, not criticised. Whatever the good intentions of its author, if a bot is not only violating policy but making edits that are real-world illegal, we have no alternative but to block it and keep it blocked until the error is fixed. ‑ Iridescent 07:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- A solution would be to block fileuploads with filenames already on commons. Any shadowing files can be renamed with a suffix like unfree or local. -- Agathoclea (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- In my experience it usually goes the other way—that is, we have a locally-hosted fair use headshot called File:Minor Celebrity.jpg, someone later takes their own photo and uploads it to Commons under the same File:Minor Celebrity.jpg name, but it's of such poor quality we decide to keep using the original non-free image. To prevent this happening at the server end would mean that every image on Commons and every future upload to Commons would need to be cross-checked against the file database of every single WMF project since a fair-use file of the same name could potentially exist at any of them; it wouldn't be a trivial task. ‑ Iridescent 07:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Agathoclea: It is not possible to upload a local file over a Commons file unless you are an admin which have the
reupload-sharedpermission. Situations such as these usually occur when the Commons file is uploaded later, as Iridescent states. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Agathoclea: It is not possible to upload a local file over a Commons file unless you are an admin which have the
- In my experience it usually goes the other way—that is, we have a locally-hosted fair use headshot called File:Minor Celebrity.jpg, someone later takes their own photo and uploads it to Commons under the same File:Minor Celebrity.jpg name, but it's of such poor quality we decide to keep using the original non-free image. To prevent this happening at the server end would mean that every image on Commons and every future upload to Commons would need to be cross-checked against the file database of every single WMF project since a fair-use file of the same name could potentially exist at any of them; it wouldn't be a trivial task. ‑ Iridescent 07:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- A solution would be to block fileuploads with filenames already on commons. Any shadowing files can be renamed with a suffix like unfree or local. -- Agathoclea (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Good block, and JJMC89 should be congratulated for acting so promptly, not criticised. Whatever the good intentions of its author, if a bot is not only violating policy but making edits that are real-world illegal, we have no alternative but to block it and keep it blocked until the error is fixed. ‑ Iridescent 07:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- +1 to what GerardM said. This is a bot that auto-generates and auto-updates wikitext based on a Wikidata SPARQL query. If you look at the contributions for Listeria bot and scroll back over 7 days, you get some idea of the vast range of different Wikipedia projects and workflows that interrupting this bot is affecting, because they rely on this bot to regularly update their status pages, including to identify missing articles, and article-topics with missing or substandard images -- including the Coronavirus project, and the Women in Red project as just two examples.
- It seems that there isn't a simple fix, to specify in wikitext that the Commons image should be displayed rather than an en-wiki image of the same name. For example the usual 'c:' prefix doesn't help: c:File:Image.jpg just gives a link rather than displaying the file.
- Some kind of way forward is urgently needed here, because this bot is mission-critical to the work of a lot of projects. Jheald (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Iridescent is correct that in general the Wikipedia file is uploaded first, then the Commons file. There's a few ways we can address this situation:
- 1) If you try to upload a file locally that has the same name as one on Commons, a warning is displayed, but there's no technical prohibition in place. Perhaps we might want to restrict uploading local files that have the same name as files already on Commons to only administrators, as there's very few productive reasons to do this. The main downside to this is that it'd require some mechanism for non-administrators to request such an upload, which would add yet another file-related backlog to the pile, and very few admins seem interested in working in that namespace.
- 2) For cases where the image was uploaded locally first, then something else with the same name was added to Commons, User:GreenC bot tags such files with {{Shadows Commons}}. It runs weekly. Those files then appear at Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons. Someone (almost always @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, who I'm pining because their insight might be valuable here) then either moves the local file to a new name, nominates the local file for deletion, or nominates the Commons file for deletion. Since the latter two of those three options take a minimum of a week, it can mean that shadow files can linger for a while.
- 3) If the upload wizard can figure out that there's a file on Commons with the same name during upload and GreenC bot can detect the issue when it does its weekly runs, then I would think ListeriaBot should be able to detect such conflicts using one of the same mechanisms those tools use. Whether it's worth it from a resources perspective to do so is not something I'm capable of answering. However, if Magnus is willing to add such a check into ListeriaBot (and then not touch any such files), it would open the path to that bot being unlocked.
- The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Listeriabot really just generates wikitext, based on the output of a SPARQL query. But it generates wikitext for a lot of pages, on a lot of wikis, with a lot of rows, and a lot of potential images. Checking each and every image to see whether it had a shadow would add a huge overhead, both in terms of coding and in terms of resource-use. A better way forward would be to think whether there is any way in wikitext to specify that the Commons image should be displayed rather than any local one. Or alternatively, for us to get sharper at resolving and removing these shadow image conflicts, perhaps accepting that pages might show the occasional wrong image temporarily, while the name conflict has not been resolved. Jheald (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Or as a shorter-term fix, just have the bot stop adding the "image" column to its lists unless and until the issue is resolved. If the purpose is just to generate lists of redlinks, then it will serve its purpose just as well without the images - the article creators can always just search Commons to see if we have an appropriate image. ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Building on that, perhaps the bot can - instead of displaying the image - instead post the text "Yes" as a link to the image on Commons. Aside from eliminating the chances that the bot would display non-free images, this will also reduce page load times and condense the lists down in vertical size. That way article creators can still see that there is an image, and are only one click away from actually getting to it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- +1 to Squirrel Conspiracy's suggestion of just replacing the image insertions with colon'ed links to the Commons file. This is clearly the cleanest and simplest solution. Bots need to be responsible for what they edit. Even without the issue of local shadowing files: given the amount of copyvios on Commons, it is simply not a responsible assumption that just because a file is on Commons (and linked to from Wikidata) it will be ok to use. No human editor should ever insert an image on Wikipedia – any image, anywhere – without first personally reviewing its description page and ascertaining that its license and copyright statement is at least plausible. Since bots can't do that, no bot should ever be allowed to insert an image. Simple as that. Wiki text links to image files are fine, actual image insertions are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Building on that, perhaps the bot can - instead of displaying the image - instead post the text "Yes" as a link to the image on Commons. Aside from eliminating the chances that the bot would display non-free images, this will also reduce page load times and condense the lists down in vertical size. That way article creators can still see that there is an image, and are only one click away from actually getting to it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I believe the most straightforward short-term solution for files which aren't the same (image and licence) on Commons as on enWikipedia and are misleading the bots is to rename the enwiki file under WP:FNC#9. Or at least, I do interpret the existence of WP:FNC#9 as indicating that there is a consensus on enwiki that we don't want files to have names that collide with these of Commons files (and in my experience, in cases where they do the enwiki file is seldom under the best name it could have). Oftentimes a rename on Commons or the deletion of one or the other file or both are more appropriate but a rename works in the interim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Well the bot appears to be running off a wikidata query, so its not surprising its working off bad data. I have a number of issues with that bot approval, but leaving that aside, reading the bot creator's blog it appears the purpose is to drive editing on wikidata. This should be sent back to BAG to get some actual consensus on a)what problem this is solving for ENWP, b)why this is the best solution, c)how to prevent problems so you dont have to go off-project to resolve them. Anything that requires you to edit another project in order to fix it is fundamentally broken. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Only in death: And what a bot approval that was! It basically consists of Magnus Manske being repeatedly told not to break the rules, them repeatedly doing so, Magioladitis approving the bot despite commenting as he does that the bot had been breaking the rules! And only having approved it does he invite more eyes to the discussion—where the bot's rule-breaking is mentioned once more—and to cap it all, Magnus states bluntly that
I am not here for rules
. Bizarre. ——SN54129 12:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Only in death: And what a bot approval that was! It basically consists of Magnus Manske being repeatedly told not to break the rules, them repeatedly doing so, Magioladitis approving the bot despite commenting as he does that the bot had been breaking the rules! And only having approved it does he invite more eyes to the discussion—where the bot's rule-breaking is mentioned once more—and to cap it all, Magnus states bluntly that
- The purpose of the lists I maintain on English Wikipedia is not to drive edits on Wikidata. This is obvious because the same Listeria lists exists on many Wikipedias (interwiki links "prove" this. It is a tool to bring the information on Wikipedias together. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you had read my comment, I said the purpose of the bot's creator. Not your purpose. Which I dont really care about since if its not in article-space, its largely irrelevant to our readers. But to put it simply, if a bot is running on ENWP, it needs to abide by ENWP's policies. Which include those relating to non-free content outside article-space. If it doesnt, it gets blocked and doesnt run until its fixed/altered to abide by ENWP's policies. And let me make this clear, if you as a user are using a bot in order to make lists outside article space in full knowledge that it can violate the non-free content policy, you, as the user creating them, are responsible for any subsequent infringments and risk being blocked yourself as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is a Listeria list running in main space. It is part of the Corona information project. You are really shallow when you think you can fathom the reasons of Magnus for his Listeria project. Have you read what he had to say about quality and Wikipedia lists?? I bet you have not and should. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- That isn't in mainspace? ‑ Iridescent 10:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is a Listeria list running in main space. It is part of the Corona information project. You are really shallow when you think you can fathom the reasons of Magnus for his Listeria project. Have you read what he had to say about quality and Wikipedia lists?? I bet you have not and should. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This needs urgent action not a discussion about edge cases
It is simple. When an image with a local name exists, it is shown in preference for the file at Commons. That is the real issue. There is a procedure for dealing with that so it should not be a big issue. In this case there is a local image with a different license to the Commons image. The English picture is only shown on English Wikipedia so it is NOT an issue of copyright; the image is legal on English Wikipedia.
In the same way, on a Wikipedia an item that has a local article is shown differently from the ones that you call "red links", the difference is stark because by linking to items there is an inherent disambiguation and associated improvement of quality. An improvement of quality because they may link to articles on other projects and there likely is a wealth of other information including the one that implicitly establishes the link in the query used by ListeriaBot. As a consequence we have images associated with items and they are more enticing for people to start writing than just a red link.
The upshot of this fracas is that English Wikipedia for the wrong reasons blocks essential infrastructure. Essential because it allows us to share the sum of knowledge available to us.
Please do the right thing for the right reasons. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- No, we're not going to do that. Fair use images are never going to be appropriate anywhere other than article space, and until the bot is reconfigured to prevent that occurring in future, any admin who unblocked it would be immediately desysopped for abuse. ‑ Iridescent 09:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for hiding behind rules and regulations that have not been enforced in years. Thank you for not touching the logic of the argument and thereby demonstrating your agreement to the essence of my argument. This is a non-issue. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's not hiding behind Wikipedia rules and regulations, it's the law - the kind that comes with hefty legal bills, and sometimes even police and handcuffs. It is illegal to show non-free images in places where sufficient justification in law is not provided. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- And what gives you the idea that this hasn't been enforced in years? I regularly see non-free content deleted from non-article space, and editors blocked when they persist in making such edits after they are warned, and have done so since I started editing Wikipedia well over a decade ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC is one of the most vigorously enforced polices on ENWP. Your comment about it not being enforced in years is a bare-faced lie. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for hiding behind rules and regulations that have not been enforced in years. Thank you for not touching the logic of the argument and thereby demonstrating your agreement to the essence of my argument. This is a non-issue. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
On closer inspection
On looking further into the history here, there are previous discussions going back years at User talk:ListeriaBot/Archive 1#Adding non-free images, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 154#ListeriaBot adding non-free images to Wikipedia namespace page, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 158#Listeria bot and non-free images, User talk:Magnus Manske/Archive 6#Non-free images being added by Lysteria bot and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 159#Lysteria bot and shadowing. This is clearly not a one-off blip or some kind of extreme edge case that's unlikely ever to happen again, but a disruptive bot whose operator is ignoring all concerns; keep it blocked unless and until it's remedied to prevent this ever happening again. ‑ Iridescent 10:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely, yes, a bot that leaves Wikipedia in a lawbreaking situation absolutely has to be stopped, and kept stopped until it's fixed so that it can't do that again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Why is it that people claim that bots have the right to make edits that wouldn't be allowed for human editors? Some people seem to have the relationship between bots and humans the wrong way round. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- On closer inspection.. well the offending pictures that are shown that are not on English Wikipedia, they are on Commons. All it takes is for offending pictures to be marked as copyright violations at Commons. This "offending" picture has been removed by Maarten Dammers..
- Just to comment that the responsibility for cleaning up these cases probably lies with the user/WikiProject/etc. who has created a list using the bot, rather than with the bot operator who is just providing the tool. I'm not sure they've always been alerted to the issue? Also, the relatively few images in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons seems to indicate that this issue should not happen that often, so this seems like an overreaction in general. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: The reason why there aren't that many images in that category is because some users such as me periodically clear the category out. I can tell you that it fills up at a high rate, too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just to comment that the responsibility for cleaning up these cases probably lies with the user/WikiProject/etc. who has created a list using the bot, rather than with the bot operator who is just providing the tool. I'm not sure they've always been alerted to the issue? Also, the relatively few images in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons seems to indicate that this issue should not happen that often, so this seems like an overreaction in general. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Unblocked
Just to note that I've unblocked the bot, per [11]. I'm hesitant to close this discussion, though, but I'd suggest AN isn't the place to have a wider discussion about this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- What changes have been made to the Bot that would prevent this from re-occuring? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Mike Peel: per Iridescent's suggestion above, has the bot been reconfigured to prevent this occurring again? ——SN54129 12:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's not clear that changes are needed to the bot, see other people's comments above - but again, I suggest this isn't the place to have that discussion. In this case, the specific issue that led to the block has been resolved, and the bot's newer edits all look fine, unless there are other live cases that need to be urgently addressed? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- So you unblocked a bot that has a history of making edits against policy, that has not had any changes to it, that impacts on one of our policies with legal repurcussions, despite the fact a discussion was ongoing? You are not fit to be an admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- If this were the incidents board, I'd agree; but as
information and issues of interest to administrators
go, I'd say a rogue bot and its formative processes qualify in spades. And probably better here than a walled garden with fewer eyes. ——SN54129 12:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)- Talk pages are not a walled garden. Mike Peel is right, the issue at hand has been resolved. If any action is needed, act on the user who caused the bad edit. Nemo 13:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's not clear that changes are needed to the bot, see other people's comments above - but again, I suggest this isn't the place to have that discussion. In this case, the specific issue that led to the block has been resolved, and the bot's newer edits all look fine, unless there are other live cases that need to be urgently addressed? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: I intend to reinstate the block, given the clear consensus in the discussion here that the bot's configuration is problematic. Please take note. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- You would be wheel warring, and there most definitely isn't any clear consensus that the bot is an issue as opposed to, say, problems with files named the same between here and commons. MLauba (Talk) 14:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Please don't, I can't see any consensus for that here, particularly given that most regular users of the bot probably aren't aware of this discussion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- There is not any such "clear consensus" here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think this bot is operating outside of its approval and has done so since before that approval (it was running before it was approved). I have therefore, according to WP:BOTPOL asked for a re-examination of this bot's approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Re-examination_of_ListeriaBot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Future Perfect at Sunrise: not a hill worth dying on, bro; Barkeep's suggestion is an excellent one, so maybe wait until the reassessment has taken place? @Barkeep. Yeah, I waxed lyrical about the original approval "discussion" above. ——SN54129 14:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just noting that I, User:Barkeep49, proposed this. While I am often called Barkeep, I do regret that the tastefully named Barkeep recieves notifications meant for me so often. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Given that the bot is clearly operating outside the criteria of its BRFA, the reassessment at BOTS should result in that permission being withdrawn until it is fixed. On that basis, whilst I actually agree that it should be blocked and that Mike Peel's unblock was a poor idea, the outcome is likely to be the same without any unnecessary drama. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I also note that the bot has previously operated without permission, and the creator's answer to that was
I am not here for rules. I am not here for paperwork. I am here to improve the encyclopedia. Sorry if you are not.
[12] Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I also note that the bot has previously operated without permission, and the creator's answer to that was
- I for one do not see that the bot should have been unblocked without addressing the concerns raised above. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I too disagree with the bot being unblocked, This issue might of been resolved however others haven't and given the repeated problems with it IMHO it should've stayed blocked until either issues were resolved and or Magnus acknowledges the disruption caused and states clear it won't happen again. –Davey2010Talk 15:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Copying my comment from the other discussion If there are issues with the bot, a complete block makes the most sense until we can ascertain what needs to be fixed. Note I don’t think it’d be considered wheel warring because a consensus is emerging that it was a bad unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps until it passes a proper approval? That shouldn't take long, as I'm sure BAG could expedite it without impinging on the quality of review. ——SN54129 15:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Reverting an admin action (especially one as egregious as this) is not wheel warring. Reinstating such an action after it has been reverted is. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I’m not sure what action you’re referencing in that sentence, but restoring an original admin action when there is consensus the reversion of such action was incorrect is not wheel warring. There is a fairly clear consensus here that this was a bad unblock and a good block and that the block should not have been lifted. It would not be wheel warring for an administrator to implement that consensus by blocking the bot again. An admin can’t overrule the community by the second mover advantage. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- As it stands, I think that any reblocking would be purely punative and unconstructive, unless someone can provide evidence that the edits since my unblock are problematic. However, admin actions rely on consensus, and I wouldn't unblock again in that situation. Mike Peel (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: Noted. It’s a bot so I don’t really think it can be punitive. The issue is that there’s no evidence anything has been fixed, which is our traditional standard for unblocking bots. If I’m reading you right, you would be fine with another administrator re-blocking if they read the current consensus that way while also noting that you disagree with that position. If that’s the case, I’d be fine reimplementing the block as my involvement in this has just been commenting that I think there’s already a consensus here. I’m also fine waiting for a few more comments, but I don’t think that would change much. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- It may not be punitive, but it would breach WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: Noted. It’s a bot so I don’t really think it can be punitive. The issue is that there’s no evidence anything has been fixed, which is our traditional standard for unblocking bots. If I’m reading you right, you would be fine with another administrator re-blocking if they read the current consensus that way while also noting that you disagree with that position. If that’s the case, I’d be fine reimplementing the block as my involvement in this has just been commenting that I think there’s already a consensus here. I’m also fine waiting for a few more comments, but I don’t think that would change much. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- As it stands, I think that any reblocking would be purely punative and unconstructive, unless someone can provide evidence that the edits since my unblock are problematic. However, admin actions rely on consensus, and I wouldn't unblock again in that situation. Mike Peel (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I’m not sure what action you’re referencing in that sentence, but restoring an original admin action when there is consensus the reversion of such action was incorrect is not wheel warring. There is a fairly clear consensus here that this was a bad unblock and a good block and that the block should not have been lifted. It would not be wheel warring for an administrator to implement that consensus by blocking the bot again. An admin can’t overrule the community by the second mover advantage. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Someone should be taking responsibility for the bot's edits - and appropriate action should be taken if the bot re-adds files that are in breach of our non-free file policy - if a normal editor like myself were to continue to edit in breach of this policy, then they would expect to pick up a topic ban or a block. Is someone willing to accept being blocked if the bot breaches policy (which, since it doesn't seem to have been fixed, is quite likely)?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Reblock discussion
So, reading the above and the bot noticeboard discussion, and the RfC linked below, I think there is consensus that the bot is operating outside of policy in multiple ways and also a consensus that it should have remained blocked as the problems have not been solved and that there is really no easy solution to it. WP:WHEEL does not prohibit a second reversal by an uninvolved administrator after discussion. We've had the discussions, in my view there is a consensus on the policy (bot should not be editing mainspace or placing non-free images in user space), the outcome (the bot should stop editing in a way that violates policy, and we should be sure that it will continue to do that), and that there is no easy way to solve the problems presented here.I consider myself uninvolved, because while I commented above, it was not as a party to the dispute but rather as an uninvolved administrator commenting generally on policy and my reading of the entire discussion. As this would be reinstating a block that has already been reversed, I want to be extra cautious and post this here: I intend to reblock the bot within the next hour or so unless other uninvolved administrators or the community think my doing so would be in violation of WHEEL. My reading of the policy is that we have already had the discussion it requires before reinstating an administrative action, but I would not want do so lightly. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)- I think I am uninvolved as well, and procedurally I would prefer to wait for 24h, which is a usual time period before any consensus could be established. I do not think there is emergency here. (Not that I think anything would change in 24h).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Closing?
- Could we please stop this and close the thread? It is clear that reblocking the bot would mean wheel-warring, the flag evaluation request has been filed, and whoever feels they want to go to ArbCom can to go to ArbCom anyway. Keeping it open further would not achieve anything but will just unnecessarily increase drama.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- If there is community consensus here to block the bot implementing such a block would not be wheel warring. I am uneasy about community blocking this bot given the positive work I know it does for projects like WiR. Hence my re-examination request. However, I personally would not oppose community consensus to block the bot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I count at least six admins (plus JJMC who originally blocked it) and four other established editors saying it should be blocked, with only a couple of people opposed (bar the operator, who doeesn't appear to understand the issue anyway). I suggest this is kept open for a while for any consensus to become (even) clearer. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is just a matter of time until a couple of very influential Wikiprojects would figure out that they can vote in this discussion, but, well, if people want more drama let them have more drama.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- And if people from those Wikiprojects were "voting" purely on the basis that blocking the bot would cause operational problems for them, I think we know how to evaluate that. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is just a matter of time until a couple of very influential Wikiprojects would figure out that they can vote in this discussion, but, well, if people want more drama let them have more drama.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I count at least six admins (plus JJMC who originally blocked it) and four other established editors saying it should be blocked, with only a couple of people opposed (bar the operator, who doeesn't appear to understand the issue anyway). I suggest this is kept open for a while for any consensus to become (even) clearer. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- If there is community consensus here to block the bot implementing such a block would not be wheel warring. I am uneasy about community blocking this bot given the positive work I know it does for projects like WiR. Hence my re-examination request. However, I personally would not oppose community consensus to block the bot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Re-examination_of_ListeriaBot now - that seems a logical way to go. Please do just close this discussion (again), it's not productive. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn’t object to it being closed now, but the current consensus is to overturn the unblock; said as someone who doesn’t really care about bots or Wikidata either way and is pretty neutral on those things. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Solving the shadowing problem
I think the basic issue here is that we have non-free media files that can shadow freely-licensed media from Commons, and this generically causes problems when trying to include a freely-licensed file here using the same filename as a non-free file. Fixing this would also resolve the issue with Listeria, without requiring changes to the way that bot operates. I've started an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Requiring_non-free_content_to_indicate_that_in_their_filenames, input there would be appreciated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Whilst it would be nice for NF files to be more easily identifiable, it is already very easy for a bot to identify them, which leads us back to fixing ListeriaBot again. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: It wouldn't be efficient, though - the bot would have to check through *every* file to make sure that it doesn't include a specific template (which may be some way down the transclusion chain), and it would have to do so *every* time it updates the page. Meanwhile, we could just move the file once, and that would solve it. Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'll reiterate my (and Squirrel Conspiracy's) suggestion from above: The whole issue could be solved in a much simpler way if the bot was made to simply not insert the images but only link to them. That would (a) solve the shadowing issue because the links could point unambiguously to Commons, (b) solve the larger issue of potentially bad (copyvio) Commons files being inserted without human review, (c) remove all problems of efficiency and bandwidth, and (d) have no negative effect whatsoever on the function of the data presentation in the pages that use the bot. None of these tables, as far as I've seen, rely on the visual presence of the actual image to fulfill their purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is progressing in a direction that does belong here. It seems this may need to be a discussion of the appropriate flag this particular bot operator must possess. Non response to community concerns is certainly a valid reason for that discussion. You MUST make the bot operate in a community approved fashion. The community doesn't need to change to accommodate your bot. What's hard to understand? Your utility in coding your bot is NOT a factor. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Also after Listeriabot we would need to fix X-bot, Y-bot, and Z-Bot as well as the brains of 1000 editors ... Na, way better to fix the filename. That makes it absolutely clear that it is non-free. Another option were to have a "force commons option that bypasses the local filespace. But I think the real problem, that "we" want the problem to exist. Agathoclea (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agathoclea, and? A wholesale revision to Wikipedia practice to fix a trivially fixable problem with a bot doesn't seem like a great idea. Guy (help!) 21:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I see it as a systemic problem, the situation with the bot just a symptom. Agathoclea (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agathoclea, and? A wholesale revision to Wikipedia practice to fix a trivially fixable problem with a bot doesn't seem like a great idea. Guy (help!) 21:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Also after Listeriabot we would need to fix X-bot, Y-bot, and Z-Bot as well as the brains of 1000 editors ... Na, way better to fix the filename. That makes it absolutely clear that it is non-free. Another option were to have a "force commons option that bypasses the local filespace. But I think the real problem, that "we" want the problem to exist. Agathoclea (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
"The whole issue could be solved in a much simpler way if the bot was made to simply not insert the images "
The images are needed, and used, by people checking sets of articles produced by the bot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is progressing in a direction that does belong here. It seems this may need to be a discussion of the appropriate flag this particular bot operator must possess. Non response to community concerns is certainly a valid reason for that discussion. You MUST make the bot operate in a community approved fashion. The community doesn't need to change to accommodate your bot. What's hard to understand? Your utility in coding your bot is NOT a factor. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'll reiterate my (and Squirrel Conspiracy's) suggestion from above: The whole issue could be solved in a much simpler way if the bot was made to simply not insert the images but only link to them. That would (a) solve the shadowing issue because the links could point unambiguously to Commons, (b) solve the larger issue of potentially bad (copyvio) Commons files being inserted without human review, (c) remove all problems of efficiency and bandwidth, and (d) have no negative effect whatsoever on the function of the data presentation in the pages that use the bot. None of these tables, as far as I've seen, rely on the visual presence of the actual image to fulfill their purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: It wouldn't be efficient, though - the bot would have to check through *every* file to make sure that it doesn't include a specific template (which may be some way down the transclusion chain), and it would have to do so *every* time it updates the page. Meanwhile, we could just move the file once, and that would solve it. Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
iPhone SE (2020) non-admin closure
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@GeoffreyT2000: performed a non-admin closure of this discussion. I would like a neutral administrator to review the decision, and perform the deletions if needed. My reading of the consensus was to draftify IPhone SE (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and delete IPhone 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In both circumstances, the resultant redirects (as well as the redirects listed in the AFD) should be deleted, not retargetted per WP:CSD#G8 as they are unlikely to be a title a user would input (and the current target is not ideal as it simply takes the victim to IPhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not to be unduly bureaucratic but I think one uses Wikipedia:Deletion review for reviewing AFD closes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: You should first discuss the close with the user in question on their talk page. If you cannot agree on the matter, you can indeed use WP:DRV to request a formal review. --MrClog (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus and MrClog: DRV is one venue, however per WP:NACD:
Closures may only be reopened [...] by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; [...]
(emphasis added). I'll also add, from WP:NACD, that two of the reasons NOT to perform a non-admin closure areClose calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins
(I believe this qualifies) andNon-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement
(even assuming the two draftify's stand, the redirects should have been deleted per WP:CSD#G8 and only an administrator can delete pages). Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 11:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)- @Locke Cole: A DRV would be needed to first overturn the close (if discussion with the closer does not simply result in them undoing their close). If deletion is required, an admin will do so. Admins look at other noticeboards too you know! — MarkH21talk 11:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @MarkH21:
A DRV would be needed to first overturn the close
... that's not what WP:NACD says. It lists DRV as one possible venue. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @MarkH21:
- Locke Cole: non-admin new page reviewers draftify pages all the time, and nominate the redirect per G8. I don't think said rule bars non-admins from draftifying articles. Regardless, I do believe it is appropriate for you to discuss a close with the closer first, before filing a request here, as to prevent any unnecessary drama. --MrClog (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @MrClog: I'm good with the outcome here, thank you for your concern. There is no drama on my end. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: A DRV would be needed to first overturn the close (if discussion with the closer does not simply result in them undoing their close). If deletion is required, an admin will do so. Admins look at other noticeboards too you know! — MarkH21talk 11:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm actually going to reverse my close, since technically an uninvolved admin can revert a NAC without it formally going through the DRV process. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- For what it’s worth, getting an administrator to overturn a bad NAC unilaterally is almost always a better option than DRV, so the process complaints really aren’t an issue. I wouldn’t overturn because we’d normally just refund them to draft anyway if someone asked since these are obviously going to be notable in a few months, but yeah, there’s no need for a DRV over a NAC. Just bug an admin on their talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: My initial idea was to contact an admin directly, but I didn't want to be seen as cherry-picking my favorite admin to get the result I wanted. That being said, while I think the draft of iPhone 12 is going to be completely different once the page is moved to article-space at some point in the distant future (and it's highly unlikely any source presently used will remain), I don't object to it being in draft-space. Honestly the major concern to me was all the redirects that were also up for deletion being left (and presumably the two redirects created when the two pages were draftified). If an admin could nuke the redirects, I think that would close this discussion and the DRV discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
ResolvedHello admins, or any template editor! I have made an edit request at Template talk:Infobox outbreak#Edit Request – 12 April 2020. The "website" parameter is broken. This is an IAR post, because I think the sooner it fixed the better, as the websites in our infoboxes for COVID articles by countries are likely to be more up-to-date and reliable than many of our articles they are currently linked from. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Resignation of member, AGK
Last month, I accepted a position on the Wikimedia Foundation ombudsman commission, a body that assists in resolving complaints across all Wikimedia Foundation projects about the privacy, checkuser, and oversight policies. I feel sure that the other members have sufficient experience, diversity of style, and time to carry on without my input. Rather than sitting on both bodies, I am today resigning as a member of the Arbitration Committee. AGK ■ 16:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
NOTHERE user
Hi. User:GiacomoValenti is clearly WP:NOTHERE after being approached by several users on his talk page. He refuses to adhere. I think action is now necessary. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Could possibly have made a new account User:Gennaro "Jerry" Di Gregorio. Also both accounts may not meet the username requirements. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
- Jytdog (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog closed
Page move fix
I was trying to move Red Three (espionage) to Red Three, as it's an unnecessary disambiguation. But I accidentally moved it to Red Three (esp - slip of my finger on mobile. I've reverted that move, but it won't let me move the article to Red Three over the redirect. Please can an admin action this for me? There's no need for the disambiguation in the name, as Red Three redirects to Red Three (espionage) anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Done. In the future you can make requests like this at WP:RMT — Wug·a·po·des 01:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Help needed with some moves
- See in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=950645337 , the section "Moves needing help from someone with oversight". I tried to obey the first move, and it refused "took more than 3 seconds, ran out of time", and it asked me to move the page and its talk page and all its subpages one at a time. So, as a start, I moved Wikipedia:Introduction by itself, and it worked, Then I moved Wikipedia talk:Introduction by itself and it refused "ran out of time" and system fault, several times. So, to restore to the starting setup, I tried to move Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) back to Wikipedia:Introduction by itself, and it refused "ran out of time" and system fault, several times. So, to make the page and its subpages work, I copied the current edit of Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) back to Wikipedia:Introduction by itself. It looks like it needs someone with oversight to obey these moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're asking about oversight. But if you're getting database errors, you might need help from a system administrator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- The original requested moves were:
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Wikipedia:Introduction (currently a redirect to Help:Introduction) → Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) – per Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Proposal: Redirect this page and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction. Requester Sdkb also requested original target point to Help:Introduction. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Tutorial (currently a redirect to Help:Introduction) → Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical) – per Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Proposal: Redirect this page and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction. Requester Sdkb also requested original target point to Help:Introduction. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I asked about oversight because some of the involved pages had over 3000 edits. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Anthony Appleyard, oversighters don't have any special rights except hiding and un-hiding edits. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: Any chance that you might be able to lend a helping hand with these page moves (that is, in your capacity as a sysadmin)? Or would a Phabricator ticket be the preferred way to go? OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @OhKayeSierra: I can surely help. Do you want me to try to move Wikipedia:Introduction to Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) and Wikipedia:Tutorial to Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical), right? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Introduction appears to be already moved through... --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Martin Urbanec: Yes. It seems that Wikipedia:Introduction was moved without any issues, which only leaves Wikipedia:Tutorial to Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical). Anthony Appleyard, Does that sound about right? OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @OhKayeSierra, Martin Urbanec, and Rotideypoc41352: See Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Implementation for a history of what has happened. What needs doing is:
- To restore the status quo ante and bring everything back together that should be together, move Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) back to Wikipedia:Introduction by itself, and not any talk pages or subpages with it :: it has at least 15000 edits :: no wonder that trying to move it causes snags and system faults.
- Move Wikipedia:Introduction to Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) and all its subpages, if the system lets you do it. Wikipedia's difficulty in handling pages with a very long edit history (say over 5000 edits) has been a nuisance to me for a long time.
- Or, directly move all of Wikipedia:Introduction's subpages and talk pages etc to be subpages and talk pages etc of Wikipedia:Introduction (historical), but do not move Wikipedia:Introduction itself. For a list of the subpages, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Introduction/&namespace=4 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Introduction/&namespace=5. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Stale MfD nominations
Hi, I discovered in the Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion that there are a large number of stale tags for closed MfD discussions, including 5 nominations that were not properly completed and three that were listed as a result of an improper substitution or transclusion. One of these was an MfD from 2017. Why can't we get a bot to do this automatically? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have also found a redirect (Whatisthematrix) with a stale RfD tag. (Someone please check CfD for me.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- The Qian Wang Amy sandboxes don't qualify for G4, because they're not restorations of the deleted article in articlespace. If the sandboxes had been deleted at MfD then reposted they would qualify for G4. Otherwise, being deleted at AfD would automatically make sandbox or userspace draft versions of articles subject to deletion, which isn't customarily the case as far as I know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've done through the rest of the cat and cleared any that should have been deleted (a couple were my closures, not sure what happened - I use XfDcloser, possibly it had a hiccup). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- There are also stale or incomplete TfD's nominated for merging, such as {{ACT Greens/meta/color}}. My Internet connection is clogged up, and I need to go to bed, so could someone go through the rest of CAT:XFD for me? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Can someone delete
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Draft:Liam Flynn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) It appears to be created as a test but it looks like vandalism to me. I tagged it for speedy deletion with Huggle, but no admin has gotten to deleting the page or declining the deletion. Huggle also somehow courtesy blanked the page as well. :) Aasim 07:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Can someone else deal with the article, I am finding the current editor on that highly disruptive. Govvy (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Govvy: see your talk page. --I Mertex I (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
New Covid-19 stay at home edits and editors?
Are there updated stats comparing edits and additional editors since before and after the Covid-19 lockdowns have gone into effect? Listen to Wikipedia (listen
- As an anecdotal evidence, I have now less time for Wikipedia, not more time. I am definitely more busy than in usual circumstances.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Both the active editor count and the daily number of edits are virtually unchanged. As Ymblanter correctly says, for many (perhaps most) of us the current situation means less spare time, not more. ‑ Iridescent 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Little increase in editing activity, but I see a year-on-year increase of (very roughly) about 50 million page views, or 15%, here. — MarkH21talk 16:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you break that rise down, that increase appears to occur solely on Mobile Web, without any corresponding significant increase from either Desktop or Mobile App. I'd be prepared to bet a reasonable sum that it's an artefact of a software bug, since if it were down to more people staying at home and surfing the net we'd expect a drop in mobile views and a spike from desktop. ‑ Iridescent 16:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know; I would expect the opposite. A lot of desktop traffic probably comes from people at work, school, or in libraries. I know a lot of people who still don't have desktop computers at home, and when I'm at home, even though I do have a desktop computer, I find myself more likely to use my mobile device for most things.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Some people have more time... Some have less. Even having more people with more time doesn't promote more people to be interested in this project. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you break that rise down, that increase appears to occur solely on Mobile Web, without any corresponding significant increase from either Desktop or Mobile App. I'd be prepared to bet a reasonable sum that it's an artefact of a software bug, since if it were down to more people staying at home and surfing the net we'd expect a drop in mobile views and a spike from desktop. ‑ Iridescent 16:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Little increase in editing activity, but I see a year-on-year increase of (very roughly) about 50 million page views, or 15%, here. — MarkH21talk 16:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- rather, I think that for many people the effect of the restrictions--and the implications for the general state of the world in the next year or so--is so discouraging that they tend not to want to do anything active at all, but just passive media consumption. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a librarian with faculty status, I've been telecommuting since the end of last month, and I have a good deal less free time than normal. Can't speak for others, but I know part of the issue is that I've been getting more evening-and-weekend emails from students and faculty than normal, probably because the students aren't spending evenings/weekends with friends like normal, and because they're working with the distractions of family all day, respectively. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. So much of the world is actually busier, I wouldn't have thought that. This one surprises me, overall-site edits and editors: "virtually unchanged", "little increase in activity". That seems a ripe research subject for sociology or psychology students working on the topic of Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a librarian with faculty status, I've been telecommuting since the end of last month, and I have a good deal less free time than normal. Can't speak for others, but I know part of the issue is that I've been getting more evening-and-weekend emails from students and faculty than normal, probably because the students aren't spending evenings/weekends with friends like normal, and because they're working with the distractions of family all day, respectively. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Both the active editor count and the daily number of edits are virtually unchanged. As Ymblanter correctly says, for many (perhaps most) of us the current situation means less spare time, not more. ‑ Iridescent 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Needs attention from admins. My request, currently the oldest request on the list, has been there for well over a month. InvalidOStalk 15:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Are you really sure you want that request reviewed? Using AWB to "get rid of weasel words and puffery" sounds like a recipe for a fast track to an indefinite block. ‑ Iridescent 15:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
ResolvedCould uninvolved admins please weigh in regarding closure of the ongoing RFC at the Joe Biden page, as well as the indefinitely continued full page protection? Thanks in advance. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Which one? There are two open RFCs, and I'm guessing you're referring to a third that has hit 30 days? Primefac (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Also, just as a note, WP:ANRFC is the place to put "please close RFC" requests
- I think Mr Ernie means the second one—Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?—where it looks like there is support for early closure due to changing circumstances (i.e. new coverage in mainstream U.S. sources). Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- There should be no indefinite full protection on a Wikipedia article. I have never seen a case like this. The admin who protected the page should unprotect.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I would advise against removing the full protection. The underlying situation has developed during the course of the RfC. Given those new facts and the tone of the discussion during the RfC, the edit warring can be expected to resume within minutes if there's not time to hash out any new article text on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with the need for full protection. It aides in WP:STONEWALLING - inadvertently or otherwise - and should be removed, be it for the appearance of POV pushing, stonewalling, or noncompliance with what achieving WP:CONSENSUS dictates. The PP was about a controversial single addition to the article which has now become a case of whitewashing/stonewalling inclusion when taking into consideration WP:DUE based on the RS that have published and support inclusion. Atsme Talk 📧 22:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I posted a request for close at WP:ANRFC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note from protecting admin This was an arbitration enforcement action logged here. I explained the decision and where to appeal it two weeks ago in this edit. Per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:ONUS the only condition for unprotection is consensus for the inclusion or exclusion of the content. As explained in the enforcement log, the indefinite protection is a technical matter so that the page---originally indefinitely semi-protected---does not lapse into unprotection. — Wug·a·po·des 22:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- So, Wugapodes, the procedure would be to find specific consensus text on the talk page and then request to have it added to the article? If so, I think this is a constructive way forward. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please help initiate a team close with uninvolved administrators. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I believe Thryduulf offered to (help) close. — Wug·a·po·des 23:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, I did offer to help with closing this, and that offer still stands. Given the subject matter and the contentiousness of the discussion I think a team closure would be best. I got a notification that Mz7 has sent me an email that (based on the subject line) is regarding this, but I haven't had opportunity to read it yet. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, I'd be willing to pitch into the close here, and I've sent Thryduulf an email with some of my initial thoughts. Mz7 (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mz7, feel free to use the Trump and Kavanaugh articles as guidelines in what Wikipedia allows for inclusion because I assume you don't want the world to think Wikipedia is biased. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf and Mz7: Thanks both. Do you happen to have an estimate for when to expect a closure? Reading through the most recent comments at the RfC, I think the page can be unprotected soon, but if your closure is imminent I'd rather the closure and unprotection be coordinated. If you think it will be more than a day or two, I'd prefer unprotecting sooner rather than later. — Wug·a·po·des 23:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not going to be able to take a look until tomorrow UK time, so realistically you're looking at 12 hours at an absolute minimum assuming we get a third volunteer between now and then. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, This needs closure by the first Admin that sees it. NYT and WaPo have published this, as well as NBC, MSNBC, and pretty much all the other major players. There are ZERO concerns of DUE that can be raised. At this point we are running headlong into WP:NOTCENSORED being the argument for inclusion. We don't want to appear politically biased and I fear that any further delay on reporting this will make us appear so. I don't think this needs multiple admin closure any more as any close is so clear cut as to be uncontroversial. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Insertcleverphrasehere I think Thryduulf may be away until tomorrow. I've posted on Mz7's talk page about an interim solution. I'm hoping to get this resolved quickly but deliberately; the last thing I want is hasty decisions leading to more problems. I expect to unprotect the page by 1:30 UTC. — Wug·a·po·des 00:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: Wugapodes and others, I have gone ahead and closed the discussion by myself. I've personally apologized to Thryduulf on his talk page, but I agree with the assessment that this close is not as controversial as it might have been several days ago. Wugapodes, I hope this helps resolve the protection issue you were talking to me about. Mz7 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Insertcleverphrasehere I think Thryduulf may be away until tomorrow. I've posted on Mz7's talk page about an interim solution. I'm hoping to get this resolved quickly but deliberately; the last thing I want is hasty decisions leading to more problems. I expect to unprotect the page by 1:30 UTC. — Wug·a·po·des 00:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, This needs closure by the first Admin that sees it. NYT and WaPo have published this, as well as NBC, MSNBC, and pretty much all the other major players. There are ZERO concerns of DUE that can be raised. At this point we are running headlong into WP:NOTCENSORED being the argument for inclusion. We don't want to appear politically biased and I fear that any further delay on reporting this will make us appear so. I don't think this needs multiple admin closure any more as any close is so clear cut as to be uncontroversial. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not going to be able to take a look until tomorrow UK time, so realistically you're looking at 12 hours at an absolute minimum assuming we get a third volunteer between now and then. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, I'd be willing to pitch into the close here, and I've sent Thryduulf an email with some of my initial thoughts. Mz7 (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, I did offer to help with closing this, and that offer still stands. Given the subject matter and the contentiousness of the discussion I think a team closure would be best. I got a notification that Mz7 has sent me an email that (based on the subject line) is regarding this, but I haven't had opportunity to read it yet. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I believe Thryduulf offered to (help) close. — Wug·a·po·des 23:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
There is still no sign of consensus on any article text. Some editors feel strongly that this is a valid credible complaint and that it was suppressed for political reasons. Other editors feel that the complaint is dubious, uncorroborated, or flawed in various ways. The edit war will resume if article text is not agreed before protection is lifted. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- The specific wording can be handled by normal editorial processes. As Atsme and others have pointed out, the harms of keeping it fully protected are quickly beginning to outweigh the benefits. I doubt autoconfirmed editors will continue an edit ar after the RfC, and even if edit warring continues after lowering protection it would be better addressed by blocks at this point. — Wug·a·po·des 00:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the goal is prevention
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit by a trusted administrator just happened and it broke through PP at Joe Biden. If an editor cannot make such an edit (bypass PP), is it acceptable for an involved admin to do so? I am here asking for clarity in an effort to avoid fit from hitting the shan. On the surface, it appears to be inappropriate but I will gladly stand corrected if that is not the case - provided it is based on WP policy. Thank you in advance...Atsme Talk 📧 22:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- That seems like an obvious non-controversial fact (Sanders publicly endorsing Biden) that no one can question, and of sufficient import to be added that its reasonably for even an involved editor to add. It would be similar to, say, adding to a fully-protected BLP that the person had died, or the like. If the addition included any quotes or other details, that might have been over the edge. --Masem (t) 22:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I see the spirit of WP:PREFER as saying that it's generally better for involved administrators to not edit through protection. I doubt inclusion of an endorsement by Biden's last competitor would be controversial and would have been an edit request eventually, so while the optics aren't ideal, it feels like a WP:NOTBURO situation. — Wug·a·po·des 22:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am the guilty one. I identified my edit as going through full protection, as I always do. I felt it was important, headline news - Sanders' endorsement of Biden - that I believed needed to be in the article. Maybe I should have posted at the talk page first to ask consensus before adding it? If that's what people want I can revert until there is consensus -- MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC) P.S. I hadn't really thought of myself as involved but I see that I have made a few edits to the article and made some comments at the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Since you are "guilty" then self-revert. I disagree with your incomplete addition. You should have added that Sanders endorsement was to unite the party.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Seriously? You'd rather have no info and quibble about inclusion of Sanders' motive than actually have it in there? WP:IAR. This edit was a clear benefit to the encyclopedia, not done with any malice or ill-intent, and worded in a way that is NPOV, clear, and accurate. Removing it would be a disservice and pointless in the long run. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I added the plain fact. No motives, no quotes, no analysis. That can come later when the article is re-opened to editing. Or people can read the reference source. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Your incomplete addition is making Brine Sanders look bad it mentions that indorsement without mentioning the reason. I don't think Bernie Sanders would want to endorse someone who is accused of sexual assault. You should build a consensus in the talk page instead of using your admin powers wrongly by editing fully protected page.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I added the plain fact. No motives, no quotes, no analysis. That can come later when the article is re-opened to editing. Or people can read the reference source. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Seriously? You'd rather have no info and quibble about inclusion of Sanders' motive than actually have it in there? WP:IAR. This edit was a clear benefit to the encyclopedia, not done with any malice or ill-intent, and worded in a way that is NPOV, clear, and accurate. Removing it would be a disservice and pointless in the long run. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Since you are "guilty" then self-revert. I disagree with your incomplete addition. You should have added that Sanders endorsement was to unite the party.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- To me, it seems like the sort of thing that obviously should be in the article, to the point that seeking consensus first would just be perfunctory. But I haven't been following that article much until today, so if this would potentially be controversial, then consensus should have been sought first. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, I agree 100% and I don't see how MelanieM is not involved as an admin in American Politics. If a page is protected, then an edit needs an edit request. Her actions are a violation of her admin capabilities to bypass normal editing restrictions. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think an allegation of rape that is making world news is much more obvious to include in the article than Bernie's expected endorsement. In this context it does feel inappropriate to make almost any edit to the article. It is a plain fact that Tara Reid has made an allegation of sexual assault against Joe Biden. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- That is a question related to BLP policy. A factual statement that Sanders backed Biden has zero BLP implications, and thus only needs an RS to back it, it's also extreme DUE given the election. The statement that some person has accused Biden of sexual assault immediately requires us to take caution under BLP to see how the media will take the charges. If they give them weight and validate elements, then there might be reason to include, but per BLP, we don't include, on first mention, such accusations unless it becomes UNDUE not to include. --Masem (t) 23:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I have to admit that the arguments here do not make sense to me. But I have reverted my edit and posted a place for discussion at the talk page. And I apologize for assuming that this would be obviously uncontroversial. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Remove some of my user rights
Hey, I haven't been very active here in the last year or so and not at all in the last 6 months; it started because I became very busy with real life, but then I wasn't really motivated to get back to editing here. Could I have my new page reviewer and pending changes reviewer rights revoked, just so they're not lying on an inactive account for no reason? Autopatrolled I don't care about either, but I would prefer to have rollback just in case I happen to find a vandal edit while reading the wiki. Thanks to all, --SkyGazer 512 My talk page 03:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Done TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Blatantly abusive newbie editor
Surpalsingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Three abuses in the contribs page itself, and more on his talk page. His user page says, "I'm your dad", for whatever that is worth. Please read the riot act to him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)