Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:02, 10 September 2011

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

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

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

Request to close a guideline proposal

Could an admin please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian and close it? A fair warning—there is a lot of reading involved, but hopefully I was able to summarize the discussion in the Motion to close section (apart from a few minor points, the proposal has support, and the last comments of any substance were made in the beginning of July). Thanks in advance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 23, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that a part of the discussion has now been archived by the bot but should still be considered during closure. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2011; 13:31 (UTC)

Ezhiki (talk · contribs), would you restore that part of the discussion that was archived by the bot? Then remove that discussion from the archives. Please also combine the related sections (including the archived section and the motion to close section) and provide a direct link to it. This will allow admins to clearly see which discussion should be closed. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent suggestion; thanks. I've unarchived the relevant portions of the discussion and placed them under one header. The link to the portion that needs to be reviewed and closed is Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Convenience header.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 13:36 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features

Would admins close the various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features? Started on 14 July 2011, the discussion has occurred for over 30 days. RFC�bot�(talk�� contribs) removed the expired RfC template on 13 August 2011.

Perhaps admins can use Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closure. Admins close the different proposals on the page with summaries of the consensuses, and when the all the discussions have been closed, the entire RfC is closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MER-C�(talk�� contribs), for closing many of the proposals. Many of them remain open. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP topic ban for La goutte de pluie

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie, consensus is to ban La�goutte�de�pluie�(talk�� contribs�� deleted�contribs�� logs�� filter�log�� block�user�� block�log) from all BLPs widely constructed. This includes talk pages, and deletion discussions. Since RfCs are non-binding but with a community discussion; but WP:AN or WP:ANI community decisions are binding. It was 7 days since the proposal arraign. The ban will be 3 months, but will become indefinite if problems persist. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 19:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Per my comments in this part of the RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As proposer here, and as supporter there. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 20:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above user may not be the most impartial editor to start the RFC, and has yet to elucidate his or her own arguments, other than pursuing a witch hunt against me. See such comments that Ebe has made like this one and an Ebe's attempt to cover the comment up. elle _{v�cut heureuse} ^{� jamais} (be free) 06:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had the right to remove it, WP:TPO permits it. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 21:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I want to get involved in this particularly, but there were 21 minutes between your addition and subsequent removal, in which time other editors had not only viewed but contributed to the page. TPO advises you not to substantially edit your comments after the fact, by saying 'it is best to avoid changing your own comments', and that you should consider striking text instead of deleting it. Complete removal of comments can be seen as both discourteous and deceptive, which is why TPO firmly suggests using other options. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who suggested this at the RfC, but I suggested it for 3 months, to be changed to indefinite if the conduct in question resumed after that. I also suggested that since the editing in question involved the deliberate and persistent addition of negative material, it be interpreted to include talk pagers of articles on LP, and deletion discussions about those articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding that.
I seem to be attracting opposition based on the intentions, rather than actual behaviour. Can someone inform me where they have reverted me (or raised concerns on a talk page) because of such concerns? I am puzzled because the talk pages -- which I am often the major poster on -- remain empty of the supporters of the proposal here. Have they attempted to use a) article discussion b) and on that matter, why prohibit discussion? This seems to go against the spirit of the project. elle _{v�cut heureuse} ^{� jamais} (be free) 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support along the lines of DGG. Agathoclea (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral, leaning~~ oppose as I stated on the rfc, I'm not convinced that LGDP is actively adding inappropriate negative information. She did some inappropriate stuff with the tools, and has voluntarily given them up after recall. She has voiced an opinion which does not represent the spirit of WP policy and Jimbo himself has weighed in pointing this out. As such, I'm concerned that there will be a pile on support - where it may not be correct. I'm already concerned that some of the rfc contributors are "out for blood". I'd prefer that we make it clear that we do not "punish" good faith editing, even when it does not meet our standards, and revisit if issues reappear. Worm^TT�� (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
After a short conversation with LGDP, and her clarification below, I am confident that whilst she may hold an opinion regarding COI, she will edit in accordance with policy. Wikipedian's are not banned from areas based on the opinions hold, only if they edit tenditiously. I do not see evidence that she has edited BLPs in such a manner. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, though? How about "(adding) tribute to govt resume-style" by stating "Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem"? Is that not tendentious editing to "punish" COI on a BLP? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, really. I agree, the edit you point out is not a good one - introducing a definite POV statement where it was previously a resume. If I'd seen it, I'd have reverted it. But even so, a topic ban on all BLPs broadly construed appears excessive for the level of issue. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Worm. Except that to the extent it matters, I would oppose a ban right now. My76Strat (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming that she still makes such edits in good faith. What I've seen does not indicate such, in my view. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never opposed or sought to "punish" good faith editing. Though frequently we can observe (with certain exceptions) that people with undeclared COIs generally edit out of bad faith. For that matter, I have always sought to comply with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. You could explain point out which edits (not opinions!) of mine have warranted this ban. I am curious, because so far all of this seems concerned about what I may do, and not what I have done. I reassure everyone that my editing will comply with policy, and I will collaborate with anyone concerned. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This has been a long-term issue and needs to be dealt with with a long-term solution, and this is a start. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have never explained your support for talk page restrictions, nor are you actually addressing any of the arguments here. Consensus is not a vote. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for two reasons. First, I'm increasingly seeing BLP being used not for its intended purpose, but as something to bludgeon opponents in an argument with. That meta-point aside, I too am not seeing any evidence that she's added negative, unsourced information to articles. She's removed some positive information from some people's biographies, but in the main area of contention (Singaporean politics), there is a very real problem with IPs adding overly promotional material to these articles as well, and while some removals may not be good it's not hard to see how she could make a mistake sometimes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3 months is a fair amount of time to allow the community to discern the real issues in the topic area and protect it from what amounts to "reverse vandalism": Over-zealousness in this case turned out to be as disruptive if not more than the actual issue being dealt with are/were. 3 months is a relatively mild topic ban, specially in the background of the continued combativeness of LGP and her seeming inability to get the point, so arguments that people are "out for blood" are simple exaggeration. I see nothing punitive in this. --Cerejota (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out which edits of mine have been disruptive? How can edits that comply with policy be disruptive? Where have I been "overzealous"? I am sorry for my repeated entreaties, but people here have cited my opinions on COI editors and not my edits. I do not think I have been obstinate, as you allege. elle _{v�cut heureuse} ^{� jamais} (be free) 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and I agree with Cerejota. Virtuaoski (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote, and I have reason to believe you are jumping on a bandwagon simply because I have opposed you in the past over such things as COI tags and clarifying the premed system for Tony Tan Keng Yam. Could you present some form of argument, perhaps explaining which edits you found warranted a ban? elle _{v�cut heureuse} ^{� jamais} (be free) 00:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated my views in the RfC Q&A, and described your use of inappropriate sources, and your use of original research, which I now view in the context of your desire to "punish COI editing". In my comments in the RfC, I referred to my comments in the talk page for Tony Tan Keng Yam, pointing out your edits that I found problematic: your putting words into Tony Tan's mouth to "fight some of the promotionalism on this article", driven by your view of the other editors. I was disturbed by your baseless accusations, your weird edits, and refusal to admit consensus. I found your edits to "fight some of the promotionalism" in that article, followed by your insisting that you were editing in accordance with policy, most disruptive. I note that despite my many efforts to explain my views in the RfC and the various talk pages, you are right now accusing me of "jumping on the bandwagon" and insinuating certain motives to me because you 'opposed' me (whatever that means), and further that you are asking me and other editors here for clarification despite these issues being well described in the RfC. I have already read your response to the RfC, and I think the issues raised in the RfC still stand. Virtuaoski (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose conditionally. Elle absolutely needs to acknowledge that "punishing COI" or "eradicating COI editing" by unsound editing are not appropriate goals on Wikipedia. However, adding relevant content and especially balancing articles with a strong POV are not inappropriate, and much of what she's done may fall into that. Which in my mind is not truly "punishment" since the next good editor should have come along and done something like that anyway, without any special point in mind - more a diplomatic failure than anything else. But if she doesn't acknowledge that, eventually harsher action is inevitable. Wnt (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The idea that we should 'punish' people for conflict of interest editing by adding negative information to their biographies is abhorrent. While Elle has partially backpedaled from that view, the backpedaling has only been partial, with weak claims that we should do it only by adding information to make the articles neutral - the motive of punishment has not been rejected, and indeed continues to be defended. That view, if held generally by Wikipedians, would be incredibly destructive - and rightfully so - to our reputation. We must always been ethical and above reproach, sensitive, supportive, loving and kind to all, and this vindictive spirit has no place in our work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimbo, perhaps you have not substantially edited an article for long, long time. Perhaps it's been a really long while since you have directly dealt with aggressive, anonymous COI users who repeatedly come back across in different incarnations and across a wide range of unblockable IPs, and try to masquerade bad faith edits as good faith ones. In this case, blocking can only do so much as a deterrence against such behaviour. I am all for Wikilove for editors (and yes ones with a COI) who seek to cooperate with the project. It is entirely a different matter for those who wish to game the project's policies at every turn. As Wikipedia's importance increases, the incentive to subvert the project by those with no real interest in "noble editing" will only increase. I propose other remedies too -- expanding the scope of CheckUser to investigate such abusers' real life identities in especially egregrious cases, and attracting the attention of the press -- see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, which I myself started. Many people were of the opinion that more active actions than mere blocking should take place. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am an active editor, doing content edits almost every single day. My primary area of interest as a content editor is the UK House of Lords, and so I run into COI editing with some regularity. My experience tells me that WP:AGF works - approaching people with kindness and professionalism and respect changes their minds in most cases, and that most COI editing starts with a valid grievance that can be addressed with neutrality. It is a shame that rather than reconsidering what the community is telling you, you are attacking others, including me. As others have noted: the goal of resolving problems with COI editing is a noble and justified goal. But your combative approach is not the right way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - May you not understand, that a full BLP ban is completely wrong. Do you really edit Wikipedia everyday almost? If so, I'd be surprised...
      
      Anyway, the violations in question don't just warrant a full BLP ban. Respectively, Hinata talk 00:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the three month time limit seems about right. The comments about "punishing" people with a conflict of interest were made only a few weeks ago, which IMHO is still a fresh attitude. When the ban expires, it would be helpful to see a more collegial attitude. --Jayron32 04:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After I expressed my opinion here, La goutte de pluie's comments above have only strengthened my opinion that she be banned from this topic area. It is clear that her "us vs. them" mentality isn't conducive towards collaborative editing. Yes, people do frequently misuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes, but her attitude evidenced above is NOT how we fix that problem. --Jayron32 04:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a reconciliatory approach to most COI editors -- please see the many articles tagged for speedy deletion which I saved with my own research, and my many friendly advice I gave to the innocent users involved, even those with COI. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this returning user has been a train crash since the very first returning edit. Desyopped and now apparently on a mission to rid the project of promo COI additions.Off2riorob (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly debate the methods which she has used, and I too have misgivings about some of it, but are you seriously telling me that removing promotional material from biographies of living people is a bad mission to have? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was on the fence about this, but the below 'Previous consensus to punish COI' sub-discussion started by La goutte de pluie indicates that this is an ongoing, and serious, problem. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out this problem in my editing behaviour by citing a few articles or diffs instead of guessing what I will do based on my opinions? I am merely proposing more aggressive means of dealing with COI -- I intend to start a Village Pump proposal when appropriate -- and I intend to refer all contentious matters to the community. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Oppose. Reason: I have changed to Oppose the ban, because I think this user is discussing the issues in a relatively calm, thoughtful manner, across multiple WP languages. This ban gives a 3-month delay from BLP-punishment rewrites, until other users can decide (consensus) how to deal with WP:COI users who have written vanity pages, resumes, and company-factsheets with only glowing (not NPOV-neutral wording). However, user LGDP can help matters, more, by being an active member in BLP discussions. Yes, COI articles need the negative text (to balance positive), but that must be done without WP:UNDUE weight of negatives. For the May 2011 Dominique Strauss-Kahn case (now dismissed in New York), I tried 3 times to emphasize how the hotel-maid allegations might be a faked, conspiracy, but other editors kept deleting text to make the article seem more negative than the actual reports of a set-up to frame a wealthy, famous person (DSK). WP needs to be careful pushing negative bio-data, so this 3-month break gives time to discuss pros/cons of how to deter COI editors who are pushing their glowing vanity pages, how to give those pages neutral+negative balance, and to avoid a "witch hunt" against COI editors, many of whom seem to be helping WP in other ways. However, the ban should allow discussions and editing lists of troublesome BLP articles. Let the discussions continue. -Wikid77 06:04, revised 16:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never edited Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I did post on the talk page and encouraged editors to work with the French Wikipedia to discourage systemic bias on both projects; the French have their own version of the article, with the "French point of view". I am amenable to more fruitful remedies. All any person has to do is use the article talk pages. So far, except for Singaporean politicians, no one has opposed me in article talk pages or through reversions for making COI-related changes to a BLP.

Why do you assume I would be out to frame a wealthy, famous person? I simply wish to write neutral articles (I have never backpedaled on this issue). I do not witch hunt COI editors.

P.S. I am in fact rather sympathetic to the idea that the whole thing might be a setup, but you need to use reliable sources. Some French newspapers however, have echoed this view. Where were you opposed? I have no opinion on DSK, other than that BLP is being invoked excessively to suppress reliably-sourced criticism. At the same time, statements from French sources alleging a conspiracy (which I heard first hand through an esteemed friend at the Sciences Po) should be allowed, provided they are from reliable sources. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have reversed my decision, and now Oppose the ban, to support you in continuing to discuss and resolve these COI issues. Thank you for your patience: it is a complex situation to see what has been happening. -Wikid77 16:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The attempted cherypicking from a 5 year old RFC (below) sealed it for me. LGDP has gone from the sublime to the absurd in one apparently easy step. Any concept of punishment has absolutely zero place in this project. Agreeably COI is a problem, but this is never a solution. As such, it's best to keep LGDP away from areas where their concepts of punishment have been problematic, and apparently will continue to be problematic. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per RfC, the discussion here, and the editors responses to both; unless La goutte de pluie indicates that they have an understanding of consensus, and its application, and specifically where they disagree with said consensus, I feel it would be disruptive to allow them to edit any area where they disagree with the other editors - they do not seem capable of editing to any other viewpoint on an issue other than their own, and are prepared to vigorously argue every point and to ascribe motives other than good faith and dedication to the project for any contrary viewpoint. I would not have supported if there had been any indication that the editor was prepared to accept the consensus of others, even while maintaining their position within discussions and dispute resolution processes, but there is no evidence of it. I would adjust the language of the proposed ban, in the light of my observations, to that of "Indefinite, to be reviewed not before a period of 3 months." but will accept the language proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm completely uninvolved in this issue as far as I know, but having read the RfC, the current RFAr, and the statements made by Elle on this thread and elsewhere, it is clear to me that she is not willing to surrender the idea of "reverse POV-pushing" to punish COI. Despite her assurances that she edits according to policy, she also seems to be saying that as long as her "punishment" technically toes the line of policy, she feels she's in the right to carry it out. No, that's not ok. We're an encyclopedia, a neutral one, not a black-ops organization. We don't punish for the sake of punishment, we don't hurt, and we don't violate the spirit of our policies just to get back at someone who annoys us - whether that person is operating in bad faith, good faith, or just ignorance. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)
Oppose. I sympathize a great deal with Wikid77 below; we sanction disruptive behavior, not untenable viewpoints. Although the idea of using article content as a direct and deliberate deterrent is utterly wrong-headed (for reasons outlined many places elsewhere, and which I shall not repeat here), the proper response to that is for the community to reject, rather than penalize, those ideas. I will strongly urge Elle to drop the argument here, and keep in mind that continuing to argue for an idea after it has been rejected may be considered disruptive in and of itself. However, I don't see that Elle is causing any harm to the BLP articles themselves, and so I feel this topic ban proposal overreaches. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Wikipedia has always defended itself against spam and vanity, which is proper, but LGDP has probably gone too far in enforcing it. I do not like the idea of using mainspace content to punish or deter people and I've said so elsewhere. However, I have not seen any evidence that LGDP has damaged the encyclopedia in doing so. We don't ban people for holding unpopular opinions. I oppose this proposal but I think LGDP needs to drop this line of attack. Reyk _YO! 21:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, instead impose 1RR on all BLP articles. Looking at the issues here, I tend to agree with Reyk's and The Blade of the Northern Lights's comments. I propose an 1RR restriction for edits originally made by other editors and a 0RR restriction for edits originally made by herself. This will allow her to edit freely, remove edits by others that she feels are inappropriate, but playing tactical games won't work well under this restriction. Count Iblis (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article page, but allow her to continue on talk pages - Elle still seems to be in a state of denial and has not demonstrated the ability to accept feedback on her "Punish COI" mentality. I note that the extensive list of people giving her this feedback even includes Jimbo Wales. That makes it hard for me to believe that she would be receptive to other feedback on COI editing. Fighting COI by removing said COI and introducing opposing COI does not help the article. Article stays unbalanced, just swaying in the opposite direction. Either both go, or both stay, within wiki policy of course. Her idea of punishing COI hinges on twisting the article in the opposite direction to compensate for past COI means any COI issue will never go away, as we keep looking at the past rather than looking for ways to make sure how the articles can be improved for now and the future. She seems unable to edit objectively on articles relating to Singapore politics, as evidenced by the attention she drew to her questionable edits from international editors and admins. But seeing at her edits elsewhere are more objective, a topic ban would reduce the damage she may do with her COI edits to Singapore Politics (ironically, which despite her denial, a number of admins and editors have identified her as hacing personal COI issues), while still allowing her to contribute to other articles, and still can draw attention to what she feels needs to be corrected on topic she is restricted from directly editing. DanS76 (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The views of e.g. Wnt, Reyk, Count Iblis, Sjakkalle, Northern Lights and Worm strike me as products of more highly evolved, more enlightened thinking than the reactionary tut-tutting from the opposers. Also I have warmed to LGDP's candor. I like that she has stayed engaged here and explained herself. I like her brain. Overall, she's a great asset to WP and she's done no harm to it. The proposed BLP ban is absurdly excessive. We should all just get over ourselves and move on. The goddam project isn't so flimsy (yet) that it'll fall over if we do. Writegeist (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We should not bear the burden of an editor who wishes to use Wikipedia for punishment. Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Reyk and Sjakkalle. I've not seen solid evidence of significant mainspace problems. Strong opinions are fine even if outside the norm by a wide margin. And as my own personal view is that there are way way too many puff pieces here, I think someone beating that drum (outside of mainspace) is a good thing. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but support a final warning and 1RR restriction. POV-pushing is frustrating, and in areas with few active editors other than those pushing it can be a severe trial for an admin. That does not mean we're allowed to ride roughshod. Bring future concerns of this nature to the Admin boards or raise an RfC. Yes, it takes longer, but you get a solid consensus that is more likely to stick and more likely to bring fresh eyes (and more help). Guy (Help!) 19:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Rather unfortunately, I'm sure Jimbo's support on its own shifts many opinions around here. That said, I find myself agreeing mostly with Blade and WormTT - a full BLP ban is rather ridiculous. However, I'd probably support a temporary 1RR restriction on BLPs. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 21:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC) After two full days, the tally is 15 supports to 12 opposes. I'm going to suggest that the proposal does not have enough consensus to pass.[reply]
Oppose as utterly disproportionate response. I agreed in previous dispute resolution that Elle needed to slow down and take more care in her use of admin tools, which she has now regrettably relinquished. Nevertheless, Elle is a good editor with a differing (but not destructive) perspective on combating problem areas and advancing the project. A BLP ban is completely inappropriate. Ebe121 is also reminded that endorsements on an RFC/U do not denote consensus, as the RFC/U rules clearly indicate that opposition is not to be posted in responses. I do not see consensus for a BLP ban in Elle's RFC/U commentary in any way. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless further evidence is presented. Only one diff [1] has been given to show problematic editing on BLPs. Whilst it is true that this edit inserted an inappropriate sentence it's hardly sufficient by itself to support a topic ban. The idea of adding additional negative content to BLPs to punish COI editing is a very bad one and is certainly not in accordance with policy, but we don't hand out topic bans to people who hold controversial or unpopular opinions, we hand them out to people who are actually causing a problem. Hut 8.5 13:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would change my vote to Oppose if LPDP would at least show some form of practical acknowledgement that her idea of punishing COI is being questioned by editors. I think a number of the Oppose votes feel the same too. But she has stayed stubborn throughout, and I just fear that if she gets out of this without even a warning, she would take it to mean that there was nothing wrong with punishing COI and turn it into more actual edits. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per everyone.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence required of "punishing COI" edits

Since the subject repeatedly requested evidence showing her editting to punish COI, I suggest a separate list be set up for this.

My first incident encountering her "punishing COI", or "punishing promotionalism" as she puts it back then, was in the Vivian Balakrishnan article. LGDP made [this edit], of which I specifically reverted and edited [this section]. The discussion on Talk between me, her and another editor (iirc it was Strange Passerby) resulted in the first instance I saw LGDP make the comment about needing to punish COI and to use the article to make a point. Somewhere around the June 23 period. Unfortunately that article had some serious BLP copyvio issues around the same time, so one whole chunk of Talk history was removed (not even archived I believe) and I cannot pull out her specific reply. If I had access to those old Talk entries, I would have put her reply here directory. Maybe some admin with access can help here, its an entry by her on Talk for slightly after June 23.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing evidence of "punishing COI" in that diff. The image she removed was deleted as a copyvio, and the piece she rewrote read like a thinly veiled resume; it had all his achievements in separate, one-sentence paragraphs, which is a strategy used to emphasize awards/achievements on a resume. Her rewrite seems more neutral than the original to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your opinion of her insertion of the following line Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem given it was only 18 months later that he became Chief Executive Officer of etc etc which alleges that the govermnent is attempting to glorify the subject. Not exactly something that would put the subject in the best of lights, considering her assertion that all prior positive content were made by same government bodies/representatives. As I mentioned, LGDP herself best explained her motive for the edit in the removed talk history, which I have no access to now. Zhanzhao (talk)

After the umpteenth reversion by a sockpuppet to a non-neutral, copyvio, plagiarised version, without any action from an administrator -- I of course, could not semi-protect the article -- it was my attempt at invoking editorial compromise by including a greater mention of the government's point of view, and the source of that POV. It was a temporary measure to be later modified through the Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, the IP editors simply skipped the "discuss" stage. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not allege that "all positive content" were made by government representatives. Actually I believe I represented Vivian Balakrishnan's personal stances pretty well and quite neutrally if I may so myself, using his own blog. But much other content was copied or closely paraphrased from a copyrighted, non-neutral government biography, and the IP editors' constant reversions to that content kept on being un-noticed. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 09:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanzhao, the majority of that linked edit was good copy and significantly improved an otherwise poorly written section of the biography. Yes, part of it contained inappropriately written content, which you subsequently removed. You appear to make a connection that this particular text was 'punishing COI'; I don't agree. It was bad writing and inappropriate content but I can't in good faith see that there's an underlying agenda to inflict punishment. If anything, it looks like a snarky response borne of frustration more than anything else. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to assume good faith when the defendent herself admits to having entered the line to draw attention to the COI in the article, when her additions without the questionable line itself would have been sufficient to fix the COI she identified. Even COI tagging the page would have ccomplished that. Regardless of the rationale, be it editorial COI, snarkiness or carelessness, the end result is the same. The article is being treated as a plaything for editors to "prove their points". The fact that she thinks it is fine to carry on pulling stunts like this is making it hard for editors and admins to monitor the quality of the articles. Instead of watching out for COI from one front, we will all of us be fighting a multiple front battle, as long as editors think it is right to introduce opposing COI edits to compensate for prior COI.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus to punish COI

The idea is hardly new. See these comments from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, which I started:

clearly if we dont punish this, its just going to egg on more public figures to hire PR firms to regularly POV push on WP. ALKIVAR™ 08:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
We need to make every effort to point out these disinformationists, embarrass them and their employers publicly, and point out how terribly wrong their actions are. Sukiari 09:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur. A one week block is not sufficient. Forever? While that's a nice, feel good idea, I think in practical terms, they've already got PR Boiler rooms ready with botnets to eventually get around the blocks. (My 2011 comment in retrospect: blocking would be impractical; other remedies are required.)
I especially agree about the threat of organized misinformation. There must be some sort of system we can used to oppose that threat. ZendarPC 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if it is possible to obtain the names of vandals who are assigned these congressional IP addresses through the Freedom of Information Act (United States)?
I hope the staff responsable for this are found and listed. GinsuGuy585
I endorse this summary on the grounds that there is undeniable evidence (in a rather overwhelming amount) regarding the misbehavior of these individuals. Although a ban would probably be the wrong way to go about these things, they deserve whatever they get.
humiliate them in the media. Let's get this into the New York Times. (Baldghoti)
And I am afraid to say that more drastic actions is necessary. SYSS Mouse 04:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
While I endorse this blocking, I'm not sure how much it will do to curb this problem.... Punishment is necessary. I don't think we should block all government IP's. To do so would be irresponsible. sohmc 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
"However, it is unlikely you will dissaude for long those who are determined to edit articles in their favor so long as they can remain anonymous and go virtually unpunished...Since the correction of biased attacks articles does require time and effort, I don't think it's unreasonable to require a financial donation from abusers." (2011 comment: I do not recommend this either, but it reflects a previous consensus to punish.)
"A more effective "punishment" would be to permenently retain, on the relevant talk pages, notices of past attacks by congressional staffers." User:JeffBurdges
An excellent general principle is that in order for abuse to be controlled, there MUST be consequences for abuse. If Congress fails to control the abuse from its network ITSELF, wikipedia MUST defend itself by imposing consequences. User:Elvey

This is just a sample of the 126 people who endorsed the statement I wrote in that RFC, many of those who agreed that punishment is necessary in the face of organised threats to the project. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That rfc is from over five and a half years ago - things have moved on a lot since then. Off2riorob (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a lot has changed in the last five years, but perhaps we should have a new RFC on the general matter of aggressive, organised, hostile COI editing -- currently the harshest we can go is to implement blocks, and we are prevented from doing much further with CheckUser data. From what I understood, my actions were backed by consensus. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it is an issue in 2011 - other policies have been strengthened rendering such a position without value. Off2riorob (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These policies were not useful in preventing astroturfing from government ministries and government-linked users with apparently very privileged access to a wide range of commercial networks that were impossible to block without widespread collateral damage. (Commercial broadcasting and telecom companies are government-linked in Singapore -- see Censorship in Singapore). Had these astroturfing incidents occurred in the US, rather than in the less well-represented nation of Singapore, the massive outcry would be on my side -- and the abuse the US Congressional staffers did was comparatively mild compared to the massive edit warring that these anonymous editors pursued. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I have not known this RFC to be superseded. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the smattering of comments there as a consensus support for the idea of "punishment". What Michael Snow said there is remarkably close to what I was just saying: "This should not be about punishing anyone; the only issue should be how to improve Wikipedia articles and/or prevent harm to them." Certainly edits to mainspace articles can be "punishment" in only two ways: a) by being good editing that should be done anyway and needs no vengeful explanation, or b) by being bad editing that shouldn't be done. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The people who endorsed the statement were supporting the idea of blocking the whole US congress for an extended period because of a dozen bad edits. Even this idea --which I think would get essentially no support today--is not quite as destructive as punishing them by inserting negative material in their bio. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dangers of Punishing COI

I am basically copying e points I raised in another area against punishing COI by editing in the opposite direction:

LGDP, your insistence on "punishing COI" is not helping your case, as pointed out by Jimbo. You may not have realized it, but if your behaviour was allowed, it could set dangerous precedence. I'll take this chance to highlight the less than obvious dangers of allowing the "punishment of COI". Lets say I have something against a particular person. Instead of doing the obvious like adding negative comments about him/her, I would instead pose some positive glowing comments. Then, I either wait for an editor like you to come in to turn the article negative as punishment, or use an alternative account and do it myself, then claim that the negative parts must stay for a certain period of time as a punitive measure. Instead of taking the proper action of just neutralizing the COI edits. I feel this is a large can of worms we cannot afford to open.' I cannot imagine how Talk pages could devolve to with such "punishing COI" allowed. Will we be arguing on points like how much "punishment" or how long the "punishment" should last? Or may we even need to impose a "punishment" on the original "punishment" writeup? Where does is end? Its clearer to just neutralize the COI content.

If anyone has a better idea of preventing the problem I raised against punishing COI, please enlighten us, I am sure we are all interested in finding out. Else I am against anything that makes the jobs of admins and editorial policers unnecessarily tougher, more complicated and even more vulnerable to subjectivity than it already is. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The corrective measures will always be based on sourced, reliable content. Ideally, what would happen is that "naming and shaming" in the case of abusive COI editing would occur prominently on the talk page (as proposed in the United States Congress RFC) or referral to CheckUser or the press for real-life sanctions. You seem to imply that such punishment would be mutually exclusive with "neutralising COI edits" -- it is not. They go hand in hand. If significant negative sources exist on a subject that has seen mostly promotionalism, they should be included for neutrality and to balance the article. Significant negative information, if existent and sourced, should in fact should be included for all articles -- as per WP:NPOV, but we are of course slow or unmotivated to add them or "fix" the issue most of the time. Articles with COI simply get greater priority and motivation for rapid correction; this is partially as a rapid remedy to solve years of abuse, and partially as deterrence. Perhaps User:Jayron32 might understand this analogy best. The thing that COI affects is "kinetic" motivation for the edits, and their rapidity; not the ultimate ("thermodynamic") "long-term outcome" of an article. elle _{v�cut heureuse} ^{� jamais} (be free) 08:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that analogy doesn't work. What would work is if you treated every single editor at Wikipedia like an individual, even those who misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose. Furthermore, the fact that you keep bringing up concepts like deterence, motivation, and punishment shows that you have the wrong attitude altogether. --Jayron32 15:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGDP, if articles with COI gets greater priority for rapid correction, that is easily addressed by a COI tag, and/or following up with a notification in the relevant board. I see you have argued for/against the use of COI tags in different articles in the past, which means you are familiar with such tools. What you are doing, by adding FURTHER COI to the article to attract attention, is akin to setting new fires to new areas when you feel the fire department is not coming fast enough to put out the first fire you see. That is not right. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent analogy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if not involved non-admins can comment here, if not please remove. The discussion seems to be about two completely different things, one side concerned about the quality of articles, and optimal ways to reach concensus and a better wikipedia, the other side focussing on the effects in the real world (like the singapore elections) which do not depend on the final article but rather on which versions were online during a specific period, and for how long. In that context also, the statement about punishing COI seems to have been rather narrowly (or broadly) interpreted, judging from the BLP ban proposal and discussion. just my two cents.. DS Belgium (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punishing user for trying to punish COI users

Although the claim has been that a topic-ban of 3 months is "not punishment" (some say), it can have that effect, and thus the intention to topic-ban User:La goutte de pluie ("LGDP") is much like punishment for trying to punish COI users (subtopic above: #Dangers of Punishing COI). Instead, we should WP:AGF that user LGDP can faithfully reform the recent actions, and as expected of COI users, change attitudes to ask users politely to improve their editing activities, for more-balanced results. An experienced manager once reminded me, "If you want a person to do something, then be prepared to ask them (politely) 3 times". Fewer people get the message when asked only twice. In telephone tag, 71% (over 2/3rds of calls are missed): try reaching a person at least 3 times.
Full disclosure: I am currently in my second topic-ban (this time, indef topic-ban) for the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and "Amanda Knox" (and all related "institutions"). Considering that the first 3-month topic-ban was wp:snowed against me, by claiming I violated WP:CANVAS for notifying 2 pro-article editors while only notifying 1 anti-article editor of a WP:AfD of "Amanda Knox" then I would have thought that additional discussion, in my case, would expunge the false claims of improper canvassing, but instead, that false charge was used as "gunnysacking" of blocks to increase the next topic-ban against me as being indefinite (over 3 months so far). The overall effect is "punishment" of me, because I am hardly a danger or disruption to the project, with over 30,000 edits in numerous tedious articles and complex templates. Plus, let me note, how difficult it is to discuss issues when every crime article, or place in Italy, or college-student arrest might be considered part of the topic-ban. Similarly, BLP concerns are found in numerous articles, so a BLP topic-ban would almost certainly exclude participation in over half (1.8 million) of all articles. That shutdown, of article editing and talk-page discussions, is in effect a punishment against a user, who is being noted for trying to punish COI users. Beware, "Violence begets violence" and the vicious circle stops when someone offers an olive branch to cease the hostilities. Stop this proposed BLP topic-ban against User:La goutte de pluie, and, instead, try to reach a peaceful consensus. -Wikid77 17:04, revised 17:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I full endorse this statement. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Intelligence and humanity. Peace and reconciliation. An example to us all. Writegeist (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

This is a standalone request to impose a 1RR restriction on BLPs to La goutte de pluie. This shouldn't be as bad as a full ban and will keep trouble away. The restriction would be indefinite "by definition", because it will not automatically expire. However, after 3 months, the user's contributions would be reviewed by the wide community in an AN thread, and an admin would decide whether to leave in place or remove the restriction, assuming good faith. A mentor may also be assigned to keep a watch on the user's contribution. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

meh - not reading above that editwarring is a serious part of the problem. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections? Both discussions are listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The first one is a stale discussion, having not received any comments since 22 August 2011. The second discussion has lasted for over 30 days.

If either of the RfCs result in "no consensus", a closure like that in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, where the opposing arguments are summarized, will be helpful to the participants. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible POV Pushing on David Irving

Resolved

Can I ask an administrator to take a look at the edits that are happening on David Irving? I don't want to get into 3RR territory, but feel the edits made by 84.203.66.161 are pushing a non-neutral POV on this BLP. --Deadly∀ssassin 13:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor, 84.203.66.161 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 48 hours for violation of WP:BLP. If the problem recurs, consider asking for semiprotection at WP:RFPP. This IP has never participated on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the IP does not cite a source, this material is pretty much the thesis of Shermer and Grobman. And they bend over backwards to be fair to Irving, saying that he has been forced to pander to the extremists because he has no mainstream source of income; they point out that to historians he is an excellent finder of sources, a writer of some ability, but absolutely not a historian. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the primary topic of China

This shouldn't be a particularly difficult close, but as its apparently been contentious for about 10 years it should be closed by an impartial admin. Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fairly contentious... if no-one else cares to tackle it (please! <G>), I guess I could - just need to mull it over a lil' longer. Tabercil (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the RfC turns out to be relatively straight-forward... but there's a Talk:China#Requested move August 2011 which I'm stuck with and could use some advice. On reading the arguments it seems to me like the suggested move should be done. The problem is the article China has at least 10,000 incoming links, more like more (I gave up counting when I hit the 10000 mark). Assume for the sake of argument 10% of those link break as a result of the move - that's over 1000 broken links and I'm gun-shy about deliberately doing that. Any advice? Tabercil (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a triumvirate of admins can close Talk:China#Requested move August 2011? See the January 2011 discussion at User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9#Triumvirate, where Mkativerata (talk · contribs) wrote:

Here's an informal proposal that I'm minded to take to WT:Deletion process for approval to proceed on a trial basis.
Proposal: An administrator closing a highly contentious XfD may choose to refer the closure to a panel of three administrators. Highly contentious XfDs usually mean XfDs with an exceptionally high number of contributors, where it appears to the closing administrator that different administrators could reasonably close the debate with different outcomes.

The closing administrator is to refer the closure to a panel by posting at WP:AN to solicit the input of two other uninvolved administrators. The three administrators will then discuss at the talk page of the XfD how the debate should be closed. The administrator who referred the close to the panel shall act as the informal chair of the panel. After a reasonable period for comment (preferably within 24 hours), the chair shall close the XfD on the basis of the discussion and give reasons for the close that reflect the discussion. If the administrators on the panel disagree on the appropriate outcome and there is a clear 2-1 majority in support of one outcome, the majority view is to prevail.

I think for this proposal or something like it to win community acceptance, it would have to:

impose as minimal bureaucracy as possible;

make a convincing case that there is a problem to be fixed; and

make a convincing case that it will help fix the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata said that this is a "very good candidate for a triumvirate" but that he was involved and had already taken a stance in the debate.

Tabercil (talk · contribs) agrees with this proposal, so would two uninvolved admins be willing to join him in a triumvirate to close Talk:China#Requested move August 2011? Cunard (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a participant on that page, albeit as a (hopefully) impartial mediator. I'm not sure if that makes me too "involved", but if not, I'm willing to be one of the three. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What truly makes an admin "uninvolved" or "impartial"? If we cannot answer the question to that, then what would make a "three admin panel" be any different? Moreover, how is this "minimizing" bureaucracy when this is doing the exact opposite? –MuZemike 15:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've relisted the move discussion. The topic appears to be contentious and keeping it open longer than the 7 days is probably a good idea. No hurry there. I'll be happy to join the triumvirate or whatever of 'uninvolved' admins to close the move. --rgpk (comment) 15:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. As I said earlier, I'm thinking the move ought to be done based on the initial arguments on it but the sheer number of links in-coming makes me pause just simply because so many of them will be broken after the move. Since it's been relisted for another week, let's see what happens... Tabercil (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hope of such a panel would be that if the 3 agreed, it would be much less likely to go to deletion review. Of course, if it was 2–1, it would be almost certain to go to deletion review, and that would probably balance out. We might as well use Deletion review as it stands, where considerable more than 3 admins as well as non-admins will look at it. But if the admin thinks the community is unable to reach consensus, we already have a way of handling that, which is a non-consensus close. But in any specific case where an admin asks for help, we're NOT BURO and can IAR to help out. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect anything to go to Deletion review, because we're not considering a deletion here. It's a titling question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links?

I don't see why we'd get broken links. A redirect would be in place. I'm willing to bet a sizable proportion of them come in via templates, too. Each template that you update could be 100 links done in one stroke. Between that, and work done by bots and OCD Wikipedians, I don't think links present enough of a problem that they should influence our decision. They do, however, mean that it's a decision we shouldn't take lightly, but I don't think there's much danger of that either. There's not something I'm missing, is there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction

User:Rich Farmbrough is has an editing restriction stating "Regardless of the editing method [...] is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented." (for full text, check the linked page). Rich Farmbrough is now mass creating articles imported from Wikisource, from the Dictionary of National Biography. So far, over 100 of those have been created over the last days. These pages are script-generated, with extremely minimal manual work done on them, and are often of very low quality. Problems include

The importing of pages that have not even been proofread on Wikisource, leading to incorrect years of birth or death (e.g. William Beattie (physician) has died on Wikipedia in 1876, but according to the source in 1875; George Beattie (poet) lived until 1828 here, but until 1823 in the source)
Seemingly randomly placed wikilinks, on e.g. John Dunstall, the only "manual" edit by Rich Farmbrough[2] was the addition of wikilinks to either disambiguation pages like Charles I or John Carter or to incorrect pages like Samuel Clarke or Custom House. The vast majority of links on this page points to an incorrect page. Similarly, John Barrow (fl.1756) links to the surnames of explorers, with pages like wafer bluelinked, while e.g. Van Noort is a redlink that could easily have been turned into Olivier van Noort.
Lack of categories: most pages are only categorized according to the year of birth and dead, not to nationality, profession, or other claim of notability, making them nearly impossible to find through the cat system
Blatantly incorrect categories; a number of these pages are categorized not by year of birth and death, but as living people, even though all of these people are very dead; e.g. George Steward Beatson, John Bearblock, Richard Butcher (antiquary), John Dunstall, Gabriel Dugr�s, William Augustus Barron, and the fifth-century Dubthach Maccu Lugir

Why he is suggesting to merge an article he just created to a non-existant one is beyond me[3]

Perfection is not required, but blindly copying pages from Wikisource that have not even been proofread, inserting useless wikilinks, and listing a significant number of pages as cat:living people for long-death people (from a source that doesn't list a single living person anymore...) is poor form, and coming from a person who already has an editing restriction against the mass creation of pages (beacuse of problems with the poor quality of them), this is a lot worse. The pages are listed as Category:DNB drafts, but, well, drafts shouldn't be placed in the mainspace but in userspace. Fram (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to keep it up, then I'd say block him until we're sure the disruption isn't going to continue or repeat.--Crossmr (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have quickly reviewed edit histories - I cannot see an attempt to discuss this with the editor, only a notice of this discussion. Had a warning been given and ignored then I would have been reporting that I had blocked pending resolution. I feel that these actions are contrary to the spirit (and likely the wording) of the restriction and feel a further sanction may be required, but only after we receive some response from RF. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't first discussed this one, no. Previous discussions with Rich Farmbrough for other violations of his editing restrictions didn't lead to anything productive, e.g. the discussion ended here about the violations made by his alternate account User:Megaphone Duck, or these ones here,[4], and others. I don't have the feeling that he takes into account anything said be me, so if someone else wants to discuss this with him first, they are free to do so. But it is far from the first time that he has violated these restrictions (see also his block log), although the violations are less common than they used to be last year. But also note e.g. his series of AWB edits from late August[5][6][7][8][9]... which are a violation of his other editing restriction, and go directly against a request made by me (and others like Magioladitis) to leave the capitalization of parameters in Persondata alone (see e.g. [10] for an older discussion of this). Basically, I have lost the hope that me discussing this directly with Rich Farmbrough will solve anything. Fram (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI if a non-administrator had continually abused their AWB privileges as Rich Farmbrough has done, I would be withdrawing their access to the tool. Given that Rich is an administrator, this is not possible so instead he may need to be formally restricted from using AWB and other semi-/automated scripts and tools. –xeno^talk 13:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be time for the committee to look at Mr. Farmbrough's access to all tools other than manual simple editing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For greater certainty, my contributions to this thread are made in my individual capacity. –xeno^talk 12:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further restrictions? Oh yes, the never ending cycle on Wikipedia.. someone can't follow the restrictions laid out for them? Well.. instead of enforcing the ones we have, let's just make some new ones. They can't follow those, well how about we tweak them a little more? The user is under editing restrictions. There is no requirement that anyone discuss every single situation with every user they wish to report before bringing them here. The situation has already been discussed with him, it's why he's under editing restrictions. How about instead of trying to shoot the messenger we address the actual problem? As for your response, you got it below. He doesn't even acknowledge that he's violated his restrictions nor that they exist--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly it is not the rule that DNB pages are created before the source has been proofread, rather the exception. Therefore it is only when the DNB process fails that an unproofread page will be used.
Secondly there is nothing wrong with dab links, a separate process cleans them up.
Thirdly there is always request for categorisation, the professional categorisers do a far better job far faster than I could.
Fourthly it is an assumption that these people are dead and not caught in a time rift, or ascended, or simply very very lucky. However I agree marking them as living is unwise and that is easily fixed. (Now fixed.)

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

An unsatisfactory reply. I am disappointed at his urge to create a mass of very poor quality articles. It's much better for the project to create fewer articles with each one being fair quality. Whatever can be done to slow his ability to use automated tools would be a step in the right direction. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't impute such an urge from Fram's comments. Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As is mentioned above, you are prohibited from mass creating pages unless there's a prior community approval for the task. Could you point it out where the required community approval for this specific mass creation task is documented? Jafeluv (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, six people have commented, some wanting an explanation from Rich Farmbrough, others more directly agreeing with my analysis, none to contradict it. Rich Farmbrough has replied as well. His reply doesn't address the basic question of the editing restrictions at all, and gives unsatisfactory answers otherwise:

1: "it is only when the DNB process fails that an unproofread page will be used." So when Rich Farmbrough uses a page from Wikisource that isn't proofread already, and imports it without checking it, it is the fault of Wikisource?
2: "there is nothing wrong with dab links, a separate process cleans them up." That process exists of editors, no automatic cleanup of dablinks exists. He is deliberately creating extra work for other editors because he doesn't want to spend the necessary time to get his links right. Furthermore, not all incorrect links he introduced were dab links, many just pointed to the incorrect page (I gave e.g. the "wafer" and "Custom House" example above, there are plenty others to be found as well).
3: "the professional categorisers do a far better job far faster than I could." Really? The "additional categories" backlink goes back to April, and e.g. the article Peter Elmsley (bookseller), which he created in May, still needs further categorisation. I don't believe that he couldn't have done that job faster than that.
4: Haha, but seriously: "easily fixed. (Now fixed.)" Really? I listed above William Augustus Barron, which has now been categorised among the living people for 2 months, and wasn't fixed. If he hasn't even fixed one I so conveniently mentioned above as having that problem, I doubt that he has fixed them all, and control indicates that he has indeed still 5 articles among his DNB drafts which are listed as "living people"...
5: Looking at his other "corrections" after this thread started, there is [11]: incorrect edit summary, and the article now has both the cat "year of death missing" and "967 deaths"; the one before that [12] has the same incorrect edit summary, and still has that nonsense merge tag he put on it; and the one before that [13] also has the incorrect edit summary, an incorrect year "11793" in the persondata, and no correction of the inconsistent dates which I indicated above. Need I go on?

All this indicates to me that Rich Farmbrough is not acknowledging that this was a violation of his editing restrictions (which everyone seems to agree on), that he doesn't see a problem in introducing unchecked and incorrectly transcribed material, and that he feels it is normal to deliberately include incorrect info (links) or to deliberately leave out user-friendly things (cats), because eventually, perhaps, someone else will cleanup after him. And finally, that when he does correct errors that have been pointed out to him, he does so in a very sloppy manner, introducing new errors and carelessly believing that something is "fixed" when it isn't.

Does anyone has any suggestion as to how this can be remedied? Fram (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is a complete restriction on semi-automated and automated editing. –xeno^talk 12:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) for 1 week per the wording of the mass article creation restriction and upon review of his block log, following his response which did not acknowledge the restriction or otherwise note where approval had been received. Review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that you know that blocking him will also block all his bots as well. Several of which are used throughout WP. --Kumioko (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people are ok with that as this has come up time and again. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that the constant crying wolf from FRAM and XENO at this point is getting a little old and they are going to find any reason to bring up that will get Rich blocked. If I was him I would probably ignore whatever they had to say to me as well. Many of the arguments brought up in the past by these 2 have been very weak (although some have been valid as in some of the examples above). --Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I think its gotten to the point where he should be asked to leave period. I have never really encountered him personally that I can remember but his constant flouting of his restrictions and doing things he knows he shouldn't be are a waste of the communities time. He is more of a detriment to the community than a help at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko, perhaps you would like to volunteer to clean up some of Rich's recent mass article creations? Or closely follow his reckless editing and fix any errors he introduces? –xeno^talk 13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Pixie Bot still seems to be running (and continuing to violate Rich's editing restrictions [14]). –xeno^talk 13:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I knew that was coming! For what its worth I think we should completely ban the practive of using Wikisource as a source anyway. The use of it violates RS anyway since it is by definition a Wikisite and it is updated by editors like us and its trustworthiness is dubious but thats just me. I don't think that is necessarily Rich's fault. --Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Xeno how is dating a maintenance tag a bad thing? --Kumioko (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rich is prohibited from "making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval)." –xeno^talk 13:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno, as far as I know is the dating of tags such an approved task, and his bot does that now with relatively few problems. I do believe that the two bots (Helpful Pixie bot and Femtobot) need to be stopped though, because a bot owner is responsible for any cleanup and so on that is needed if the bot malfunctions, but being blocked he would be unable to do that. Fram (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this has changed, but I was under the impression that Rich is restricted from unnecessarily changing the case of templates (see the footnote on the cosmetic changes restriction). –xeno^talk 14:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the changing of capitalization was what led to the most recent set of restrictions on him if I do believe. Because he was going around changing the capitalization. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kumioko: Erm, Rich is under a community-based editing restriction, which he has repeatedly violated. If he doesn't want somebody bringing him to a noticeboard every few weeks, he should start editing in accordance with the restrictions. I can't help but wonder if a less prolific, lower-profile non-admin wouldn't have been indef'd by now.
As for the bots, if the autoblock causes trouble, we can disable it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To HJ - I think you bring up a good point but I also wonder if someone who weren't as dedicated to the project wouldn't have said the hell with it by this point. I agree that he does some dubious edits (if nothing else just by sheer volume alone hes going to have some) but I think a lot of the huff has been blown out of proportion. I think in general he does more good than harm which is also evident in the fact he is allowed to keep editing.

To Xeno - First let me clarify that aside from Rich's edits I personally think that the limitation set forth (mostly imposed by you) that making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page is a bad thing. There are plenty of things out there that don't change the rendering of the page that don't need to be in the article such as Innapproraite comments, dead parameters in templates, empty parameters in templates taking up space and making the page harder and more confusing to edit, etc. This leaves us with piles and piles of garbage in the articles in talk pages we can't get rid of without inventing another edit of some kind that changes the rendering of the page like adding a category, portal, tweaking some grammer by adding a comma, etc. Second, For your info that edit you bring up does make a visible change to the page because it adds the date. Look closer at the comment box and you'll see it. :-) Also, For years adding the date to a maintenance tag was a reguler edit by the bot and it was a highly desired edit. Now all of a sudden because of a shortsighted rule we "can't date maintenance tags" or is it more because of who is doing it...Im not quite clear on that one.

I'm not going to continue to beat a dead horse but I wanted to voice my opinion that, regardless of the edits made, some editors are going to persist in following Rich around until one of his edits does something they don't like and well be right back here. We all do edits that irritate others, delete images, remove garbage from articles, edit too fast, etc. We don't need to block someone every time they do an edit. --Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the dating of the maintenance tag that is the issue, its the spacing he changed down by the logo parameter I believe. Those are the sorts of changes his bot is not supposed to make. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not referring to the dating of the maintenance tag, but the unnecessary changing of template capitalization. While a minor issue, it is further evidence that Rich is not respecting his duly-imposed editing restrictions. –xeno^talk 14:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Fram - I regretfuly agree partially with Fram for the reasons given. Regardless of wether I agree with the block and eventhough the bot may be working but if the bot owner is blocked its innappropriate IMO for the bot to be running unless there is another operator that can and is willing to fix anything that doesn't work right. Unfortunately this also stops all the good edits these bots do like bulding the watchlists for the WikiProjects and all the edits that the bot formerly known as Smackbot (Helpful Pixie bot) does. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Djsasso - I disagree with that assessment. I agree that the bot should not be removing spaces like that or other truly minor edits alone but if the bot is already there doing another edit that is significant (renders a change to the page or whatever) then it should do that while its there. Otherwise these minor little things would stay there forever. --Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For other bot runners and editors yes. However, Rich himself has specifically been restricted from doing changes like that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what your telling me is that we are leveeing requirements on one editor that we are not enforcing on others as well. I have a problem with that especially since those edits are built into AWB Band he would have to program around them in order to not do them. Its obvious that I am the single dissenting voice and I am a non admin (nor do I wish to be one at this point) so I see no reason to continue to waste my time complaining about something that knowone wants to hear. But...This is goign to continue until Rich is permanantly blocked IMO so you may as well get it over with and move on. Plus someone needs to keep these bots running so you might want to start converting all the bot tasks into other bots. All this starting and stopping is really hosing up the pedi and I have better things to do than deal with this drama repeatedly. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template case changes are not built into AWB. –xeno^talk 14:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a really really weak argument and you know it. Just a few minutes ago you said it was cause it didn't make a change to the rendering of the page and now its cause it changed the capitalization to match what the template looks like when you go Template:Unreferenced? I think you are just trying to justify it. I still think that someone needs to stop the bots also. If the owner is blocked the bots shouldn't be running. Even if there are a whole ton of good things that those bots are doing. I also don't think we should choose when to enforce the rules. If we are going to enforce them on one bot then we should do it to the others as well. Like the one that adds the interlanguage links that don't change the rendering of the page, or the one that removes the commented out deleted images from articles. We should stop these 2 as well since they are violating the rules. --Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko, your contributions to these threads concerning inappropriate tool-assisted editing frequently include irrelevant tangents such as this. Are those processes approved by the Bot Approvals Group? Are the operators of those processes under editing restrictions? If the answers are "Yes" and "No", then I don't see how your suggestion is at all relevant. There is no consensus that templates must have first-letter capitalization and they function fine either way. Rich has been formally restricted from changing the capitalization of templates, yet he continues to do so. That is what is relevant here. –xeno^talk 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like my arguments or someone questioning your judgement doesn't make them irrelevent. But that was a nice try and deflecting the problem back at me. But my point above was that you didn't even know in the beginning why it was a problem until you came back later with the first letter case change argument. Additionally, if the rule is that we cannot make changes that don't render changes to the page, and that is a rule, then who is the Bot approval group to overrule it? Do they have the right to overrule concensus on any rule? I think not. They choose to follow the rule when it suits them best, or to enforce it the same way. If we are going to make a rule then we ALL need to follow it. I have told you repeatedly I think its a stupid rule but consensus created it and I can live with that. But what I find irritating is when a small handful of editors seems to have the power or the administrative capabilites to ignore it whenever they want, or when it affects them. Thats what I have a problem with. --Kumioko (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The changing of the case is why I linked it in the first place. The Bot Approvals Group can approve a process that makes edits that don't change the rendered page if the task is desirable and has demonstrable consensus. –xeno^talk 15:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course anything can be done if it meets demonstrable consensus. But since most bot requests are done on the bot request page and not somewhere where demonstrable consensus could be gathered I am left to wonder who has the power to determine demonstrable consensus. It doesn't really matter though because you were correct that we are a bit off topic. But it does prove my point earlier that we choose when and to what editors we enforce the rules. --Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that is how things work. If one editor is doing something to the extreme and causing a lot of mistakes and trouble and the community (on this page or ANI) comes to a consensus that what they are doing is wrong and they place restrictions on the user of course we are doing it to one user and not another. Its no different from blocking an editor. In this particular case these restrictions were put on him so that he wouldn't have to be blocked and so that he could still be productive on the wiki. In other words the restrictions were a second chance (or 237th in this case) to try and avoid blocking him. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kumioko, the only reason that the template "looks like" {{Unreferenced...}} in its documentation is because Rich Farmbrough wanted it to look like that. He has a habit of making cosmetic changes to template naming and appearance, and then immediately entrenching those style choices with hundreds or thousands of AWB and bot edits. That practise must stop. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats about half true. The practice of dating the maintenance tags has been going for several years and I believe he did that when Xeno forced AWB to add a bullet that stopped allowing what he perceives as pointless edits because they don't render anything to the page. Aside from that dating the template is a good thing even if it doesn't change the look. It lets us know how long the artile has been tagged. It also adds it to the appropriate category. So there is really no valid argument against dating maintenance tags unless the goal is just to get Rich blocked. He has done other things that were bad or contrversial but that IMO isn't one of them. --Kumioko (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again the issue isn't the dating of the tags, its the capitalization of the tag. He was specifically asked by the community to stop doing it. He did it so often that the community then placed restrictions on him stopping it. The dating of the tag has nothing to do with the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry my example wasn't clear about that. I am certainly talking about style decisions in wiki markup for template usage. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined Rich's unblock request pending resolution of this issue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful pixie bot

I left a message on the bots talk page to stop it. As I mentioned above and on that bots talk page I do not think a bot shoulde running if the sole owner/operator is blocked. They are responsible for fixing any problems created by the bot and he clearly woudld be unable to do that. --Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also stopped Femtobot. --Kumioko (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both bots. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~That was pointless, unless they wouldn't stop. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)~~ NVM, I see they were ignoring the stop notice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for ITN evaluation

Resolved

Arbitrarily requesting evaluation over at the buried ITN/Bastrop County Complex fire discussion. No wrongdoing is assumed or alleged; just trying to make sure that some more eyes see this before it's no longer relevant. — C M B J 13:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:EP

can we get some more help with Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests? there are 58 pending edit requests between that and its subcat. Thanks ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor admin judgement/need the all-clear to finish developing template

Resolved

– Please discuss here. — Scientizzle 18:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been warned for edit-warring by admin User:Reaper Eternal on Template:Highest-grossing films franchise. I consider this warning not very even-handed, and counter-productive. As you can see from the edit history of this template I created, I am in the process of developing it, and until this evening I was the only editor working on it. The creation of the template was born out of Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Table this discussion. This evening an editor starting making alterations to it, moving it, accused me of ownership, and finally nominated it for deletion. I reverted these edits because they interefered with the final stages of development of this template. I don't know why this editor started targetting this particular template that will ultimate perform a useful functiion in an article, and simply the task of data entry. Anyway, Reaper Eternal has warned me for edit-warring on this template that I am developing, but not the other editor who was disrupting the development! I'm now facing a quandary, because I feel it will be very difficult to finish off the template while "under penalty" by the admin. I also find it bizarre that the editor who created the template and has undertaken the dvelopment has been warned, but the disruptive editor who did not particpate in any of the discussion leading to the creation of the template, and doesn't understand the purpose hasn't been warned! I can only assume that the editor and this admin are "pally", and he decided to back up his pal, since he clearly hasn't been even-handed in handling this dispute, and his actions aren't logical. I want to see this admin relieved of handling this situation, and I would like the go-ahead to get back to developing the template. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best if you kept this discussion in one place, i.e. the AN/I discussion. 28bytes (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really about the dispute, it's about the admin taking sides. ANI can handle the dispute, but I want this admin taken out of teh equation becasue there is clear bias in his handling of it. I'm not after sanctions against him or anything like that, I just want him removed from this dispute and someone with some clear judgment in. Is lunacy that he takes the side of someone who has never worked on the template against someone who is developing it for a specific purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Agree with 28bytes. WP:FORUMSHOPPING, even if unintended, is a bad idea. Fragmented discussions will only cause problems. — Scientizzle 18:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just finish the development in a sandbox, while the fuss dies down. Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Second opinions solicited

A user has questioned a few speedys I declined. Examples here, here and here and believes I am wrong about this because other admins have (apparently) acted on these in the past. He/she wants a second opinion and I'm obliging with this solicitation: can a few people comment here, whatever your sensibility. Thanks in advance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used to comply with his requests for deletion of redirects so he could "start new" (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) until I began to realize that it was not per policy to delete them and there is/was no real reason on Yankees10's part. I denied his final request (here) last month, and he went behind my back to a different admin to request deletion of the Nathan Eovaldi redirect (here). These requests are clearly not per policy and Yankees10 should cease from this behavior in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are completely different requests. The ones I have recently asked to be speedy deleted are completely different situations. They are all currently redirects that are no longer play for the teams they re-directed to, so I saw no point in them existing anymore. And not for nothing Eagles I am not sure why you have to call it "behavior". It makes it sound like I was doing something that was horribly wrong (which it may be), but you obviously didn't know the rule either, since you just didn't give me a no in the first place.--Yankees10 01:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this Wikipedia:Merge and delete seems related. Mlpearc powwow 01:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I read up some more and I think I understand why Fuhghettaboutit declined the speedy deletions. Sorry for the trouble guys.--Yankees10 02:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad it helped. Mlpearc powwow 02:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone create a list of the affected articles/redirects? The merges need attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I'll work through them gradually. Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non consensus changes made on Community Portal

On September 2nd, Pretzels made [| this] change to Wikipedia Community Portal. I looked on the talk page [| and saw no consensus ] for the fairly sizable change he made. I reverted him and placed a note on the page and [| on his page ] stating that I'd reverted him, that I thought he really needed to get consensus first, and that I would voluntarily observe 1rr on that change. He pointed me to the community portal talk page where he said he asked. It's just him and one other individual, and their response is [| neither yes nor no, but more along the lines of "I don't care" ]. This morning he changed the page back to his version. No one else has posted, (and to his credit he did actually place a note in the village pump [| proposals section] which linked back to the community portal.

What I'm looking for is to have an admin (or even a non-admin) take a look at pretzel's change and see if consensus was indeed established for it (or if it's really needed for this type of change ) if it is, hey, I'll continue not touching the page. Thanks @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 11:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Yes [| Pretzels has been notified of this post as well ] :) @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon, please don't revert something just because no active consensus was reached first, if you have no opinion about the actual change. Pretzels has gone out of his way to make sure no one objected. He posted to the talk page in July; in a month and a half, only one editor said "meh". He then posted to the Village Pump on 9/1, and after further silence made the change on 9/2. No complaints. You reverted (while expressing no problems with the change) on 9/4. He's now waited 4 more days, with still no complaints from anyone, nor further rationale from you. What more would you have him do? Insisting on an active consensus of multiple editors for changes no one seems to care about is not how things are done here. If someone comes along who actually disagrees with the change, they can revert and discuss it with him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, actually, I do have an opinion on the page, that's why I changed it back to the long standing version, and that's also why I voluntarily observed 1rr on it. As to what I'm looking for, I stated that in my original post I'm looking to see if consensus was established for this change. Per the page itself it states that large changed need to be discussed, and, I would assume, a consensus would need to be established.

Yes, he's done all the right things, to be sure, but he has (near as I can tell, and this is what I'm checking on ) no consensus to make that change. Please note that this guideline lays out the requirements for changing a visible page such as community portals. Is that clearer ? @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@ 16:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I was the only one who expressed a strong opinion on the matter, there is consensus for the change - nobody expressed opposition. Consensus isn't a magical minimum number of editors. As Floquenbeam says, it's not like I didn't offer ample time and promotion for discussion. — Pretzels^Hii! 16:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to look at Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and especially Wikipedia:Consensus - where consensus is noted as being when a change is made to a page and it is either accepted or challenged; it says nothing about agreements found on a talkpage previously. As consensus is only determined once the edit is made, then any challenge deprecates a new consensus and the status quo is returned. Per WP:BRD, you should not have reverted but instigated a discussion to find if there is a consensus for the edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. You supported the change, I did not, so no, there was not consensus (Per WP:CON)

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.

I actually don't think you had consensus, that's what I'm here for. @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@

Well now I'm confused. KoshVorlon, is your only objection to the change that you don't think it has consensus? Or do you have other objections to it, which you have not yet stated anywhere? If it's the first, then I stand by my comments; Pretzels had implied consensus since no one disagreed, and your revert was wrong, and his reinstatement after waiting for a response to his talk page comments for 4 days was OK. If it's the second, then either I've misunderstood, or you've miscommunicated, or both. But in the second case, since Pretzels has already started a discussion on the talk page, your next step is to state why you disagree with the edit on the talk page. It's not sufficient to say you disagree without saying why. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create page of วีรวัฒน์ กนกนุเคราะห์

I would like to create the page of วีรวัฒน์ กนกนุเคราะห์ which relate with Verawat Kanoknukroh .

However I cannot, please unlock this page for me.

Thank you for your service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isa2011 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at WP:TITLE you will see that it says "On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language." It remains to be seen whether your article Verawat Kanoknukroh, which was speedily deleted on your previous attempt, lasts any longer this time; it certainly needs a lot of improving; please read WP:YFA and Wikipedia:Tutorial. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and WP:CITE. Assuming the article doesn't get deleted before long, are you asking for a redirect to be created. I see no harm in creating such a redirect, but if created, it should be edit and move protected at admin level. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment that:

The Date delinking case is amended as follows:

Remedies 16 and 18 (as amended) are terminated, effective immediately. Ohconfucius is reminded that this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, and that he is expected to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines, especially those concerning the editing and discussion of policies and guidelines, and the use of alternate accounts.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466 closed

An arbitration case regarding the conduct of User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 has been closed and may be viewed at the link above. The following is a summary of enacted remedies:

Cirt is topic-banned indefinitely from making any edits to articles related to new religious movements, their adherents, and any related biographies of living people, broadly construed.
Cirt is further restricted on biographies of living people if the articles are substantially about, or Cirt's edits introduce material relating to: politics, religion, or social controversy. Cirt is permitted to edit articles incidentally related to such topics provided the articles, and Cirt's edits, are not biographical in nature. The Committee may extend this restriction if BLP-related problems continue, and Cirt may request relaxation of this restriction after one year from this date if there are no further problems.
Cirt is desysopped for admitted violations of the neutral point of view and biographies of living people policies. He may reapply for adminship through requests for adminship at any time.
Jayen466 is reminded to strictly adhere to dispute resolution processes in any future disputes.
Cirt and Jayen466 are subject to an interaction restriction wherein they may not communicate with each other, nor comment on each other, or each other's actions or edits, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. Comments on the same page are permissible provided the previously mentioned restrictions are upheld. Neither party may respond directly to any violations of this or any other remedy, but shall report any violations via email directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Any violation of these restrictions may be enforced by block, to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move a Fair Use file from commons

I need to have File:Monument to a great.jpg moved from commons for use in Michael Jordan statue. I know how to upload files and such, but I am not sure about saving history and all the proper credits, so I am requesting assistance in moving the file.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just upload it afresh. Since there was no creative input from any Wikipedian involved in creating the file, there is no crucial copyright-relevant contribution in the Commons history that would need to be preserved for attribution reasons. Of course, an informational note like "Previously uploaded as commons:File:XYZ by User:ABC on date soandso" might be useful. For correct copyright tagging: (a) for the photographic work: include proper attribution to the Flickr user and mention their license; (b) for the sculpture: use {{Non-free 3D art}} and a fair use rationale (along the lines of "Image is used for illustrating a dedicated article about the artwork pictured", should be sufficient.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 *'''Oppose''' as utterly disproportionate response. I agreed in previous dispute resolution that Elle needed to slow down and take more care in her use of admin tools, which she has now regrettably relinquished. Nevertheless, Elle is a good editor with a differing (but not destructive) perspective on combating problem areas and advancing the project. A BLP ban is '' completely'' inappropriate. Ebe121 is also reminded that endorsements on an RFC/U do ''not'' denote consensus, as the RFC/U rules clearly indicate that opposition is not to be posted in responses. I do not see consensus for a BLP ban in Elle's RFC/U commentary in any way. [[User:TechnoSymbiosis|TechnoSymbiosis]] ([[User talk:TechnoSymbiosis|talk]]) 04:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Oppose''' unless further evidence is presented. Only one diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vivian_Balakrishnan&diff=prev&oldid=435728581|] has been given to show problematic editing on BLPs. Whilst it is true that this edit inserted an inappropriate sentence it's hardly sufficient by itself to support a topic ban. The idea of adding additional negative content to BLPs to punish COI editing is a very bad one and is certainly not in accordance with policy, but we don't hand out topic bans to people who hold controversial or unpopular opinions, we hand them out to people who are actually causing a problem. '''''<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]</font>''''' 13:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
+: I would change my vote to Oppose if LPDP would at least show some form of practical acknowledgement that her idea of punishing COI is being questioned by editors. I think a number of the ''Oppose'' votes feel the same too. But she has stayed stubborn throughout, and I just fear that if she gets out of this without even a warning, she would take it to mean that there was nothing wrong with punishing COI and turn it into more actual edits. [[User:Zhanzhao|Zhanzhao]] ([[User talk:Zhanzhao|talk]]) 10:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Oppose''' per everyone.[[User:OpenInfoForAll|OpenInfoForAll]] ([[User talk:OpenInfoForAll|talk]]) 13:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 === Evidence required of "punishing COI" edits===

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