Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254

Interaction-ban question

I've raised a question at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Exceptions question regarding interpretation of a piece of the current banning policy. One user's responded so far; your comments would be helpful, especially if you're an admin who's blocked a user or actively decided not to block a user who's in the circumstance in question. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Are double redirects still being fixed by bots?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T55227

I decided to post to this noticeboard due to my perceived importance of this issue. If I have posted to this forum inappropriately, I sincerely apologize. I've noticed that the redirect bots are working a lot more slowly than usual, if they are working at all. This could become extremely problematic in the event of page moves when disambiguation pages are created. Does anyone know why the double redirect bots have been working more slowly than usual lately? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Special:DoubleRedirects there is just one un-fixed double redirect. The page hasnt been updated in 16 days though. (The bots use that page to fix them) Werieth (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply - This is the problem, Special:DoubleRedirects has not been updated for days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked in #wikimedia-tech on IRC and the issue seems to be related to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53227. Recent updates seem to have been done manually. wctaiwan (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply - So something on German Wikipedia is having an effect on DoubleRedirect bots for English Wikipedia? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know (I'm not a developer), it's an issue that's affecting both the German Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia, not one caused by the former. wctaiwan (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Does anyone know when this might be fixed? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an issue that affects all wikis, whether Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.. I believe the fix is currently depending on the review and deployment of this change. Malafaya (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Out of scope user talk page

Resolved

See User talk:adarsh.chavakula--Musamies (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I left a {{welcome}} and moved the article draft to a new subpage. Jehochman ^Talk 12:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

G4

Silver Lake Village (Michigan). A G4 was declined on this article by someone who felt that it was not "substantially similar". However, I remember the previous draft having virtually the same sourcing, especially the "Water Winter Wonderland" page, and much of the same information. Could an admin settle this, and see how similar the first draft was? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The intros are rather similar - but that's to be expected from articles on the same topic. The main body also has similarities, but is sufficiently different for me and I agree with the G4 being removed. Oh, and FYI - Nyttend (talk · contribs) is an admin. GiantSnowman 11:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

TPH, look at the article history. You will note that the article has been edited time and time and time again. Any non-admin could tell you that there's no way that it could possibly be the same — can you imagine the miniscule possibility that tons of people would edit a page, only to have it end up being completely the same as a deleted text? Meanwhile, ViewDeleted showed me that it was a completely new text and nowhere near a repost. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not really fair to TBH, Nyttend. It was written by the same person who wrote the original article, and the other editors you mention are only bots or people adding banners or templates or tags or spelling checks. No one besides the original author has contributed substantively. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To the contrary, (1) Policy doesn't assume that the original author will have done a repost, and (2) this guy isn't the original creator. To quote TPH at the AFD, I do remember the previous version having virtually the same sources and some similar phrasing, so I felt that it met "substantially similar". That's not the kind of proper investigation that's necessary to corroborate a repost. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll bet you $50 he is too the original creator. I think it was a valid G4, but I'm not going to argue with you about it; you seem to be taking this personally. I guess we can just let the AFD run. I've commented there, and restored the deleted history so non-admins can make their own judgement about whether this is "substantially identical" or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam. The IP's only edits were to that article within 5 hours of DanGates's recreation. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You guys can't be serious about doubting that G4 applies to that thing. Created by the same person about the same thing with none of the original defects corrected. Are we arguing that articles recreated by people with bad memories aren't eligible for G4?—Kww(talk) 22:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

policy error alert The wording of WP:CSD G4 is not "substantially similar", it's "substantially identical". So yes, G4 basically means a word-for-word repost, or something quite similar. Don't like it? Argue with policy, not me. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

policy error alert Jclemens had been using that same misinterpretation of "substantially identical" for years, and there doesn't seem to be any way to persuade him that he's wrong. "substantially identical" does not mean "virtually textually identical", it means to be matching in substance.—Kww(talk) 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No way is that a valid G4. G4 is already one of the most abused speedy criteria as admins regularly delete articles effectively because they "don't address the reason for deletion" or similar. Now why it's debatable whether that should be the criteria it's not the criteria is "substantially identical" or not. IMO, there's no why an article with four times the number of sources can ever be substantially identical. Now those sources may, like the original, not meet our notability requirements but that's for an AfD to decide not an individual admin. If you don't like it get the criteria changed rather than just G4 deleting anyway. Personally I think the G4 criteria should be revisited but I don't think an article such as this should ever be a G4. Dpmuk (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: how is that thing even an article? It looks like a publicity piece in a travels magazine. If someone nominates this for deletion on account of WP:N, you have my vote. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That may be, but the point is that if the article is substantively different - and new sources is a difference in substance - then that's the sort of thing that should happen in an AfD, not decided by a lone admin. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 19:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The article has indeed been at AFD[1] from before the start of this discussion. Thincat (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up, I've nominated for deletion another article about a mall. Feel free to chime in. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who deals with G4s quite a lot, the general algorithm I use is

• Is it the same article, or the same to all but a minimal extent? If so, delete G4.
• Is it different, but effectively the same article as before (i.e. no new sources or anything that would negate the original deletion reason). If so, delete G4.
• Is it different, and has some new element that may negate the original deletion reason - but still looks like a deletion candidate? If so - AfD or PROD.
• Is it different, and has new elements that definitely negate the original deletion reason, and looks like it would survive a deletion discussion? If so, all is well. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I do it that way also. One one hand it doesn't have to be a word for word copy to be a G4, on the other the addition ofat least one clearly reliable and relevant substantial source is usually reason for another discussion. Perhaps BK's interpretation should be added as a footnote to the policy page. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FPC

Featured picture candidates is having one of the slow periods - probably a lot of reviewers starting University, at a guess. It could use a few more people, because a lot of nominations have been failing due solely to insufficient reviews of late. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• How much per picture? Drmies (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • To pass, 5 supports are needed. A lot of pictures have been closing with 3-4 supports, no opposes of late. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • No dude, I'm talking about cash. My payment. I'm not cheap. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Which explains why I saw you at the kerb the other day... </joke> — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Massive rollback required

Can an admin with this tool revert all contributions of 86.151.229.75 (talk · contribs). This person persistently changes dates "fixing them" to unsourced and in most circunstances incorrect ones. For further details consult 86.146.222.7 (talk · contribs) block log. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done a massive non-admin rollback, and tried to get the ones that had been edited over (thankfully very few.) James^x12345 19:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Amanbir Singh Grewal: ban?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Amanbir Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Amanbir Singh Grewal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mokshanine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There's been some contentious editing at Runes by a 117 IP who has been signing as amanbir and amanbir grewal on Talk:Runes and on my talk page. The edit summary here especially concerns me. I note that there was an AN/I report of much more serious nationalist bigotry in October 2012 that ended with blocks on an IP in that range who was calling himself Amanbir Singh; that User:Amanbir Singh was indef-blocked in November 2012, which was followed by an AN/I report of threats by an IP signing Amanbir Singh; that User:Amanbir Singh Grewal was blocked twice for edit warring in August this year (currently unblocked, so I have asked the IP at Talk:Runes whether they are the same person); that there was an AN/I report that month mentioning IP use associated with the Amanbir Singh Grewal account but not the indef block of the Amanbir Singh account, and referring back to this AN/I report earlier the same month, which refers to User:Mokshanine, who requested a rename from User:Amanbirgrewal. These appear to be the same person, although the edits are in a different area of interest, and with the continuing contentious IP editing, I believe it may be time for an official ban so that the other two accounts can be officially linked an indeffed too and so that IP edits can be reverted on sight. A rangeblock has also been suggested to me, but I understand there would be a lot of collateral damage, so that would amount to another reason to go the revert on sight route. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support siteban and blocking of Amanbir Singh Grewal, Mokshanine/Amanbirgrewal for sockpuppetry. Upon a closer look the area of interest of these accounts is not so different at all. All have a common interest in St. Paul's School, Darjeeling which made up most of Mokshanine's edits. In fact the first edit by Amanbir Singh was the attempt of inserting a photo to that article [2], a task where Mokshanine had apparently given up over continuous copyright issues [3]. Moreover, the 117.x IPs in question and Amanbir Singh share an interest in things related to Norway and the Norse culture, like Norwegian School of Economics, Breivik [4][5], and lately the puported origin of Norse runes by the IP editor who names himself amanbir grewal (see diff posted by Yngvadottir). De728631 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Clear ethnic attack here, but I'd better not block him myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Block who? :) Yes, a range block would be very appropriate here. Sheesh, what not-smartness is on display there. You can have your ban (support) too, as far as I'm concerned. Oh, I blocked another IP, but none of that is going to do any good of course. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, no mention of Cynewulf. No wonder it's not an FA. Get to work, Yngvadottir; no need for sex books here. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I am convinced there is a connection between the account holders, though I'm not fully convinced (yet?) they are all the same person. I do support a ban for all potential owners of the accounts. When it comes to IP ranges, if I only look at the first two IP's, 117.226.28.239 and 117.238.251.53, the likely collateral would already be enourmous: it would be 117.224.0.0/12. 117.226.28.239 alone is part of a /14 assignment, which is already crazy collateral. The IP's are owned by Bharat Sanchar Nigam, which is at least one of the largest ISP's in India. Any effective rangeblock would probably mean blocking huge swats of this ISP's userbase. What we're left with is probably remaining vigilant and blocking where we can. I'll take some time to investigate the edits themselves, and see if I can tailor an abusefilter, but I'm not counting on it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Esvita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just appeared on my talk page signing Amanbir, and has edits on other Wikipedias. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • And there's a 117 IP on the user page of the Swedish Esvita (who is also associated with the name Amanbir Singh Grewal [6]). I'm beginning to think that this is a whole team of editors. De728631 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I had a run-in with IPs signing off as Amanbir Singh a year ago and made one AN/I post here. It involved massive disruption on the Anders Behring Breivik related pages. The incident included at least one threatening post [7], implications that I knew something about the 2011 Norway attacks, and postings of my real name on the Norwegian Wikipedia. Enough really right there to ban someone were it not for the fact that he was de facto banned already. But if it will help to make it de jure banned, it has my full support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note a blatant threat here from 117.229.205.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at 18:27. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The 117 IP editor has been trolling at Fairhair dynasty and its talk page and at Nihang, signing both as ASG, Amanbir Singh Grewal and Amanbir, as well as making repeated trolling posts here that led to this page being semi-protected, in one of which he admitted to making the edits discussed here: [8]. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If he's doing sockwork, we might as well kill the problem before it spreads. I think a ban might make life easier to revert and block him. 173.58.56.149 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Can someone go ahead and close this and log the ban please? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've just blocked Esvita‎ on dawiki for being a pain in the neck, harrasing users and being disruptive. Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FFD backlog (again?)

Just FYI, the backlog at FFD is quite huge, I don't know if there are even any regular editors left there anymore? I took a crack at a few of them a few days ago, but there are still a ton left. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Hoffman

• Would someone mind closing this disussion? It has been open since September 19 (and the most recent !votes were also made on that date). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Done by User:EatsShootsAndLeaves. Nyttend (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages

There are so many pages that are indefinitely semi-protected. Some years passed, and there are still too many. Vandalism for sure might not yet occur, but I see no further point of barring unregistered editors from editing such pages that are seldom or occasionally edited. I would recommend "pending changes" protection, but more inspection is needed. --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As you seem to be saying, this is something that can and should be handled on a case-by-case basis. As such I would suggest that if you see an indef protected page that you think should have protection removed or altered, request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add a caveat (as a general reminder to anyone reading this thread); if the indefinitely semi-protected page is a BLP, and the reason for the protection isn't readily apparent from a review of the history, please keep in mind that there may have been extenuating circumstances leading to the protection (e.g. OTRS or OS action). Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but there are some articles that not everyone should edit. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean, request 15 or 100 pages in one day? --George Ho (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

15? yes. 100? no, that would be disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Recommended amount of requests? Maximum to avoid disruption? --George Ho (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would go for no more than 10 requests at any one time. File 10, and wait for all those requests to be answered before filing any more. Also, leave a note at WT:RFPP that you intend to nominate a lot of pages, leaving a link to this thread. (Just my two cents.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, what Jclemens and a couple of others said: bear in mind that there may be good reasons for protection that weren't written in the protection log, and talk to the protecting admin before bringing it to WP:RFPP if you can get in touch with them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some administrators are inactive, unfortunately. --George Ho (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if some pages look like they're seldom edited, some pages like 69 or /b/ should not be unprotected for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't recommend even pending changes for these pages. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. There aren't enough indefinitely semi-protected pages. The original request, to be charitable, is most likely based on a lack of information about why and how things are indefinitely semi-protected. If you have a specific issue, talk to the protecting admin. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I often think that all BLPs should be indefinitely semi protected, and I really think that blanket requesting the removal of protection is disruptive, no matter how many you do a day. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• In the case of Indian caste-related articles, the number of edits while indefinitely semi-protected may be low but, believe me, when you remove the semi you'll find that the number of contributions rises rapidly and are entirely of a disruptive nature. Those articles, as probably many others, went through periods of increasingly long semi before getting to the indef stage. Sure, indefinite is not infinite - that is actually an unfortunate reality as infinite would be better! Requests can always be made on talk pages and I'm not aware of a single indef'd caste-related article that wouldn't become a bloody nuisance again if switched to pending changes. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• If anyone is going to be going through the list, I think it would be a good idea to find articles that were controversial/in the news back when they were protected but have faded from view now. Brett Favre is a great example. He had a very high profile three years ago but has largely faded from view now, I think, so I think PC can probably handle things for that article. Mister World 2010 might be another good example. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• In a parallel discussion on my talk page, I've advised George to find specific reasons for each unprotect request as opposed to a blanket it's been too long style request.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Kww: That sounds backward to me... the onus is on the person wishing to (semi)protect the page to provide a specific reason that the page must (continue to) be protected. We choose openness by default. It's a core principle. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It did take a request or a chronic problem to get in that state, MZMcBride. There's no reason to believe that the majority of them are the results of administrative error. The reasons are generally given in the log. I don't see a problem with the requester being expected to provide some kind of analysis as to why the reasons no longer apply.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• We do have a similar problem with full-protected pages. Sometimes an admin will protect a page because of an edit war and not set an expiry, either because they forgot or because they don't know how long the article needs to stay protected. Unfortunately this can lead to articles being fully protected for months or years because of a long-dead dispute. Hut 8.5 20:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

True, Wikipedia:Database_reports/Indefinitely_fully_protected_articles is a bit outdated but it might be a good idea to ping the protecting admins from some of those. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like we have somewhere between 2 and 4 thousand articles under indefinite semi-protection, or about 1 per thousand of our articles, which, at least to my eyes, ain't that high a percentage. Having said that, yeah, I think a lot of these might no longer need semi-, although, admittedly, others might need it, and yeah I could be wrong. And it is a big task to ask one person to review all 2 or 4 thousand articles. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, if anyone with a lot of free time on their hands . . . (ROFL) . . . wants to maybe get together a list of articles to be removed, maybe at an unofficial regular RfC or something, that might get a bit more attention, where maybe like a bulk deletion proposal several can be suggested, but others can comment on lifting or not lifting protection from all of them, or separately, as they see fit. And it would probably be a good idea to leave some sort of note on the relevant article talk pages as well, to allow those who may have been involved in the request to offer input. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • actually, let's go by alphabets. I've already checked pages starting with a number. Maybe someone can review pages starting with A, another on B, another on C, etc. --George Ho (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Judging from the request on my page, you haven't gotten my point: if you want a page to come off of indefinite semi-protection, please explain why the reasons it was put on semi-protection no longer apply, don't just say "it's been 3 years."—Kww(talk) 23:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Kww has a point regarding that it would really help to have a specific reason given, even if it is something like "he's dead now, no one cares anymore" (which I hope doesn't get used on any of these articles). But some very contentious court cases run longer than three years, the number given above, so in at least cases regarding such contentious legal matters, or other matters which involve some sort of pending allegations or matters pending resolution, the length of time involved won't really be sufficient to indicate that the controversy is even close to being over. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Specific reasons on many pages? Or page-by-page? And years are... meaningless? --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• We really can't assume in any case that there aren't good continuing reasons, so, yeah, page by page, because that is the only way to establish that there aren't specific reasons relating to that particular article. And, yeah, length of time can't be said to be directly relevant in all cases, and we can't assume that it is in any particular cases without some evidence to that effect, so the length of time in and of itself can't really be used as sufficient reason in and of itself. Having said all that, it would be really nice if some other people were to join the effort. That's one of the reasons I suggested a semi-regular review, to maybe get some coordinated activity involved. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RFPP alone isn't enough; neither is talking to protecting administrator. Propose another process that resembles "parole hearing" (you know, at prison)? This time, have board committee review indef semi-prot. pages? --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Specific reasons on each group of pages that share the same reason. Think of my earlier example to you of a show that's gone off the air so fans aren't squabbling over it any more: that would be a reason to unprotect articles about characters in the show, seasons of the show, episodes of the show, etc. There wouldn't be any reason to explain it once per article. I think John Carter would agree to groupings in that kind of case. But yes, years are meaningless. Talking to the administrator would be enough if you give a reason, right now you are just saying "it's been a long time", and that's not a reason.—Kww(talk) 00:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Would agree that if a TV show, or movie, or music release, or some other temporarily current topic has stopped being current, that would be reason to unprotect. I suppose, for things like comic books and other "continuing" or "developing" articles, which get a lot of speculative and excessive editing while the story is going on, the same would probably apply as well. If there are multiple articles which were placed under protection because of pending court cases about a decedant's will or estate, which has since been settled, they could probably be grouped together as well. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also User:George Ho should remember that Wikipedia has no deadline, there is no pressing need to have all these pages unprotected posthaste. Time should be taken to do things properly and the existing processes are just fine for that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• The Bushranger should remember that Wikipedia is a wiki and it is designed to be as open as possible. Semiprotection is an awful crutch to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. While I think everyone agrees that there's no deadline, let's not pretend as though many of these protections are still appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I never said many of them were still appropriate. However what would be absolutely inappropriate would be a rush to unproect that breaks more things than it fixes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• @George, I am not fussed if another admin wants to try unprotecting an article that I have protected, though I do ask that folks keep an eye on the page. I recently wiped my watchlist when it hit 11000 pages so will have no idea about many pages I watched over the years. Pending Changes is a headache as the IP requesting teh change is often gone and so if the request is obscure we have no idea whether valid or not. At least with semiprotection the IP has to stick around initially to discuss. A great many indef pages suffer from perennial vandalism, so I'd join in saying that each request needs an explanation and a promise to watch. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Examining them, about one-third self-evidently ought to remain indefinitely semi-protected or indefinite subjection to pending changes; another third show clear continuing problems in the edit history--it sometimes amazes me what unexpected pages someone will pick to vandalize. The other third were the result of one or two attempts, or a short edit war, and night well have needed protection or PC for a while, should not have been applied indefinitely. So the unnecessary third will need to be checked and removed manually--the safest thing to do might be not to remove protection, but change it to expire 3 months from now.

But the other question is whether to use semi-protection of PC for each pages. Most of the protections were applied before PC became available., and this can be seen from the histories. If there are problems from autoconfirmed editors still occurring, then it would probably be wise to switch to PC. If it's only been ips, or brand new editors, I personally think that semi-protection is a lot simpler to understand and apply, but others may want to us PC much more often, & only use semi for pages edited so much that PC would be cumbersome--and a good many of the pages seem to be in that category. I think either opinion is valid: we argued this back and forth from over a year--the current state is a compromise, & I'm not aware of any actual data. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please delete User:Pxos/EditCounterOptIn.js. --Pxos (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done GB fan 22:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (non-admin suggestion) Next time, you can use WP:CSD#G7; I think that's what it recommends. Ansh666 22:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No I cannot. It was a JavaScript-page and templates do not work on js-pages. This was the only way to place a deletion request on js-pages that I could find. --Pxos (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

{{db-g7}} does work on JavaScript pages, even though it doesn't look like it. (Also, {{db-u1}} is actually the preferred template in this case). Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking here to delete something and your addition of the G7 template that you did, added it to the list of user requested deletions. GB fan 22:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably a silly user-rights question...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are "Reviewers" implicitely "autopatrolled"? Doesn't seem to be mentionned on either user-right page. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, I'm a reviewer and not autopatrolled. Technical 13 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why I wish they'd rename autoreviewer to autopatrolled. But what do I know? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• AFAIK Autoreviewer has been renamed to autopatrolled a while ago. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You can consult Special:ListGroupRights. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC on NFCC

This is alert you that a RFC was placed in NFCC Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Discussion_on_simplying_the_text_of_NFCC. Your response it appreciated.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  14:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Admin eyes requested on this NFCC, Werieth has seen fit to both vote and close the RFC with only three supports. I don't think that qualifies as consensus (and y es, I'll take trouts and anything else if this is the wrong course of action ).  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's been admin closed by Black Kite. NE Ent 23:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comments is now open. There remain some unresolved issues from last year to discuss, and editors have also expressed a desire to propose changes. All editors are invited to participate. The way the RFC is to be conducted has been modified from previous years by a recent RFC, the changes are summarized at the top of the RFC, reviewing them may be helpful. Monty₈₄₅ 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Too many indef blocked IPs

I don't know if anyone else is counting but we currently have 20,411 single IP indef blocks and 203 indef blocked IP ranges. I don't think anyone is maintaining most of the as some of these blocks are from 2004. Most indef blocks are with the open proxy rationale but since then the open proxy ips probably changed. I attempted to compile a list using Special:BlockList but was quickly overwhelmed by the amount. I even had to break apart my list as it was too large for the wiki to handle.

• http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/global_blocks.txt
• http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/enwiki_indef_ips.txt
• Globaly blocked IPs also blocked on en.wikipedia: http://pastebin.com/HYi2XE0V

We need to verify that these IPs are indeed still open proxies and block them globally rather than locally. I cannot imagine why we would not want to do this as open proxies are a menace to all wikis. The 391 IPs listed on pastebin seem to be already globally blocked and can be unblocked here safely.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

While checking to be sure if they're still needed to be blocked at all should indeed be done, and globally blocking open proxies is probably a good thing, I'm not sure what the point of unblocking the ones already globally blocked is - if they're globally blocked, they can't edit here anyway, so a local unblock is simply checking a box on a list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It would mean that if the global block is ever removed due to the IP no longer being a proxy, that there wouldn't be a trailing block on here. There was an RFC about setting up a periodic review of indef/long term range blocks, and while it didn't explicitly include single IP's with indef blocks, the closign rationale would apply to them just as well. Has anything ever come of that? Monty₈₄₅ 05:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

We have 203 indef range blocks so I don't think so. It is a daunting task to review so many indefs after so much time, perhaps stewards and checkusers from other projects could assist in the review of these IPs. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the range blocks aren't even needed. You should start by reviewing those. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say everything older than 5 years can be safely unblocked. If vandalism continues, or if open proxies are detected again, they can be reblocked. --Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather have a level of check - perhaps automated to make sure we don't run into problems. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If it can be automated it is obviously the best solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been slowly working through this list for about five years now, with the occasional bit of help from other admins. At least the list has stopped increasing in size. There is a dynamic IP address list somewhere which can be cross-matched, and it would make sense to tidy up any rangeblocked individual indefblocked IPs. A large proportion of the others are still trouble, IMO. I would disagree that all open proxies should be globally blocked. Different wikis have very different OP policies. Such an attempt is doomed to fail. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to this dynamic IP range? Perhaps it can be used to cross reference the blocked IP list through tool server.

Are there incompatibilities between en.wikipedias open proxy policy and the one on meta? If not then I don't quite see the doomsday scenario. Identifying open proxies is a non-trivial task it takes a lot of time and effort to detect them and just as much effort to keep track if IPs are still serving as open proxies or not. Global has proven that it is very efficient in handling this mostly technical task. Handling this globally would allow all language editions to help maintain an up-to-date open proxy list on this mutual problem. It would also be more transparent.

I do not know if this exists but globally blocked open proxies should be readily available to local admins and checkusers during on wiki maintenance. For instance consider the scenario where an IP was previously blocked as an open proxy and that was eventually lifted and later on vandalism comes out of the same IP on a local project such as en.wikipedia. That way an open proxy previously detected on another wiki would help identify its reactivation on a different wiki.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to spend a bit of time to make sure someone hasn't already set up a page to implement the results of that RFC, if not, I'll try to get something setup, where we can hopefully coordinate our efforts. Monty₈₄₅ 14:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have an IP list in my userspace on meta. I compiled it using the indef block log here on en.wikipedia. I have one page for range blocks and two more for single IP blocks. Feel free to edit it btw. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I put together one before seeing that at User:Monty845/Block_Review. Probably needs some refinement. Monty₈₄₅ 16:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Might be better to handle it on meta. Feel free to update the page I linked. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Here you are: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Archive_2#Dynamic_IPs. You'd need a fresh RBL lookup or something to get more. You could ask someone like User:RonaldB to have a look, if he's around, as I'm sure he could assist enormously (and seen all the arguments). There are no incompatibilities between en's open proxy policy and the one on meta, just different implementations. On meta for example they are rarely blocked in relation to here, whereas the Chinese type wikis virtually depend on them. Some organisation of those blocked at the request of owner (schools, OTRS and similar), as well as those reviewed would be useful. I would not recommend unblocking without review. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

All OPs not blocked on meta can be blocked here, sure. But everything else should be handled there. I'll ask User:RonaldB per your request. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain briefly my approach.

On NLWP pre-emptive blocking of open proxies is applied. Rather than just reactive blocking open proxies, this also provides some defense against logged-in trolls.

Source for all blocking (and unblocking) is a large and ever growing database. Maintenance is partially automatic (single IPs), partially manual (ranges).

Various internet lists are the source for single IPs (I learned over time which ones are useful). These are 7/24 checked on open proxy behaviour. Only after a certain grace period my system considers a suspected IP a real open proxy, thus preventing amongst others useless blocking of very dynamic IPs. For unblocking the same principle applies.

Initially my scanner was also checking the exit IP of web proxy URLs. With the advent of cloud technology with hosting providers, that approach turned out to become less effective. Therefore I replaced that by blocking ranges of hosting providers.

As we speak, some 20k individual IPs and some 2750 ranges are blocked on NLWP. Blocking and unblocking of individual IPs is a batch process run every 2 days (average) and involving per run some 500 blocks and same unblocks.

Since I started on NLWP more than 350k blocking (and a bit less unblocking) actions have taken place. The table of individual proxies has a row count of 3.5 million. A lot of that is obviously historic data, but is of huge help to analyse "special cases".

In the course of time I have developed several tools to assist me with the assessment of IP related issues. Amongst these tools is one to make a kind of inventory of the status quo, like I have done years ago for the Germans (they appeared to have a similar problem as noticed here).

Since I started 6 years ago with Wikipedia:Open proxy detection, I considered ENWP the ideal test bench for any improvement on the system, because I never had to wait long for a hit ;-).

For any further queries don't hesitate to poke me on NLWP. - Rgds RonaldB (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you do a check on the indef blocked Open Proxy IPs on en.wikipedia with your tool? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've run into this problem myself. I edited for a long time as an IP editor but found I was continually getting blocked. I don't pretend to know how this works but when working from home, I log into the learning platform at school which means I was blocked as a proxy? I know that schools cause you problems with vandalism but have you ever considered contacting them to report it? I know my headmaster would take a very dim view of our pupils bringing the school into disrepute by vandalising wikipedia. You know wikipedia is such a valuable educational resource I do wonder at the merit of blocking schools? BedsBookworm (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Open proxies are always blocked. No questions, no hesitation, no exceptions. Non-proxy school IPs tend to get a fair amount of WP:ROPE before getting blocked but there are cases where the disruption simply becomes unbearable; while I appreciate your good faith in your teachers wanting to curb vandalism you'll have to forgive us if we're a bit jaded because there have been multiple cases in the past of teachers encouraging vandalism or even performing it themselves "to demonstrate/prove how Wikipedia is unreliable". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Checked a total of 183 of the most recent indef blocks, using the end of this list: http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/enwiki_indef_ips.txt

Found 45 entries which are also in my database. Did not check whether or not all entries are still actual (would decrease the number), neither checked whether it would have been more effective to block a range.

Of the other 75% the whois has been inspected manually. The vast majority is dynamic, so indef block is meaningless and superfluous. Also found some weird things, such as 3 IPs belonging to WMF or WMDE and 4 /16 ranges in China, which are highly dynamic.

Finally ran a scan on the 75% IPs, trying 16 ports that are most frequently used as open proxy. Result negative.

So the effectiveness of the current practice seems doubtful. – Rgds RonaldB (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please list the IPs that you conclude are open proxies? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The ones the belong to WMF were probably set up to ensure that bots don't edit if they accidentally get logged out. I remember seeing that discussion somewhere.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That is something that is not readily available. After some copy/paste work, my tool shows the IPs in a little window, after which I can instruct the tool to get through the list and mark suspect IPs via a color. Also built-in is a counter. To produce an exportable list requires modification of my tool. What do you want to do with that list of 45. It is just a small sample of a much longer list? - RonaldB (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to mark them so that perhaps other IPs can be unblocked. It would also serve as a metric on how well older blocks are holding up. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

More admin input please

Could we have more admin input on this please? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Poke? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the above discussion not good enough?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

We need some sort of admin agreement leading hopefully to admin action in regards to the tens of thousands of indefinite IP blocks. Perhaps a straw poll is needed? I don't like polls normally mind you. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A non-agreement is still an agreement; the lack of discussion could very well be taken as a WP:CONSENSUS that this isn't an issue needing admin action... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Having 20k individual IPs + loads of ranges forever blocked seems like collateral damage to me. I do not feel enough people are aware of the discussion. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how it would go, but I think a straw poll/rfc on reducing all indef IP blocks to a 3 year duration (to steal your number) with an understanding that they could be reset to 3 years whenever someone checked to verify a block was still justified, would be worth a shot. Monty₈₄₅ 03:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a hybrid or multiple choice proposal then? Unblock everything (with exceptions and excluding ranges) before 1 January 2010 and convert every remaining individual IP block to a 3 year block? Throwing this problem to 3 years in the future doesn't seem like an optimal solution to me. I am unsure exactly what to propose that wouldn't disrupt the rest of the wiki but would remove useless indef IP blocks.

I am tempted to post the poll here but am unsure if that would disrupt the noticeboard.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Noodleki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Noodleki has invoked the Standard offer in his latest unblock request. As an uninvolved adminstrator, I'm bringing it here so that the community can discuss the case. Please add your comments below. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, as someone who has worked on cleaning up the mess this editor caused by massive unattributed copying from one Wikipedia article to another, despite multiple warnings, I suggest that the unbllock be on the condition that they refrain from copying from any Wikipedia articles (not even with attribution) and undertake to contribute only completely original, well-referenced, content until Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki has been completely cleared. Of course, if they also help us to identify the remaining unattributed sources of copying at the Contributor copyright investigation it will go much faster. Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Can she/he correct any copyright violations made by the Noodle90 account at the same time? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, on the condition that it's "one violation and you're out", given the mess this user made in the past. This is their third chance, because they blew the second one they had; if this one fails, I don't see how the user will ever be able to return. I think there's only been the one sock account so far; that was also back in March. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. As with Voceditenore and User:Liz, I'd like to know if Noodleki is open to helping identify the remaining unattributed sources of copying listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki, and am awaiting their response to this query (which was made on their user talk page). —Psychonaut (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Noodleki has responded on their talk page: "Yes, I would try to rectify those edits (on both accounts) as soon as possible." —Psychonaut (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support As serious as attribution issues are, they seem to understand what they did wrong, so per the standard offer and WP:ROPE I support unblocking on the condition that they understand there should never be a repeat of these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support with the caveats that Voceditenore and Lukeno propose. We should be ready to listen to claims of repentence, but that doesn't mean that we should immediately forget about the past. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Query: Has a CU been run? I can recall two cases in recent months where a repentant sockmaster turned out to still be socking (though in one case I think we still unblocked). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

DoRD has kindly run a check; the ISP uses dynamic addressing, making a complete scan impossible, but there's apparently no indication of any other accounts being used recently. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think the condition outline by Voceditenore would be reasonable, but the condition gaining consensus is not a prerequisite of supporting. Monty₈₄₅ 23:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion I have unblocked Noodleki, subject to Voceditenore's condition and my own that, where reasonable, they assist the volunteers clearing up the copyright violations, as promised. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block appeal from L'Origine du monde

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

L'Origine du monde has posted the block appeal below on their talk page. As the block was imposed by community consensus after a discussion at WP:ANI, I am suggesting that we discuss the appeal here rather than leaving it to a lone admin on the user talkpage. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"This is my only account. I have had two previous accounts, and edited from IP addresses, over the last 5 years. Some of these are linked to above. I am not WP:NOTHERE, but here. I am happy to undertake to refrain from personal attacks on editors who blocked me. However, I am not so happy that Beeblebrox who blocked me writes " This is someone who has edited here before, probably under multiple past identities" and "If I had to guess I would say the reason this block has not been appealed yet is that LODM is already operating another account." [[9]] when I clearly linked to my previous accounts on this talk page, and was mistakenly blocked BECAUSE I associated this account with my previous IPs. User:AGK who reviewed my last appeal also focussed exclusively on this account. The reason for me writing lots of stuff on this page when blocked was because of me sticking to the rules, the reason I was complaining that I did not get a proper apology for my bad block was that people keep saying bad things about me based on that bad checkuser block. I was previously subject to a bad block for 3 weeks. There is no Checkuser evidence against me, and claims made in the ANI that there is were wrong. Please unblock me."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 16:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep blocked. It's too soon as he was just blocked a few days ago, and since he posted this unblock request, he's continued beating the dead horse on his talk page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Keep blocked. I've had absolutely no interaction with this editor, and this block appeal does not really address what I consider to be the fundamental behavioral concerns presented during the most recent block. Edit counts to the mainspace and the length of time editing here do not wave away or minimize L'ODM's disruptive behavior recently. Yes, I acknowledge that initial block due to the IP concerns was inaccurate, but it was not malicious or reckless, and apologies were eventually given ([10], [11]). I cannot support an unblocking of the editor when they have not addressed their own behavior. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I will quote my response to the first appeal:

  Under your current account alone, you have made 350 edits to the project, of which 238 have been made to user talk pages in clear pursuit of the agenda that has characterised your account's edits from the beginning. In your short time on this project, your edits have attracted a great deal of community attention and consumed a great deal of editor time. This is clearly not a situation that can be tolerated. Wikipedia is staffed by volunteers who have more important things to do than to constantly managing your combative behaviour and inability to drop a complaint that has been resolved or answered. Given your edits to date, no reasonable person could expect there to be an immediate improvement in your behaviour if I unblocked you. I am therefore dismissing (declining) your appeal.

  I also note your claim that the ANI discussion which led to your block was procedurally flawed. If this claim were true, it would not mean the block had to be reversed, but merely affect the status of your block by relegating it from a community block (which can only be reversed by BASC or another ANI discussion) to a standard block (which can be reversed by any other uninvolved administrator after proper consideration). However, it is clear to me that community consensus (here) does support your block. A majority of the editors in that thread did opine that the best thing to do is block you; hence, the blocking administrator was implementing a community consensus. Therefore, I am both upholding the original block as warranted and proper, and affirming that it was supported by consensus of the community.

  My own personal view is that you may have more success as a Wikipedia contributor if you return to the project in six months or a year; an extended break may help you to gain some perspective on Wikipedia's mission and your purpose in contributing here. AGK [•] 10:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  This is not an editor who is going to constructively contribute to the project, and the original community decision was plainly valid. AGK [•] 22:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

* AGF Unblock. This seems to stem from a mistaken checkuser block for which L'OdM has been seeking an apology in increasingly strident terms. It was the stridency and volume of this campaign that L'OdM was blocked by community consensus. I have been trying to convince L'OdM of the futility of this, and of what WP:STICK actually means. I believe I'm getting somewhere and I would ask the community to agree to an unblock of this editor against my guarantee. I will closely watch their edits, and if they so much as mention Reaper Eternal or the mistaken checkuser block again, I will indef block them myself. I think there is a chance this is a productive editor who has simply got locked into a combative reciprocal role with the community; if we can both stop reciprocating (and that includes us, too) I think we may get somewhere. I'm prepared to get egg on my face on this one but I'd rather take a chance on recovering a possibly good contributor. If I'm wrong, my mistake is easily remedied. If I'm right but we don't unblock, the remedy is not so easy. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC) I'm no longer prepared to take the risk, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=574997887 this discussion copied from talk page. I've warned L'OdM that tendentious editing such as this is a problem at all times, but particularly during an unblock request. If s/he can't resist the impulse now, then I have no confidence for the future. Oppose unblock. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep blocked - User didn't WP:DROPTHESTICK the first time, So wont drop it this time neither, Plus the battleground behaviour is another problem .... S/he caused problems as an IP & even now with an account, There's only so much WP:AGF you can give till it becomes pointless!, All in all Indef is the best option. -→Davey2010→→Talk→ 22:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock, based on Kim Dent-Brown's stringent appeal and the safeguards of his watchful eyes, we can AGF this request; and should.—John Cline (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• AGF per Kim The idea that anything is solved buy forcing people off Wikipedia for a year or so is nicely absurd, and is not something that any reasonable person would find to be a great way of handling someone who, quite frankly, may have been mishandled on Wikipedia in the past. Kim is the one in charge of this - and I trust his opinion thereon. Collect (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked Oil paintings of vaginas and increasingly strident rants about administrative errors aren't beneficial contributions to the encyclopedia. I don't see anything that makes this editor worth having around.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked As the blocking admin I don't suppose it is any great surprise that I don't think this would be a good idea. This user is not here to help improve the encyclopedia, they are here to deliberately be provocative and stir up trouble. We don't need that and I do not believe this user has any intention of doing anything but continuing to cause problems rather than solve them. I would add (since this seems to be the primary point of this weird unblock request) that this block has only a tangential relation to the previous block, in that their behavior related to it was one of the things the community found intolerable, but this block is not based on the idea that they are or have been socking. Although it would not surprise me one bit to discover that they had been at this time there is no evidence of such that I am aware of. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• I prefer maintaining the block than going for an unblock in this case, but:... I've stayed out these latest matters regarding L'Origine du monde because I'm not too impartial when it comes to commenting on him or her. And here's why... I was familiar with L'Origine du monde when he or she edited as IPs before registering as L'Origine du monde. And during that time, as well as recently, L'Origine du monde has consistently displayed WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentalities/behaviors. The former has been well documented. With regard to the latter, I mean that L'Origine du monde is more concerned with fighting censorship or what he or she perceives to be censorship on Wikipedia. L'Origine du monde does this, like some other editors, often citing WP:NOTCENSORED without regard for WP:Offensive material. BullRangifer (formerly Brangifer) summed the matter up well when commenting on L'Origine du monde's IP edits; in part, BullRangifer stated: "They seem to be pressing the limits of NOTCENSORED by seeking the inclusion of sensitive images in unnecessary places." L'Origine du monde has made a recent response to that comment. And before anyone feels that I have outed L'Origine du monde as the IPs I am about to note, I point out that L'Origine du monde has also confirmed (for example, on his or her talk page) having used these IPs. So... Like I stated before, I've noticed from L'Origine du monde editing as IPs (such as his or her posts about urination and/or the penis at the Urination article, the Human penis article, the Vulva article and other articles), seen here, here, and likely with other IPs he or she has used (similar to this post he or she made at the Cunt article), that L'Origine du monde does not yet have a good grasp on how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy (at least it's not supposed to be). All that stated, I've been given more than once chance to continue editing this site (disregarding the mixups/misunderstandings). And goodness knows certain editors have been given numerous chances to continue editing this site; while it is true that they got and/or continue to get chances because they are considered valuable to this community in some way, my main point on that matter is the chances they have been afforded. So maybe L'Origine du monde can prove us wrong in our assertion that he or she should not be editing this site, but with less chances. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. I think Flyer22 basically hit the nail on the head, and the background is good to know. I think it would be best to perhaps revisit this in 6 months (alla standard offer). ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Time to do an ultimatum I'd say, yes this results in one more shot from the community, but the circumstances and possible mental hurdles to productivity hang on a mere apology for an error? AGF is important, mistakes happen, but if the user is willing to drop this after receiving said apology then the block is bad for Wikipedia and we can all go about our normal business. Someone should craft a well worded proposal and offer it, if accepted then we should go from there. While I doubt many people will like it, it serves to make L'Origine happy and hopefully result in a return to productivity, let's not lose a potentially good editor over this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that idea is that they take a battleground approach to everything. I took a pretty deep look at their edit history when considering the block and what I found there was a user who seems to delight in deliberately provoking others into conflict. Look at the charming discussion at Talk:Oral sex about, well, it's about licking a persons asshole and LODM argues that the article is not acceptable without an actual photograph of someone's asshole being licked. (as opposed to the usual WP:ASTONISH compliant bland drawings we use in articles relating to sex acts. This is not "fighting censorship" which is their favorite cloak for their activities, it is just trying to get as many explicit images up in people's faces as possible. This is symptomatic of their approach to pretty much everything so I don't see how just setting this one issue to rest will resolve things. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm usually Mrs. Goodfaith and I'm all for unblocking almost everyone (certainly in what would be an obvious extension of WP:ROPE), and I was Almost Persuaded by Kim's strong and honest argument. But I have lost my patience with battlegrounders: they are a drain on the community's most valuable resources--time and energy. Sorry Kim, but thank you for trying. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. The issue about venting against a blocking admin is minor in my eyes, although I am disappointed that it was permitted to continue for longer than 48 hours because the idea that admins should be invulnerable to drip-drip-drip attacks ignores reality. The more important concern is that by applying super-AGF we would be dumping guaranteed trouble on the very few editors willing to defend the sex-related articles. LODM's first two edits under this account were to place a very NSFW artwork on their user and talk page, and they clearly seek to use Wikipedia to fight censorship (first user box at User:L'Origine du monde) in the apparent belief that any missed opportunity for revealing all to readers is censorship (see Talk:Penis). It's fine to argue that an article should or should not include a particular image or sentence, but the enthusiasm needs to be tempered with some editorial judgment, and good editors need relief from battles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked, extend WP:OFFER: This timesink just closed like, yesterday on ANI and we had a pretty solid consensus. Give them 6 months to erase the damned chip on their shoulder, and possibly unblock at that time IFF they recognize that further bullshit is a re-indef, and we mean it ES&L 02:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock L'Origine was mistakenly blocked for three weeks due to a misidentification of her/his IP, she/he comes back for 10 days and then is slapped with an indefinite block. I've seen much more egregious behavior from experienced Editors who should know better and they don't even give a week-long time-out. The original request that was brought to AN/I was not for a block, it was a request that someone give L'Origine a word of advice about her/his edits. Then, somehow, it spiralled out of control, Editors judged L'Origine to be a bit different, labeled her/him a troll and she/he is slammed with an indefinite block.

The whole process was just terrible. An Editor should be able to come to AN/I with a small problem, asking for help with a problem, and not have it snowball into unwarranted indefinite blocks voted on by Editors who have no experience working with the individual in question. It was nothing short of a pile-on, and I've seen it happen often at AN/I. People bring a small problem and it mushrooms and sometimes backfires. What happened to giving warnings? What happened to limited duration blocks? Why do Admins go straight to an indefinite block with an Editor who doesn't have a history of previous blocks?

It really leaves the impression that anyone who is brought into the conversation in an AN/I case, whether as the person posting the request or the subject of the request, can find themselves unexpectedly smacked down with an indefinite block. It could be any Editor, anyone.

Also, exactly how is L'Origine supposed to address questions, concerns and defend her/himself in this forum when she/he is blocked from participating? So, all we hear is people talking about her/him, not her/him addressing individual questions people are posing here. The whole system seems capricious, random, like a conversation can turn on a dime and, within 24 hours, one can find oneself blocked. Decisions on AN/I sometimes happen in a matter of hours, not days, for some reason, Admins feel pressured to "wrap things up" so most comments/votes are made on first impressions, in the heat of the moment, without time for reflection and considering the history of the situation.

While I'm advocating for L'Origine, I think she/he will actually be okay. She/he had an IP account she/he has used for years and she/he can return to it. I'm more worried about AN/I and the arbitrary way some Editors are railroaded while others, who have strong allies, just get their cases closed with "No consensus". To a new observer, it seems like an Editor's fate on AN/I has less to do with their conduct and everything to do with how many advocates they can get to show up to the discussion and voice their support.

Sorry for the lengthy comments. But considering that I'm the only person arguing on L'Origine's behalf, I really don't feel guilty taking up a little extra space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• AGF Unblock per Kim's guarantee.Tristan noir (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Unblock. OK, let me get this straight. We blocked him, by mistake. Then we unblock him, but don't apologize, even though he did nothing wrong. And he's a little ticked about it, so we block him again? Jesus christ! I would be ticked off too. Unblock, apologize, and give him his own day. GregJackP Boomer! 05:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Umm, a lot of this is focusing on the belief that I didn't apologize for the mistake—I did: "There was a checkuser block placed on what was very obviously your IP...it looked a great deal like block evasion of a checkuser-placed block, [thus] I blocked you. For that mistake, I do apologize." He requested that I restore the history of his userpage, which I did. He then proceeded to post increasingly bizarre messages on my talk page claiming I had a conflict of interest (huh?) and asking me to edit his block log, to which I responded that I could not. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock I came here to oppose any permission for L'Origine to edit, but have rethought, based on Kim's well thought writing and promise of short leash. I would recommend that, as i think someone above suggested, a very tight set of conditions be given L'Origine before the unblock, and that they require no editing (at least for a set short period) in the "free speech/censorship" areas that seem to have been the focus of attention, both good and bad, as well as no references to the original (possibly poor) block or demands of an apology for it. If he can control himself and contribute well, we gain; if not, the process can be stopped very quickly. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 06:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC) No longer believe this; commenting further down. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock with topic ban AND supervision, or keep blocked. That's the only way to keep him from more disruption. Maybe there were some mistakes, but they were inconsequential, as they don't erase the fact that there was plenty of unmistakable evidence and examples of disruptive intentions as a determined edit warrior who disregarded all warnings. Only with constant supervision in areas not related to his particular "interest" can this editor be allowed back. Hopefully he can learn how things work here and can do some constructive editing in other areas.
  Wikipedia is not one more place where this editor should be allowed to do his flashing. We're editing an encyclopedia. This isn't a public blog, personal website, or meeting place for people with odd desires. If he can't realize the difference, he doesn't belong here. My previously quoted comment makes it very clear I'm against censorship. I will allow the most blatant and graphic images, provided they are relevant and in the right articles. This editor has never had such an intention, and has consistently failed to realize when and where such images were appropriate. His interest here is not related to creating a quality encyclopedia. It's something "else", and even meeting resistance likely feeds his desires. One need not be a psychologist or psychiatrist to see that from studying his history here. I've studied both and this case is disturbingly obvious. There is no need to AGF in this editor. He has repeatedly forfeited any right to it. If Kim, who is a trusted admin, is willing to hold his hand here, I'm willing to allow it, but only in other topic areas. If he's interested in creating a quality encyclopedia, he can prove it on other topics. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. I have reconsidered, per my comments here. There is no way this editor can be trusted, at least at the present time. My AGF has run out. Even @Kim Dent-Brown: has changed his mind, and I totally trust his judgment. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock under Kim's supervision. I trust Kim's judgement, and it's worth a shot. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Block. If L'ODM's just ran out everybody's patience, then there's no reason to give him another shot. I think Kim's just playing into the subject's hands. --Eaglestorm (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked - I have a lot of respect for Kim, but the simple fact of the matter is that L'Origine has never contributed enough to justify the enormous disruption they caused (as alluded to above, they caused problems as an IP as well), and they've shown such a poor ability to WP:DROPTHESTICK that it doesn't bode well for any future conflicts. Given how recent the block was, I think it's best to wait a month or two before considering an unblock. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Question to Kim. Kim, your support for unblocking L'Origine du monde based on your personal guarantee is very convincing, and I was inclined to support it, until I realized you've only addressed the Reaper Eternal question — I don't really think that's the biggest problem. (I can't blame people for resenting bad blocks.) The images on the userpage (you know the ones I mean) seem to me to be mere provocation and trolling. What do you think about that? And note most especially User:Flyer22's background here (going back to well before any blocks) and User:Beeblebrox's examples above, both of them concerning battleground insistence on explicit images in articles. To me that's just deplorable timewasting. Do you think it's acceptable? Or are you figuring if the user is unblocked, they'll be so pleased they'll change their approach in that respect also, without needing any specific conditions about it? Bishonen | talk 11:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

• Good questions Bish, my view was that the block came as an immediate response to L'OdM continuing their campaign for an apology from Reaper Eternal. The other behaviours were there in the background and certainly made people less likely to view this editor favourably, but without the flogging a dead horse behaviour L'OdM certainly wouldn't have been blocked for earlier misbehaviours. I don't personally think the images on the userpage are trolling - I think they are rather beautiful. But I realise that I am the one out of step on that. The previous battleground behaviour is concerning and I agree that such timewasting is unacceptable. I hope that this user will mend their ways in this respect if unblocked but I have to be brutally honest and if I had to make a prediction I think there's a less than 50% chance that they will. I believe it's more likely than not that this user will revert to troublesome behaviour resulting in a block that, this time, really would be indefinite. However I also believe that there is some possibility they might reform and become a good editor. If we maintain the indef block now, all chance of that vanishes. If we lift the block and the behaviour resurfaces, a further block is only one button away and I'd be first to press it. If the community felt that some kind of topic ban or probation was required alongside an unblock, I think that would be a very good idea. However at the moment there seems to be no consensus developing for an unblock so it's probably not worth framing such a proposal. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• You are not "out of step" on the userpage image issue, Kim. The MfD on the issue was recently closed as WP:SNOW "keep". Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  If I may suggest, it appears to me that this discussion is "out of step"; though it will undoubtedly prove to be my error in perception. Upon reading this request, it immediately ceased being about L'Origine du monde's request and became a request from Kim Dent-Brown. I am pleased seeing Bishonen's comment, and the others too; who elucidate deference to Brown's stature. We as a community are squandering the benefits of cohesion when we don't support one another; particularly in an example exactly like this.—John Cline (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I have nothing but respect for Kim but when even the person advocating for unblock doesn't really seem to think it will work I have to wonder. Also, since it seems a lot of people here are commenting on what they believe the reasons for the block are, that the logged reason is basically WP:NOTHERE, with a pointer to the previous discussion that led to the block. I'm not seeing a lot of comments here that refute the notion that this user is not actually here to help build an encyclopedia. Most of it seems to be people who feel like they should get a pass for their disruptive behavior because of the previous block. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess the counterpoint to that for me is that, if there's someone who is ready to block if need be watching over their edits, there's not going to be much more drama over LOdM, even if they do end up being blocked again. Hitting the block button is easy, and there is someone who is prepared for that contingency, so what's the real harm of allowing for the alternative? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock per WP:ROPE. The block was for WP:IDHT behavior. However, a large part of that was provoked. For example, the last ANI report (Sep 20) presented as new evidence a single diff of a reply on LODM's talk page [12] which the reporter himself solicited [13]. The editor who filed the first ANI report (Sep 9) has a block history for egging on others [14]. I see this as largely similar to the Joefromrandb issue. As for the sex images issues, which were not part of the original block discussion (despite a late attempt to sub-thread them there), see below. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comparing this to Joefromrandb is unfair to L'Origine, since Joe will just attack anyone willy-nilly, without any provocation. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question I may be missing part of the story here, but how sure are we that Reaper Eternal's block was in error? L'OdM is pretty clearly trolling, has admitted to using multiple accounts (although not necessarily in a prohibited manner), and the repeated demands for an apology smack of "doth protest too much". Bobby Tables (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You should probably ask the unblocking admin, who is also a checkuser, to explain that (again). Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • The last user who edited 93.96.148.42 is very different behaviorally. If I could reveal who was editing behind the IP address in question, I'm pretty sure people would see that L'Origine du monde is  Unrelated behaviorally. Secondly, the articles interests are very different. Adding on the technical evidence, the useragents were different and it's not typical of the user who last edited from 93.96.148.42. It is evident that L'Origine du monde was in no way related to the user that last edited from 93.96.148.42. Because non-CUs can't see the evidence, it is very easy to mistake that 93.96.148.42 = L'Origine du monde. It's evident that he edited from that address but it's also evident that he is no longer editing from that address. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• If Kim Dent-Brown gets agreement from LOdm to wipe away their talk page (save the barnstars, the pic, and the infoboxes) and LOdm agrees to treat this as a "fresh start", letting things that happened in the past completely go, then unblock. LOdm should be aware they will be under increased scrutiny and may even be baited so their road may not be easy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC) KDB has withdrawn his support so this is moot. Keep blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Go with User:Kim Dent-Brown on this. Sorry I posted earlier in the topic ban section Irondome (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked - Too soon, considering behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The exchanges below are copied, at L'OdM's request, from their talk page. I have also copied a response from Brangifer because it nests within these comments - Brangifer I hope you don't mind me doing so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think less than 10% of my edits are concerned with sex. I am unclear why the discussion is focussed on them.

I would like to remind those participating in this ANI that it is not supposed to be a discussion about content. The policy(?) I am accused of violating, described by User:BullRangifer as

"Images are used where necessary, but images that may be offensive to many are used more sparingly, IOW on the articles where they are most relevant. Instead of plastering/spamming (and that's what you seem to be doing) every tree in the forest with pictures of penises, we just put signs that say "penis", and an arrow. When one arrives at the penis tree, there will be a nice picture of a penis on THAT tree, because THAT is where it's relevant. It's not relevant on every other tree in the forest."

is not quite as it seems. For example, it involved removing all images of the human penis from the Penis page to the subpage Human penis. There seems to be strong consensus at the discussion I started while unblocked Talk:Penis#Removal_of_inappropriate_image_from_the_article that this is wrong.

I would like to restate my conviction that attempting to insert germane images is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and that such discussion should take place on the merits of the material, relevant policy, and consensus rather than through imputing bad motives to opposing editors in a content dispute. I have not attempted to add offensive images to inappropriate articles. The blocking editor User:Beeblebrox wrote about Talk:Oral_sex#Illustrations_-_why_old_pictures.2C_no_anal.2C_and_no_photographs. "Look at the charming discussion at Talk:Oral sex about, well, it's about licking a persons asshole and LODM argues that the article is not acceptable without an actual photograph of someone's asshole being licked. (as opposed to the usual WP:ASTONISH compliant bland drawings we use in articles relating to sex acts. " ( WP:ASTONISH does not mention images, bland or otherwise )- There is currently no image of "someone's asshole being licked," and I actually wrote "Looking at the article, there are 4 illustrations, of which 3 are C19 paintings (2 french, and one Chinese) and one created specially for the article. All four illustrations show oral-genital contact, not one shows oral-anal. It would be good to add pictures of oral- anal, and photographs". ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 04:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear to me if you want this section to be considered by editors at WP:AN (ie if you would like this section copied there.) Please let me know if this was your intention and I will do so. However I should give you a heads up about this. You ask why the bulk of the conversation is about a topic that comprises less than 10% of your edits; the answer is because it is this 10% that has been problematic so of course that is where the discussion focusses. Having 90% of productive edits is not going to outweigh this. Furthermore I suspect that your argument above and the way you make it will weigh against you rather than in your favour. It would, in fact, be the kind of post that you would likely be topic banned from making should an unblock result from the current discussion. Self-justification in unblock appeals never plays well. Let me know if you nevertheless want this posting to WP:AN. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's BS, to put it mildly. Your edits involved FAR MORE than just counteracting removals of "all images of the human penis from the Penis page to the subpage Human penis." You, using IPs, were spamming many articles with numerous, often poor quality, images, sometimes in clumps, even when there were already images! You even sought to edit war. Your edits were not constructive, but you wouldn't listen to anyone else. AN/I was even involved. Anyone taking a looking at the archived AN/I discussion will get a picture of what was REALLY occurring. It's nothing like what you describe.

That you can edit constructively in other areas is also a fact, which is why I !voted for an unblock, but only on condition of a topic ban and strict supervision. Stay away from the sexual/anatomical/pathological/perversion topics. You get too carried away. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer that is offensive, and unwarranted. Removing "all images of the human penis from the Penis page to the subpage Human penis." - was a single example of WP:censorship. In that 14 month old AN/I I was accused of using one "long-standing IP account, with a wide-ranging contribution history." to attempt to add images to "Human penis, ,Penis, Urolagnia, Urine , Phallus ,Vulva and Urination." In that AN/I User:Anthonyhcole wrote "It seems like sincere strong feelings about prudery, and an attempt, mostly through civil argument, to move the project toward a more radical position with regard to sexually explicit content." Please give an example of me spamming one article with numerous poor quality images.

Kim Dent-Brown I would like this, including this statement copied to WP:AN, at the end of the unblock discussion. I do not see my editing on this topic as "problematic" -I disagreed with a number of editors currently active in the discussion over the application of WP:Notcensored - but controversial.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 12:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep blocked shows no understanding of why they were blocked. --Rschen7754 09:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban instead

• Since the issue has now shifted from LODM's attitude towards the block to her general editing of sex-related topics, I think that a six-months topic ban on discussions and insertions of images on sex-related topics would work towards reducing most of the grievances posted here. LODM has previous written articles like An Oak Tree (using his or her previous accounts and IPs), so clearly there are other topics he or she can work on for the benefit of our readers. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Replace block with Topic-ban With the added stipulation that the topic ban also applies to insertion of sex, nudity or genitalia related images anywhere on wiki. I support giving this approach a try, with a clear understanding that if the same behavior just moves somewhere else, that it will not be tolerated. Monty₈₄₅ 16:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'd support an unblock given both this and the condition that he doesn't complain about his old blocks anymore. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• I would only support this if it was an indefinite topic ban, and included a topic ban from complaining about Reaper Eternal and the CU process. Why indefinite? Because I can't see a specific point in the future when L'Origine would be able to contribute constructively in this area, so we should wait until they prove they can be constructive elsewhere. This, of course, means that if L'Origine can be constructive elsewhere, they aren't forced to wait six months; but if it's obvious that they'd still be a pain in this area, then it could be a lot longer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• oppose How do you topic-ban someone from engaging in battleground behavior? I don't know if that can even be done but have no confidence this TBAN would do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, Sorry but I suspect s/he'll be back at ANI complaining/being complained about in a week or 2, I completely respect Kim for trying but IMHO L'Origine du monde dug her/him self a deeper & deeper hole, As I said above "There's only so much WP:AGF/WP:ROPE you can give till it becomes pointless/tiresome".→Davey2010→→Talk→ 18:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • LODM managed to edit since 2008 (about 4,000 edits) without attracting much administrative attention with her previous accounts and IPs, disclosed at the top of her talk page. There was one prior ANI thread about the sex images issue in 2012 [15], [16]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

What you are pointing out with this observation s that this is in fact a long-term problem and it just took a while to get dealt with. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

*Support topic ban. I'd be more than happy with this and L'OdM would be fortunate if the community agreed to it. I should point out that while I'm happy to keep a close eye on this editor if they were unblocked, they would also be at the mercy of every other admin out there if they stepped out of line. If another admin were to block for a topic ban violation there'd be no argument from me. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC) I'm no longer prepared to take the risk, per this discussion copied from talk page. I've warned L'OdM that tendentious editing such as this is a problem at all times, but particularly during an unblock request. If s/he can't resist the impulse now, then I have no confidence for the future. Oppose unblock, with or without a topic ban. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Beeblebrox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support I support a total unblock but if this is the only alternative, I'll support this as well. Like Someone not using his real name says, L'Origine edited for years without incident. I don't know whether he/she will accept this topic ban and I think it isn't the right solution (mentorship might be better) but some ability to edit is better than none. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose both topic ban and, more importantly, unblock. I supported the unblock above, but L'Origine's comments cross-posted above show me that he simply does not get it. There are problems of not listening, possibly not being here for the right purpose, maybe even competence. Combined, i believe we are better off not letting this user contribute any more. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this, and any unblock. It's fine to AGF, but when you can't, you can't, and this user has done, and is still doing, everything possible to make that impossible for me. Not only that, they appear to be doing it with glee... Sorry, it would just be a waste of good time and good ROPE. I respect Kim, and the attempt was honourable and praiseworthy, but no, too much wasted time, too much obvious disruption, for no perceivable benefit. Begoon ^talk 16:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have no faith in that editor. Keep blocked, and if they ever return, impose a strict topic ban and supervision. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The primary problems here are behavioral: the user appears to have a severe case of IDHTitis and to hold a battleground mentality, and there may be competency issues as well. I first encountered the user at Talk:Oral sex, where they couldn't seem to accept that consensus wouldn't permit doing what they wanted done to the article. They don't seem to understand that arguing beyond a certain point—even if one is right—is disruptive and antithetical to the collaborative process. In reading over this discussion and various talk page threads, I cannot imagine that a topic ban would address those problems. I'm actually a little sympathetic toward the user vis-à-vis the painting controversy, but even there it comes down ultimately to a willingness to accept consensus. Wikipedia is a community, and while I may sometimes disagree with its standards, I know that I must accept them if I am to remain an editor in good standing. As far as the allegedly improper earlier block goes, well, shit happens. Wikipedia, like life itself, can be deeply unfair, but the constructive thing is to try to move on. Suggest blocking for an extended period, then a provisional unblock with specific conditions (e.g., a topic ban) and close monitoring. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's unfortunate that during "community" discussions like this one on possible unblocking, the blocked Editor is unable to participate and address concerns people have with their behavior. It's a one-sided conversation that is almost inevitably going to fail because the Editor in question can not assure others that he/she understands why he/she was blocked and will not continue his/her disruptive behavior.
  

I wish there was a way to unblock blocked Editors so they could discuss these issues in AN/I discussions that are all about them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There IS a way, and it's used a lot. The editor opens a {{helpme}} asking for something to be copy/pasted into the AN or ANI discussion. They then include the exact text of what they want to contribute to the discussion. A friendly passing help watcher - or some other tps - will then do the honours. It's very successful in being inclusive ES&L 09:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, Liz, at times, blocked editors have been allowed to directly participate in a WP:ANI or WP:AN discussion about themselves and/or others. But since this discussion is about whether or not to unblock the editor, it's understandable (to some or most of us at least) why the editor wasn't unblocked so that he or she could directly participate. There's also the likelihood that L'Origine du monde would have attempted to debate with every person in this thread who argued against the unblock, which would have made this thread significantly longer, tiresome, more difficult to read, and a display of the exact type of thing editors have argued against L'Origine du monde. The point that was made explicitly and repeatedly to L'Origine du monde is that this isn't the time to argue against what others have stated; that is because these are their concerns, and simply reiterating that they are wrong is not going to convince them that they are. If anything, actions would (at least regarding being slightly or somewhat wrong, considering that the editors clearly were not completely wrong about this user). And L'Origine du monde's repeated actions of not being able to exercise the advice that would have significantly benefited him or her reinforced to the community that they are right about him or her. Flyer22 (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, ES&L and Flyer22. It's much appreciated.

As for me, I've posted my opinion on this block several times so I'll leave it at that. As I've tried to show, it was the process of how these "community blocks" are arrived at and infrequency at which they are lifted that I find disconcerting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep Blocked - It's probably for the better, the "unblock" request looks more like an attempted justification of their actions. 173.58.100.83 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure

As there has only been one new opinion on the unblock/keep blocked question in the last 24 hours, I suspect that all that can be said, has been said. Is it time for a willing, previously uninvolved volunteer to judge the consensus here and close this discussion? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pages with the most revisions

Pages with the most revisions (configuration) just saw its first update in over two years. If you sort by the "ID" column, you can see the most-edited articles. It's a pretty interesting list. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating, as always. It's especially fun to compare the previous list with the current one. Also, the special page Special:Mostrevisions contains similar data for articles only. Graham87 07:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

#2 List of WWE personnel. I shake my head in misery.--v/r - TP 16:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether because it was noticed from this or not I dunno, but number 7 List of Total Drama characters is currently up for deletion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I find some of the numbers (like over 100K revisions on a User page) rather inexplicable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Which in particular Liz? I looked at a couple, and they made sense. Some are bot maintained, a list of current CSD candidates, a file with the latest run time of a bot, etc.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot made sense. I didn't get this one List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. Never heard of it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This page, SPhilbrick. West.andrew.g revised it 188,938 times alone! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a maintenance page, probably used for a bot. Ryan Vesey 23:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that one's kind of intriguing, because it looks like it is manually updated. I wonder if it is semi-automated (I don't use STiki, but I think it is a semi-auto tool)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, West andrew g explains about it a little on his Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I recognised it as a Filipino network. I didn't and still don't get why it has so many edits, I wouldn't expect the programs broadcast change that often or can be that contentious but I guess there's a reason. From the edit history, I wonder if a lack of protection is a reason. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Some articles attract attention for no reason sometimes but typically it's down to one or more over-zealous but acutely focussed individual(s). tutterMouse (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's just bizarre when a single article/page reaches 50K, 100K, 200K+ revisions. I don't see how this is possible manually, it must be bot-related. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

MfD close

I just closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:1993EBT/EBT as delete all (about 430 user subpages among seven user names). I'm self-reporting here for comment before beginning any deletion. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, as long as you're careful to follow NativeForeigner's advice and leave User:ByaAkai/Articles Created alone. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of work went into creating those pages. It's a pity all of the sports data couldn't be incorporated into the relevant Wikipedia articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I completed the close. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Angela SiP

I came across the aforementioned user whilst on Recent Changes. They appear to be some sort of religious statement or similiar, and their only contributions are to their own user page. George8211 ^{conversations / new message} 12:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) Her (assuming that the person made the account under their own name) userpage is currently a fake article about herself - should be moved to a subpage and the account should be given the standard COI stuff. Ansh666 19:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Blanked their user page per WP:UP#PROMO, and advised on talk. (User:TheOriginalSoni already left a Teahouse invite, which is good). Miniapolis 16:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So much for the Teahouse; content restored by an IP, subsequently also blocked for 24 hours. Looks like WP:NOTHERE. Miniapolis 19:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-blocked (72 hours this time) when self-promotional material restored to talk page. No communication from editor and heading for an indef as spam-only, I'm afraid. Miniapolis 00:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Loomspicker's personal crusade against the use of the word "Islamophobia"

User:Loomspicker appears to edit WP for pretty much the sole purpose of eradicating the word "Islamophobia." In the service of this crusade, he has repeatedly introduced factual inaccuracies and other claims that outright contradicted the sources ([17] [18] [19] [20]), blanked material ([21] [22] [23]), introduced non-neutral ambiguity ([24]), otherwise removed sourced material ([25] [26] [27]), and added scare quotes ([28] [29] [30] [31]), among other issues.

I've warned him several times (here and on his talk page) that this is not acceptable behavior, explaining that his personal disagreement with the word is not sufficient to justify his disruptive editing and that we, eg., do not have separate articles on "Islamophobic incidents" and "anti-Muslim incidents" and "anti-Islamic incidents" for the special accommodation of people like him. Maybe he doesn't believe me because I'm not an administrator. Either way, some action that ends this disruption to the encyclopedia, whether a warning, a block, or a topic ban, would be appreciated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(Note that Loomspicker appears to be periodically active, but to resume the disruptive behavior each time he returns. I do not consider the past couple of days' silence as indicator of any improvement in behavior.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Manning move discussion in progress: uninvolved admins needed

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request - as a transgender or sexuality related article, this almost certainly falls under arbcom discretionary sanctions. Could we please have uninvolved admins on hand to keep things civil? Thank you :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you are uninvolved in the dispute, and are willing to close the discussion a week from now, please comment below. The editors (including 'Bradley' supporters and 'Chelsea' supporters, and including me) who collaborated to set up the move request would prefer if three admins rather than one would close the discussion. (The previous discussion was closed by a triumvirate, whose members noted that they appreciated having access to each other's help.) It is for this reason — because it takes more time to find three admins who can communicate with one another than to find one admin who can read a discussion and immediately post the results — that I make this request now rather than later. -sche (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have posted at the discussion to say I'd be willing to be one of the three, if this was agreeable to folks discussing the issue. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Please, please, if any uninvolved admins have time, I could really use some help in trying to keep the conversation flowing smoothly and without personal attacks, etc on the RM. I'm trying to handle it as best I can by myself, but I think the situation would be better served with more eyes sanity-checking both the conversation and potential administrative actions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a head's up, this page is also being discussed on AN/I board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• If you need another person and I am neutral enough in the eyes of the community, I would be willing to help out with the closing. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see this

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. Please see MediaWiki talk:blocklogentry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.136.101 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An RfC on reducing the API edit limit for logged out users

I submitted a proposal to reduce the API limit for logged out users to 1 edit every 30 seconds. Your comments are welcome. Click Here to reduce your mortgage...err I mean comment on this RfC.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I request semi-protection of a talk page during an RM?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

About half of the participants in Talk:The Downfall of Osen#Requested move 3 are IPs with no edit history or SPAs. Both the previous RMs were poisoned by JoshuSasori's sockpuppetry, with the only other user opposing the move being Kauffner. Both are prolific sockmasters. At least four (I haven't counted) IPs have appeared and opposed the RM, along with one obvious sock account. One established IP editor also made a good-faith oppose vote, but I don't think s/he is planning on posting again, so more would be gained than lost by semi-protection. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, RM2 went unopposed except by JoshuSasori's sock IP, and so I moved the page unilaterally about a month ago. One or Kauffner's socks requested that the move be reverted, and I accepted on technical grounds (I'm not sure if BRD technically applies when the only users on the other side of the "dispute" are banned, but still). The subsequent RM demonstrates that either Kauffner, JoshuSasori, or both really, really don't want to see the page moved for one reason or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help with file deletions

These images are languishing in their respective deletion queues, as no one but myself seems to be working these backlogs right now. I am unable to delete these images myself, since I am the person who nominated them. If someone could have a look and evaluate for deletion, I would appreciate it.

• File:Hummingbird Heartbeat.png
• File:Author Winchinchala.jpg
• File:Emanuel Leplin at piano with pipe, 1945.png
• File:6 western floral.jpg
• File:Air Labrador passengers disembarking Port Hope Simpson Regional Airport 20 July 2002.jpg

Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsalting needed

Resolved

At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Elena_Siegman, there seems to be a consensus to move the content to article space, but the article space name is salted. Could someone please unsalt Elena Siegman and make the move? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It could just be me after a long day but I cannot see any page protection active? GiantSnowman 19:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Me neither; lots of deletions but no salt. Have you tried to move it yourself and gotten an error or something? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I moved it, and am not an admin, so there was no salting in place... Technical 13 (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume that TPH just forgot, but unsalting should have been requested over yonder. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding personal info

Resolved

Can an admin take a look and revdelete this edit, as not only this is vandalism but includes personal information as well. Also, if edits like these happen in the future, where should I request further possible redactions if there is no revdelete request board? Minima© (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's gone. In future there's CAT:REVDEL, or you can email User:Oversight. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please see WP:RFO if you find anything like this that needs to be hidden from public view. Advertising it here just brings unwanted attention. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Gross Misrepresentations in the Article State of Florida v. George Zimmerman

No comment on the value of this or otherwise; just moving it from the Talk page, where it didn't belong. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that in the article "State of Florida v. George Zimmerman" there are blatant and misleading differences in the depiction of the Defense's and Prosecution's pathologist testimonies:

In this sectionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Florida_v._George_Zimmerman#Expert_witness_testimony_2there's ample description of the Defense's version,

while in this sectionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Florida_v._George_Zimmerman#Expert_witness_testimony the Prosecution's version regarding pathology is entirely concealed (which can be found here:http://www.businessinsider.com/valerie-raos-george-zimmerman-testimony-2013-7

Several other users have already complained that any edits that cast a remotely bad light on Zimmerman are generally reverted by a minor fraction that has seized control over the article and given such a gross lopside in depiction, an edit-war is probable for whoever is trying to add the needed facts, so I wanted to inform the Administrators' noticeboard prior to someone being engaged in such a war.Commissioner Gregor (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If someone of you Admins has time to spare, he may well search through the version histories of the articles related to Zimmerman and sort out the black sheep who are reverting any constructive edits and whose behaviour has led to such one-sided depictions:

•https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Florida_v._George_Zimmerman&action=history •https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Zimmerman&action=history •https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&action=history •https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trayvon_Martin&action=history (Interesting that this is the only article with issues like questioned neutrality, might also look up whether in the above articles, tags were unjustifiedly deleted?...)--Commissioner Gregor(talk) 03:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

AN is not the place for content disputes. WP:DRN is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, WP:DRN is thataway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Lake Village (Michigan) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is there a reason that this AFD, open for eleven days, has not yet been closed? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, the reason can be found in the thread just above this one you created. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations back log

We have a big back log at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations with some as far back as September 12th with no progress. -- Moxy (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We certainly do need more admins patrolling SPI reports. There are 36 outstanding reports that have not called for (or are ineligible) for Checkuser that any willing admin could handle. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We really do need more clerks (and specifically, admin clerks) to replace the ones we lost to the CU team - feel free to apply at WT:SPI/C! --Rschen7754 07:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

Could an admin please review the unblock request at User talk:Mitrabarun? The user was requested to show that they understand the copyright policies and explain them in their own words. The response has been posted now for over 24 hours and the user is hoping for a response. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes these hang around for a while, as each reviewing admin chooses not to accept but can't quite get to the point of explicitly rejecting. I can assure you that were I permitted to decline Mitrabarun's request, I would.—Kww(talk) 14:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why, have you been sacked?Basket _Feudalist 14:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

He's the original blocker and is trying to avoid dealing with "INVOLVED" nonsense I'm assuming. Technical 13 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblock requests should not be declined by the original blocker regardless of involvement -- although the original blocker is free to comment and express an opinion about whether the request should be accepted. Looie496 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, It's pretty hard to conceive of a situation where the exceptions listed at WP:INVOLVED would apply to an unblock request.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In all fairness, it doesn't hurt for the blocking admin to check back, since you might always decide "Okay, he can be unblocked"; it would be absurd to complain on WP:INVOLVED grounds when the blocking admin reversed himself. Of course I understand that's not going to happen here. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The "involved" problem comes when an admin denies an appeal of his own block: it's effectively depriving the user of the right to have is block reviewed by an uninvolved admin.—Kww(talk) 22:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely agreed; it's just that I've at least once seen somebody say (can't remember precisely where) that a blocking admin shouldn't respond in any way to an unblock request, so I wanted to attempt to dispel such an idea. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a block is a purely administrative action, and thus does not ordinarily make the blocker WP:INVOLVED. I think the community still expects the blocking admin to not decline the unblock unless the unlock is blatantly bad faith, but as far as I know, its an unwritten rule, not a policy. Monty₈₄₅ 02:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't make the admin involved for future dealings, but "since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked" is, indeed, policy.—Kww(talk) 02:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Mitrabarun's need for speed will probably be their undoing, and is probably what led to their block in the first palce. Patience is a virtue and all that jazz. It's never a wise idea to ping the admin noticeboards on things like these - if the admins who patrol RFUB haven't acted on it, the the odds are extremely high that it will be declined as "no consensus to unblock" ES&L 14:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I would decline his current request too as it stands. He hasn't really done "any" of the requirements that were pointed out to him, and I've left him a message that hopefully he will pay attention to in regards to that. Technical 13 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Anyone reviewing the unblock should also look at MitrabarunMitra (talk · contribs) (not notifying since since it's moot and even talk page access was subsequently removed). —SpacemanSpiff 18:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hurricanefan25 unblock request procedural question

Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs), also known as Perseus, Son of Zeus (talk · contribs), would like to request an unblock. But this is not an unblock request. Hurricanefan was blocked for socking after outing one of his own socks here. He went on to make some other socks, which got blocked, as late as last year: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Perseus, Son of Zeus. Hurricanefan has made offwiki appeals in the past that have been denied. He would like to know if appealing to the community is an option in this case. His last appeal was seven months ago, and his last sock was blocked over a year ago. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As it is a checkuser block, I think you would need a checkuser to answer that definitively, but the only blocks that cannot be appealed here are WP:Office blocks, Arbcom Blocks, and if based on private evidence that would prevent a proper community discussion, Checkuser blocks. Monty₈₄₅ 02:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think he's stuck with BASC. I can't speak for the entire community, but I can say that I can't conceive of a reason why anyone would entertain the notion of unblocking this editor. He's not just Perseus, Son of Zeus, he's carrying extra drawers of socks under multiple names like User:VickyLoveYou and User:Vicky870. His last sockpuppeting block was not over a year ago, it was on August 28. Complete waste of everyone's time.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The socks you listed are socks of IPhonehurricane95 (talk · contribs), a different sockmaster. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Got my hurricane-loving sockpuppeteers confused.—Kww(talk) 02:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably -- is there a link to last appeal discussion? NE Ent 02:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Previous appeals were made via email to arbcom. Should have been more specific about that. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably want to ping arbcom as well then, to make sure they haven't assumed the block under their own authority. Monty₈₄₅ 14:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hurricanefan25 blocked, no US landfall hurricanes, coincidence? I jest, and am generally in favor of having content editors unblocked if they can be persuaded to follow the rules. Some of the hurricane articles in Wikipedia are among our best content, and Hurricanefan25 has contributed. That said, I'm nervous about what I do not know. If Arbcom refused an unblock request simply because it was unripe, I think it is time to reconsider. If there are other reasons, that might be a different issue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• This editor engaged in some very disturbing behavior while here, some of which had to be oversighted. I assume ArbCom is aware of the details, and I would be hesitant to say "unblock" without an explicit assurance from ArbCom that they don't see a problem with him editing again. 28bytes (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hoping that wasn't the case. I concur, we need I want some assurance from Arbcom.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, since when does Arbcom have the right to tell the community that we may not agree to unblock someone? It's one thing to say "Arbcom disagrees with the unblock, so it's probably a bad idea", but another thing to say "Arbcom disagrees with the unblock [or Arbcom hasn't commented], so we're not allowed to unblock". Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, this is a request for ArbCom's advice, not their permission. Under the circumstances I would not want to proceed without their advice. 28bytes (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Left a note: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Advice_requested NE Ent 00:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you NE. 28bytes (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The answer to your question, Nyttend, is "since ArbCom became a quasi-governing body with authority over the English Wikipedia, including WMF-delegated authority to do things with real-world legal implications." As to whether such a state of affairs is desirable, that's for each person to decide themsevles. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if my use of the word "need" led to that assumption. I've changed it to "I want"

• Some of the accounts, including Hurricanefan25, are globally locked. --Rschen7754 00:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • To be specific, he would need to appeal to stewards if he wants to keep the same account, as this account is globally locked, meaning that he is prevented from even logging in on any Wikimedia site by stewards. That would have to come before being unblocked on the English Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 03:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Hurricanefan's last appeal was denied in March. I can't really offer more specific thoughts without taking another look at his appeals; if another arb hasn't beaten me to it I'll try and respond again in a few hours. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • To follow up on the relevant question for which this section was started, policy on unblocking does specifically mention to consult with ArbCom and/or the blocking admin/checkuser in relevant situations; our own pages for WP:BASC and the arbitration policy don't go into such details, which perhaps means they should be harmonized. In practice, I can think of instances where appellants have successfully appealed a block to the community while it was on BASC's plate, and cases where we've declined an appeal on the basis that the community processes that lead to the ban were sound. I don't particularly think there is much in the way of mitigating or undisclosed factors that might have a bearing on a community discussion about an unblock--my own personal feelings are that the editor seems incapable of productive editing and seems to treat Wikipedia as a playground for fostering drama (threatening suicide, asking for his own socks to be blocked, et al.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Aside from illegal actions and decisions that the Foundation declares to be against their official policies (e.g. sensible decisions on page creation), community consensus is the basis for all policies/guidelines/rules/etc. here. It's possible for a small group of editors to decide something that's not community consensus and therefore not required, but it's not possible for community consensus to be irrelevant except for what's illegal or against WMF policy. When we have a community decision that conflicts with Arbcom policy, the Arbcom policy must be revised, because they are not and may not be GovCom, unless the community decide to have a huge hierarchical overhaul. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom policy can be revised; the process for doing so is outlined on the policy page; however, the unblock request process is just that, a procedure rather than part of the policy, except to identify Arbcom as the block reviewer of last resort. Arbcom got stuck with the job around 2007 or 2008 because community unblock processes were....what's the word I'm looking for...fairly obviously biased in some cases. If the community was interested and willing to develop a process for "final chance" unblock request reviews for blocks initiated by an individual admin or by community consensus, that would be a huge weight off Arbcom, leaving us only with Arbcom and AE blocks to deal with. I doubt there is an arbitrator around who would object to a sound, fair community process; unblock requests consume a disproportionate amount of the committee's workload. Risker (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn't expect an arb to come out and say that the guy threatened suicide. But yes, that's what I was alluding to with my concerns about disturbing behavior. I think I will never get the hang of what things we're supposed to keep oversighted and what we can discuss freely on the drama boards... good thing I'm not an oversighter, I suppose. 28bytes (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Restoring archived thread per request of Hurricanefan25.--v/r - TP 19:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion with a completely false rationale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

H, so I spent XX (I don't know how many, but many) hours working on filling Category:Video games featuring female protagonists (I didn't create this category, but most of entries were added by me - I was also usually editing these articles more or less with a cleanup while going on through them).

Then, this happened: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 2#Category:Video games featuring female protagonists

What was said in the "rationale" (here in quotes, because it was a statement that was so incredibly absurd misinformation/disinformation) was completely untrue: [32] (there I provided several sources to back it up, can provide more if needed - the nominator still presented zero sources, and can't present any, because it's just ridicalously untrue) but people for some strangest reason just believed this "rationale", and it's all "delete". It's like a parody of Wikipedia process.

Would be great if someone intervened. Thanks. --Niemti (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Erachima blanked this section. I restored it. Accuse Niemti of canvassing if you think you have to, but removing his post entirely when you're engaged in a dispute elsewhere is just bad manners. I think admins are bright enough to make up their own mind about this post. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Do as you wish, but there is nothing at all for the admins to see here. User:Niemti simply needs to calm down and trust that the discussion will be closed in accordance with policy. --erachima talk 07:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Consensus or not, I wouldn't want to be the admin to close a discussion where the apparently strong consensus seems to be based on a blatantly false premise. You may finds a number of flaws in Niemti's behaviour, but you can't really say he's wrong: "Almost all video games have female protagonists" is just plain bullshit. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Niemti, Admins would not get involve in a CfD, AfD or MfD that is in process unless it's to weigh in with their own opinion on the case. I'm not aware of conditions which would allow the discussion to be "undone" once it is started. I think your best option is so provide your strongest argument for keeping the category that might sway the opinion of other Editors participating in the discussion.

This is most effectively done by providing rationale of either the legitimacy of this category (according to category guidelines like WP:COP or WP:EGRS) or if you can show that similar categories exist (that is, that this category is an example of a kind of category that is part of a larger parent category structure). Since that last statement is awfully confusing, here is an example: Category:Sportspeople from Dayton, Ohio might be up for deletion but if a user can show that this is just one category of athletes from Ohio cities that populate Category:Sportspeople from Ohio, then that might be a persuasive argument for keeping it.

Another option you can do is to post notices of this discussion on relevant WikiProjects or article Talk Pages, inviting other Editors who might have an opinion to offer to participate in the conversation. This must be done carefully, the notice must point to the discussion but be unbiased, not arguing for or against the CfD proposal, or you could be accused of canvassing. If you don't mind, I'll volunteer to take this task on as I'm all for inviting people to participate in CfD discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go on please. I don't usually even participate in such discussions, but here I just put too much work and research into it, and then there was this absurd "rationale" that people believed without checking. Also such a similar category would "Video games featuring anthropomorphic characters"[33] (since early 2009). --Niemti (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DRV treatment of porn-related content

This thread was severed from a "Harassment from an admin" thread to discuss whether DRV is being unfair on porn-related content -- Jreferee (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well now. What's this open can doing here, and why are there worms wriggling around all over the place?

I think the first issue here is that Erpert, Rebecca1990 and other members active in WikiProject Pornography are not getting satisfaction from DRV. That's a major issue from my point of view. DRV is the end of the line: there's no appeal from a DRV. Therefore users have to have confidence that the process is fair. It's essential: this is an editor retention issue.

Now, there are a very small number of users who regularly attend DRV, and Spartaz is at present the main closer, so if you clash with the DRV regulars in general or with Spartaz in particular, there's not much chance of getting any input from others. So for this kind of situation, where it's alleged that the main DRV closer and/or DRV regulars are showing bias, the only fair answer we have is for previously uninvolved editors to review DRV's recent discussions and Spartaz' closes, and decide for themselves to what extent the accusations of bias are well-founded.

This pretty much has to happen. As soon as it's alleged that this small number of users is biased, our formal processes come to a crunching halt: they just don't allow for that possibility. Therefore we're left with the default Wikipedia way, which is for independent, unbiased editors to read, comprehend, think, evaluate, and comment. It's really important that this is happens. Even though I'm a DRV regular and I think we're doing things right and that Erpert's complaint is unfounded, I'd nevertheless encourage anyone reading this discussion please to look closely at DRV's recent decisions and weigh in with their view.

I think the second issue is that DRV takes, and has taken for some time, a very dim view of PORNBIO, and to a lesser extent most other SNGs. We see the GNG as the arbiter of what should be included and will happily overrule SNGs if there's conflict. This is surprising for some editors who have a basic expectation that their WikiProject's favourite SNG will prevail.

In this particular case a further issue is that at least some of us (including me) openly question the reliability/independence of AVN and XBIZ as sources. This questioning is extremely corrosive for WikiProject Pornography, because if AVN and XBIZ aren't reliable/independent sources, then what valid sources do exist for porn articles? If consensus moves in that direction and we do collectively decide to eliminate those sources, then a really high percentage of our pornstar articles are headed for the dustbin.

As a third issue, and this might just be me, I've also wondered whether BLP applies to pornstar articles. For example, is it best to treat that Deuxma article as a BLP? Or is it best treated as an article about a fictional character portrayed by a nameless porn performer? This seems important to me because it helps us decide where the bar for a pornstar article should be.—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• About AVN and XBIZ, IMO AVN is pretty more "journalistic" than XBIZ, second I distinguish between the printed magazines and the websites, the websites are actually 85% made of press releases while at least AVN Magazine in its printed form is 85% made of original content including feature length articles, insights, biographical portraits, reviews, interviews, editorials and opinion pieces. XBIZ publishes several magazines, but the ones I checked were very poor of original contents. About BLP Vs. fictional characters, I think it is a mixture of the two things, like for wrestlers or even artists like Lady Gaga, it is an editor's duty to weigh the elements that belong to the one or to the other, eg statements by pornstars who say they are nymphomaniacs, swingers and/or bisexuals should be, in general terms, almost always kept out from the articles. Cavarrone 12:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• It would be hugely helpful if we could somehow draw a clear line between parts of AVN and XBIZ that are or are not reliable. Is there an easy way to distinguish press releases that have been (at most) minimally changed from actual articles? Hobit (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• What I said above. Short articles published by AVN/XBIZ in the section "company-news" or marked as "company press" are very likely to be press releases. On the other hand, the printed AVN magazine includes some easily identificable "secondary" journalism (reliable is not the correct word, as a primary source is not automatically unreliable), eg. the 6-pages-article used as a source in Fashionistas, the 10 or 12 pages article about female porn published this month, the columns by Clyde DeWitt, the "editorial desk" column or the yearly June special issue named "The Fresh Issue" are exemples of valid journalism. A different question is if they are sufficient for a claim of meeting GNG, but frankly I have no record of discussions in which anyone claimed a subject passing general notability on the sole basis of his/her AVN/XbiZ coverage, we are generally extra-cautious about that. Cavarrone 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If we're having a real conflict between GNG and SNG (rather than just SNG providing specific guidance or recommendations for how the genre sees itself), that's more signifiant and needs to be resolved first. Otherwise we'll forever be having different DR mechanisms picking whichever one suits each editor's preference. That's no less arbitrary than just scrapping the whole process altogether and relying on individuals to edit-war on each article itself. Or if we generally give deference to "keep" (AfD process requires consensus to delete, vs lack-of-consensus for a del-nom leaves an article existing). Get Wikipedia talk:Notability to put their own house in order. DMacks (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• As one of the DRV regulars who generally leans toward inclusion and has no problem with porn coverage, I do feel that there is a significant problem here. Partly there is badgering on the part of Erpert. Partly there are editors that I would say show up to porn bio discussions with a clear leaning toward deletion. But mostly because of WP:PORNBIO. It does seem to create a SNG where folks are generally notable even though they really have no chance of meeting WP:N if you ignore press releases and reprints of press releases. One could argue that's because mainstream news doesn't really cover these folks, so there is a cultural bias that the SNG addresses. But one could also argue that these just aren't notable folks and in any case we shouldn't be writing articles based on press releases. That fundamental issue needs to be resolved. And I think it can be resolved if we work hard to identify actual reliable sources in the field and find a way to narrow the list of awards that we consider in the SNG. Put another way, personalities are in part to blame here, but mostly its a policy problem. And S Marshall notes, that's solveable by getting a wider range of folks involved in getting these issues (RSes for porn, awards that make one notable) resolved. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting that, since the beginning of 2011, DRV has not (per the Wikiproject Pornography deletion list) reversed the outcome of a single porn performer AFD. What the trio of editors is actually complaining about is that DRV is supporting the consensus established at AFD, which they oppose. As Spartaz noted before being driven into a wikibreak, DRV was generally more emphatic about GNG failure overriding a technical pass of PORNBIO language, but it was reinforcing the AFD consensus, not overturning it. It's also worth noting that the objections to DRV don't come from project members as a group, but from three editors who have joined it relatively recently and dismiss previous discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's pretty obvious that this "trio of editors" consists of Rebecca1990, Guy1890 and me, but if you were paying attention, HW, you would notice that I clearly stated that I am not even a member of WikiProject Pornography. Anyway, you can't use the "dismissing previous discussions" argument because an uninvolved editor (finally!) split this thread. And Equaczion and Guy1890 made a good point a few days ago: about the applicability of WP:PORNBIO apparently working differently in AfD than it does in DRV. Why would the same guideline work differently in different venues? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I was not aware of the apparent fact that DRV is not frequented by a large number of editors or closed by a large number of Wikipedia administrators. That could very well explain why "since the beginning of 2011, DRV has not (per the Wikiproject Pornography deletion list) reversed the outcome of a single porn performer AFD."
      • "What the trio of editors is actually complaining about is that DRV is supporting the consensus established at AFD, which they oppose." No, that's not what I am saying at all. I've never brought a single article to DRV while on Wikipedia, and, if I've learned anything at all about what happens at DRV, it's that DRV is not a "do-over" of a particular AfD. "DRV was generally more emphatic about GNG failure overriding a technical pass of PORNBIO language"...look, all I have said above is that we need consistent standards. Tell me what the standards (that apply to both AfD & DRV) are for whether or not we can have a pornography-related article on Wikipedia, and I'll try & live by them the best that I can. Don't change the game when we go from AfD to DRV and don't pretend like there aren't some editors out there that have an axe to grind when it comes to pornography-related articles. "It's also worth noting that the objections to DRV don't come from project members as a group"...I've actually noticed that the Pornography Project does not seem to operate in a "team environment". There don't appear to be that many truly active members, and I don't see much cross-colaboration unfortunately. "and dismiss previous discussions"...which, again, you never seem to actually refer to Mr. Wolfowitz. There is unfortunately a lot of, IMHO, unsubstaniated opinion tossed around in AfD & DRV pornography-related discussions (from the delete at pretty much all costs POV) without much else backing them up. Guy1890 (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Like S Marshall, I'm a regular at DRV. Like him, I usually agree with the decisions there on this subject, and greatly respect Spartaz's closes. I do not necessarily agree with the decisions, but that's when I disagree with the consensus. The reason I and other regulars tend to let him do most of the closes is very simple: he does it best. Consensus at DRV is much more complicated that at AfD , because it involves determining several layers of possibilities: not whether an article should be kept, but whether we should argue the question of whether an article should be kept, and what is likely to happen if we do, and what an article will become in the future. Everyone has a different idea of what considerations to treat as more important: the interpretation of WP guidelines is , after all, whatever we want it to be, and the relationship between them is usually what we want to make it.

If you hang around there or AfD, you'll know that I in general differ from the current consensus about using GNG: I would apply it only when there is no plausible alternative. If we were drifting to use it more , it would be a direction I would deplore, but I don't think we are--it varies with different subjects: It varies because we interpret it according to the result we want to get. The reason I disagree with relying on it is indicated by the discussion above; the actual decisions in anything but the obvious depend upon the exact interpretation we want to make of the 3 key words "reliable", "substantial", and "independent". For any closely disputed article, I could interpret them in any direction. Which direction I choose depends upon what I think reasonable and in accordance with the purposes of Wikipedia. From what I've seen, even those who claim to take them as precise words and follow the GNG literally decide the hard cases just the way I do, whether or not they realize it. This is specially true of the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs. There is no fixed relationship: In some cases, like WP:PROF, the SNG is explicitly accepted as an alternative. In others, it seems to be accepted as a limitation. In some, it seems to be accepted in practice as the only guideline, though we've usually found some way of wording things to pretend it follows the GNG also.

For Pornobio, the question is what the community wants to do. Ultimately, the consistent trend of decisions at AfD makes the practical rule, and when there is a consistent trend , the general practice at Del Rev is very conservative, as befits an appeal process: we endorse it. What we overturn are decisions we think aberrant or unreasonable. None of the regulars there uses Del Rev to change or defy consensus--even consensus we individually dislike, though we may use the occasion of a dispute there to enter a protest. The reason for the conflict about it is that the community is apparently divided in what it wants to do. As I interpret it, the community is moving consistently towards a narrower interpretation of notability there. If it is, the results will inevitably show it.

And , as with most WP processes, the way to make Del Rev better is for more people to come there, and discussion other issues than the ones they are personally interested in DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The only times I ever see porn-related articles at DRV at all is when a user wants to re-create a deleted article and the deleting admin has reservations about it...but then the admin suggests that the matter be taken to DRV (recently, it has happened with Sabrina Deep and Elexis Monroe). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So what this boils down to is that a small number of users reject the consensus interpretation of PORNBIO, supported by consensus at AFD and DRV, regularly personalize the relevant discussions, continuously press their own relaxed interpretations, which are incompatible with the GNG (the only demonstrated inconsistency raised in the current discussions), and ignore the extensive discussions and the outcome of the relevant RFC(s) from the WP:PEOPLE talk page in 2011 and 2012. The community is divided and the details of PORNBIO, on points I identified here [34], but the trio of editors pressing these discussions rejects the consensus achieved on other issues, which has been persistently, and pretty consistently, applied at AFD and DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, hang on, HW. I'm personally responsible for this particular subsection of AN. (Actually Jreferee created it, but he did so in response to my concern.) What I hope it'll "boil down to" is a sanity-check on DRV's recent porn-related decisions, in which previously uninvolved editors give us a bit of welcome scrutiny. If we're going a bit wrong then they'll set us back on the right track. If we're doing things right, then the problem is with WP:PORNBIO and we'll probably end up with another RFC about it.—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• HW, I'm not exactly sure what you want here. This is actually the most objective discussion I personally have seen about the situation because as I stated before, uninvolved individuals are making comments. It seems like you have a problem with that, so rather than the "trio of editors" (you really have to stop saying that; this isn't a battle) rejecting consensus, you actually seem to be rejecting outside viewpoints that might disagree with how you personally feel. Also, if the community is divided as you say, that means a consensus hasn't been met, doesn't it? I even clarified in a previous discussion that when a consensus hasn't been made about what to do with an established guideline, the guideline is kept, not deleted. (I welcomed anyone to present evidence of the latter happening and no one did.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• "a small number of users reject the consensus interpretation of PORNBIO, supported by consensus at AFD and DRV"...where we apparently apply PORNBIO at AfD and basically ignore PORNBIO at DRV. I can understand how this current situation might satisfy those that might like to see less coverage of pornography-related content on Wikipedia, but, as I've stated several times already, I don't see how this status quo is especially fair or reasonable. If PORNBIO is actually the problem & needs to be changed, then so be it.

"which are incompatible with the GNG"...I've already addressed "concerns" of how meeting PORNBIO does somehow "not" meet GNG in this discussion here on September 13th. There's no need to re-hash that here now. I would also say that I basically agree with what was said recently above about GNG: "It varies because we interpret it according to the result we want to get." If that's really what's going on at DRV with respect to GNG, then that also doesn't seem especially fair or reasonable as well IMO.

"and ignore the extensive discussions and the outcome of the relevant RFC(s) from the WP:PEOPLE talk page in 2011 and 2012"...which, once agin, you never seem to link to to back up your arguments here (or pretty much anywhere else for that matter). An American President, that I actually voted for, appropriated the phrase "trust, but verify", which I think very much applies here. Guy1890 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You're obviously not here to participate in any sort of rational discussion. Which part of "the WP:PEOPLE talk page" could possibly be unclear to you? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"You're obviously not here to participate in any sort of rational discussion." Physician, heal thyself. Guy1890 (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

HW, you really need to just accept the fact that people are being more objective to the situation this time around (you're the only one who doesn't seem to be). If you can't, maybe it would be best if you just recused yourself from the discussion (or even the subject). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And, once again, Erpert, you're improperly personalizing the discussion and casting aspersions on an editor who disagrees with you. Why don't you reply to the question I raised: Which part of "the WP:PEOPLE talk page" could possibly be unclear? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not taking the bait. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• The reality is that there really isn't any "bait" to be taken here, since the vaguely-referenced discussions above (from 1-2 years ago...which I've read through BTW) have virtually nothing to do with the topic of this thread ("DRV treatment of porn-related content"), since those discussions barely mention DRV at all. Consensus is not defined as one person continually making a claim that isn't substantiated by the community as a whole. For instance, various editors continually dismissing PORNBIO as an "invalid" guideline merely by re-stating one's only sole opinion isn't the way that I understand consensus to work here on Wikipedia. In any event, dismissing PORNBIO doesn't negate the basic & inconvenient fact that ANYBIO & ENTERTAINER are extremely similarly-worded to PORNBIO. In fact, one could even argue that those other guidelines are more expansive than PORNBIO's current (which again, I'm not married to) wording. Guy1890 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • One other thing I've noticed lately (well, not lately, but other editors are starting to notice too) is that there are some users who seem to want to delete pornography-related articles and WP:PORNBIO, but instead of commenting here like they should (and have been advised to do), they just clog up AfDs about porn and thus push everything off track. More than that, the rationales they have are inaccurate, and I suggest simple methods for them to justify their claims...with no results.

1. I stated that a "no consenus" result for the validity of PORNBIO (in this case) defaults to "keep" rather than "delete", and it was argued that that meant that the guideline wasn't a guideline after all. I asked for proof of that ever occurring; nothing.
2. It was argued that consensus showed that MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year isn't a valid award category, and I asked for a link to that consensus; nothing.

Basically, if you're going to argue something, at least be able to prove your claims. And repeating the same unsubstantiated claim several times won't make it true. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:PORNBIO is an odd duck. I ran a couple of RfC's on it a couple years back (to reform it, not delete it). It was clear that practically nobody liked WP:PORNBIO, but because of all the myriad ways to reform it and various subdiscussions over details (or perhaps because the RfC's themselves were poorly formed and run) nothing happened. The result is pretty much as expected: since WP:PORNBIO is ridiculous and an outlier from our usual notability standards, it's mostly ignored. That's what happens when you try to make to rules that force the community to do things it doesn't want to rather than codify accepted practice. You can push the community to some extent by crafting and pushing through a rule, but only to some extent. Sorry. What people unhappy with that need to do is instead advance the proposition "We ought to have an exception to our normal notability and sourcing requirements and include an article on, basically, everyone who's appeared in a porn film, and this would enhance the Wikipedia because ___________", and you fill in the blank with cogent and compelling arguments such that people go "Oh, yeah, of course!" That's where you need to direct your energies, I think, and good luck. Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "'We ought to have an exception to our normal notability and sourcing requirements and include an article on, basically, everyone who's appeared in a porn film". I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. No one that I can tell is asking for any kind of special exception to anything or that every single actor/actress from any genre have an article on Wikipedia. If PORNBIO really "is ridiculous and an outlier from our usual notability standards", then why are ANYBIO & ENTERTAINER so similarly-worded? This entire thread is going nowhere. Guy1890 (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I think that with contributions from people who aren't DRV regulars it's finally started to go somewhere. I agree with Herostratus' analysis of PORNBIO and its history.—S Marshall T/C 11:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• One thing that needs to be remembered is that there are some areas, such as porn and, by my observation, webcomics, where WP:GNG fails as "traditional media" makes a point of not giving significant coverage, in the former case because of 'morals' and in the latter case because of a 'it's not real media' attitude; in the latter case, this ends up with some of the most significant, and well-known, webcomics getting rung up at AfD (and deleted) for "lack of notability" when the problem is a - deliberate - lack of coverage; I'm quite sure the former applies to entertainers who fall under WP:PORNBIO. Now, that's not to say the gates need to be open willy-nilly, but it does mean that we need to remember it's the General Notability Guideline and not words carved in stone handed down from Mount Ararat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Another thing that needs to be remembered is that it's not simply the GNG brought into play, but fundamental BLP concerns as well. Part and parcel of the underlying dispute is the repeated effort to write BLPs without reliably sourced information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• One of the things we need to decide is whether porn performers' articles really are BLPs. I put it to you that they're fictional characters portrayed by performers (and, yes, so is Lady Gaga).—S Marshall T/C 11:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• There are some performer personas that are purely fictive (see, eg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Milani (model), an uncontroversial case that somehow led Wikipediocracy to single me out for castigation). but most at least purport to mix genuine biographical elements with promotional claptrap, and are, as Jimbo Wales commented a while ago, mostly kayfabe. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • I'm honestly a bit bothered by the claims of BLP concerns. In part that's because I don't think we should be censoring well-source information that we have every reason to believe to be accurate. So associating something with their profession isn't, ever (IMO) a BLP concern. Secondly, I believe it is insulting to people who work in this field to make such arguments. I'm not going to get into the Feminist theories on porn (though I was surprised to see we have a decent article on the topic [35]), but I'll simply note that there are certainly folks who are not embarrassed by their work. So basically, I don't think BLP plays a role when we are confirming a well documented fact about someone being a pornographic performer. If their real name isn't generally associated with their acting, we should certainly not do so (for all kinds of reasons). Hobit (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• I feel like WP:PORNBIO is as disliked as WP:NFOOTY, and is in a similar boat; most people want it changed, but no one can agree how to make that change. If Spartaz has regularly closed DRVs on this subject in line with consensus, then they cannot be blamed for any issues with that consensus. What I think should happen is that the relevant WikiProject for this subject draws up a list of "reliable pornographic sources", specifying the reliable sections of them as well. If this happens, then editors external to the project will be able to fully assess whether a performer is notable or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "the relevant WikiProject for this subject draws up a list of 'reliable pornographic sources', specifying the reliable sections of them as well." To a certain extent, this has already been done, but some editors don't seem to want to respect what is written there. Again, I'm not married to the exact wording that's currently in these links either. Guy1890 (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Those lists are rather ancient, and haven't been compliant with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP for years. They date back to a time when the same Wikiproject supported use of nonfree images of living persons, a clear breach of content policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think the main source of contention is the WP:PORNBIO guideline. With over 100 categories for the main industry awards AVN Award, it's easy to see how editors outside the biz see this as little more than spam and promotion. Compare to the number of Oscar categories. Also, the current non-consensus PORNBIO even allows for AVN-like nominations to impart notability, of which there are several hundred per year if you add the XBIZ Awards (just look at the toc there). And there's also the FAME Awards and the XRCO Award, also pretty prolific. I suspect that practically anyone in the North American biz for number of years eventually qualifies per PORNBIO as written today. And we haven't even touched on awards and performers from other continents, which I'm sure are currently underrepresented relative to the US-centric ones, e.g. Japanese Adult Video Awards has few blue links. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "With over 100 categories for the main industry awards AVN Award"...no one that I'm aware of has argued that all of those awards (same goes for the XBIZ, XRCO, FAME, etc. industry awards) are "well-known and significant industry awards". BTW, there are likely roughly the same number of current Oscar "Merit categories" (around two dozen or so) that probably qualify as well-known and significant industry awards as there are current AVN Award categories that qualify under the current PORNBIO standard. "the current non-consensus PORNBIO even allows for AVN-like nominations to impart notability". Consensus can certainly change, but the assertion of literally less than a handful of editors that consensus has changed on PORNBIO (to make it inapplicable now) is not what my understanding is of how consensus works on Wikipedia. Again, if PORNBIO were to magically disappear tomorrow, the ANYBIO wording ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times") would apply to an even more broad spectrum (like "scene-related and ensemble categories") of adult award nominations. "I suspect that practically anyone in the North American biz for number of years eventually qualifies per PORNBIO as written today"...and you'd be wrong in that regard, but that's OK. Guy1890 (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • And that's the other half of the PORNBIO problem. The toxic combination is: (1) a low standard for inclusion that has led to many articles on quite unremarkable people; and (2) a wagon-circling, defensive approach towards any proposal to raise the standard.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Right, because asking that Wikipedia standards be consistent from venue (AfD) to venue (DRV) and from guideline (ANYBIO) to guideline (PORNBIO) is "wagon-circling"...got it. When did I say that I was opposed to changing the wording of PORNBIO? Oh yea, it was never. Guy1890 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
        • You seem to be missing the obvious that what constitutes a "well-known and significant award or honor" (in ANYBIO) is subject to editorial consensus. I would argue that "Orgasmic Oralist" (to pic an example at random) doesn't qualify. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
          • "I would argue that 'Orgasmic Oralist' (to pic an example at random) doesn't qualify"...and I might even agree with you. Now show us an AfD or DRV where that award (or some other adult industry award of similar "significance") was the sole determination in recently keeping an article on Wikipedia.

When it comes to awards & nominations, PORNBIO currently is more restrictive in what is considered "a well-known and significant award" than ANYBIO. "Nominations and awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration" & "For awards with multiple rounds of nominations such as the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award, only final round nominations are considered" when it comes to PORNBIO. The idea that PORNBIO is somehow a "low-bar" guideline doesn't meet up with the facts of how current Wikipedia guidelines are stated & applied in practice. Guy1890 (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This analysis is, I think, well off target. The language about final-round nominations is from a footnote, not the guideline proper, and reflects general practice with regard to awards -- "longlisting" is not treated as indicating notability, but shortlisting is (assuming the award meets the well-known/significant standard). Scene awards are pretty much sui generis for porn, generally not given in other fields (there are no "best chapter" awards for literary works); and, since AVN and other organizations classified them apart from "performer awards", some editors, myself included, argued they should not be treated as showing performer notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The language about final-round nominations is from a footnote, not the guideline proper"...which is another distinction without a real difference. "Scene awards are pretty much sui generis for porn"...and without specific wording (which is currently in PORNBIO) excluding them from consideration, they very well could be considered under the ANYBIO guideline...that's the entire point here. The reality in the adult industry is that adult film perfomers (if they are not under some kind of long-term contract) are usually paid for their work on a per scene basis, which is different from more mainstream acting. Guy1890 (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please stick to relevant points. If you're going to argue that PORNBIO's restriction of eligible nominations to shortlisting is unusually restrictive, please provide counterexamples to show that this isn't general practice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Please stick to relevant points"...and, once again, physician, heal thyself. Guy1890 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I went on a small wikibreak because I was moving, and...wow, is this discussion really still going on? It doesn't look like a consensus to possibly reword WP:PORNBIO will be happening anytime soon, but...that does not mean PORNBIO should be ignored, no matter what some delete !voters say in AfDs (and interestingly, they never seem to want to say such a thing here). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Editors are always free to ignore guidelines if they see fit.—S Marshall T/C 13:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, then here's a non-pornography-related example...I don't like Bill O'Reilly. However, I would never nominate the article about him for deletion because he is a notable person...but I could nominate it if I ignored WP:N. Would ignoring that guideline be as I see fit? (If you don't think that's the same situation as this one, it definitely is; besides, you said "any guideline", not just WP:PORNBIO.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• It appears that the consensus of the AFD was to delete the article that this was all about and that the consensus choose to disregard PORNBIO in favour of the GNG with flavours of V and BLP thrown in. That's interesting because it firmly suggests that DRV's approach to this kind of content is not at variance with wider consensus and that the outlier opinion is actually the one that argues that PORNBIO must take precedence over everything. I can't say I'm surprised but I do believe that we probably should now close this discussion, which has certainly be helpful in providing external scrutiny to the situation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Right...so now we can ignore PORNBIO at both DRV and AfD...sounds "great"...ugh...what a complete & total joke this has become. Guy1890 (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• One could argue that WP:PORNBIO exists only to protect articles in this area from a large number of editors who would rather see all of these articles deleted, notable or not. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• One could argue that, but it's not the case. A significant number of porn performers meet the GNG. This has never been seriously disputed. The disputes have centered on the use of industry promotional mechanisms to claim notability while systematically failing to meet the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The disputes have centered on the use of industry promotional mechanisms"...which are usually more generically called adult industry awards that are covered under the current PORNBIO standard...a standard that, again, is actually less inclusive than the current ANYBIO standard when it comes to awards. I mean really...it's not like you're going to see many adult film actors/actresses that are going to win something like a Nobel Prize. Again, the idea that a well-written Wikipedia article can somehow meet the PORNBIO standard and not the GNG standard is really a farce that's already been discussed at length elsewhere last month. Guy1890 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Guy please see WP:STICK. I think we get that you want to populate wikipedia with inadequately sources bios of living people. You made your views quite clear. Your problem is that with the exception of a very small cadre of likeminded editors far more editors disagree with you and the relisting and discussion here shows that actually the small minority beating a dead horse against community consensus is your side. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• "I think we get that you want to populate wikipedia with inadequately sources bios of living people." When have I ever said that as well? Oh yea, it was never. What's more obvious to me is that there are a number of editors (and unfortunately some Wikipedia administrators as well) that have a clear anti-pornography bias. I honestly don't see how to currently fix that though. I do welcome (and have for a while now) a discussion on changing the PORNBIO standard. Guy1890 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd be happy with just removing the reference to nominations. That would fix it. I don't think anyone seriously objects to the idea of winners of major awards being notable and the nominations are the only significant area of contention... Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• The title of this discussion (which I've agreed, for some time now, has gone on for much too long) is "DRV treatment of porn-related content". The forum for discussing how to change PORNBIO is here (and thanks for starting that discussion "Spartaz"...I mean it). For the sake of argument, let's say that PORNBIO was changed to remove any "reference to nominations"...would that allow you (since anyone that's chimed in here recently seems to agree that you "Spartaz" are one of the "main closers" at DRV) to give at least some deference to PORNBIO at DRV in the future? Guy1890 (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it would be easy to overstate the degree is discretion I have as DRV closer as I can't interpret an outcome if that point of view isn't present in the discussion in the first place and it would be unacceptable if I were to close to a minority position unless there was a wider community consensus to refer to that decisively trumps a particular line of inquiry. In most cases I have a sense of what DRV expects even if that hasn't come out explicitly - hence I generally close to a more inclusionist bias favouring relists then I would if I were to close according to my personal views. I also think based on the strength of feeling that in future I probably shouldn't close PORNBIO type discussions unless the outcome is quite evident - but then if we leave the closing admin to random choice we are going to have less consistency of outcome in close discussions and that lack of certainty would probably lead to more controversy. That said, based on my experience at DRV and understanding of the place, I do think removing nominations as an inclusion criteria would go a long way to bring PORNBIO back into line with wider community expectations. I'm struggling to recall a clear example of someone who won an award being controversially deleted and this causing a fractious DRV. I'd be interested in seeing what the other DRV regulars think about this. Generally its DGG, S Marshall & Hobit sitting in the middle on these and I think their views would be the ones that if swayed would tip the balance. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

user talk:Kudpung#Deauxma (hatted). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On the specific issue of award nominations, my opinion is that for awards in general, a nomination does not show notability, with the exception of the final round nominations of a few outstanding awards where attaining the final round is widely considered as a great honor, and widely discussed: The Booker, Oscar, and possibly the Nobel come to mind--there are undoubtedly a few others. I am not familiar enough to know if any porn industry award is among these, but I think industry awards in any industry are often open to some degree of doubt, especially in industry awards with a great many categories. (There are many industries with a limited number of significant players where every regular gets one of the many awards sooner or later). DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DGG, there are no final round nominations for the Nobels. Everyone can be nominated basically, it is meaningless; winning is of courses instant notability. But there is no "longlist" or "shortlist" or "final five" or whatever. Fram (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say the awards currently listed and given to a single person would clear the bar for me. I could imagine some single nominations and some group awards also being above the bar. Hobit (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I will continue to object to any consideration of industry-internal awards that are not regularly the object of substantial coverage in other, independent and industry-external media. Independent coverage is, by definition, the only factor that really conveys notability. Without that, industry awards are nothing but self-serving publicity gimmicks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• • More or less agree with Fut. Perf. and DGG here. I've been involved in a few awards ceremonies where we had to, basically, give everyone in attendance an award, and some of the minor awards in some of these lesser known award ceremonies can be of the same kind. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Folks may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO again. Current trend of discussion there is that, since WP:PORNBIO is being ignored because it's too lenient, it should become more lenient, and that anyone who opposes this is variously anti-pornography, has a conflict of interest, is brainwashing us, are baselessly rejecting "reliable news sources" as press releases, and are deleting articles by weight of numbers rather than strength of argument. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Archive.rs RFC

It's been pointed out that the RFC that I should probably make certain that Wikimedia is aware of this problem because they may choose to make a global change. It's certainly true that the proxies that have been abusing us have been abusing all the various language versions. Can someone point me at the appropriate venue?—Kww(talk) 15:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't you actually wait for the RfC to end first, and come to a consensus? This is jumping the gun by an enormous amount. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• It would be jumping the gun if I told them what to do, Lukeno94. The problem is that the bots have been going after multiple language versions, not just us. That makes it a WMF concern as well, so they need to at least be informed.—Kww(talk) 22:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Maggie's talk page would probably be a good start, she'll be able to direct you where if not her. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Request amendment of Lucia Black's topic/interaction ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello all. I'd like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2, a new request for formal mediation by User:ChrisGualtieri. This is the dispute between him, User:Ryulong, and User:Lucia Black about how we cover the anime series Ghost in the Shell. Specifically, it is about whether we should have an article on the series as a whole, or whether that content should be merged into other related articles. As many readers of this board are probably aware, Lucia Black is topic-banned from "all articles related to WikiProject Anime, broadly construed", and is also subject to an interaction ban with ChrisGualtieri. Both sanctions are due to expire on November 1. As a prospective mediator of this case, I would like to see Lucia's topic and interaction bans amended to allow her to take part in the mediation.

I have been in touch with Lucia via email, and she is receptive to the idea of mediation. Ryulong has also agreed to take part, so the only obstacle now to the mediation proceeding is Lucia's sanctions. I don't think it would be very useful to leave Lucia out of any mediation proceedings, as any conclusion reached would fall apart when she was allowed back to the topic area in November. And if she participates, we may well be able to work out a resolution that satisfies everyone. So I see many positives and not many negatives from amending her bans. Would others here be willing to agree to this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I should remind everyone that Lucia is also topic-banned from WP:ANI. Given that this isn't (quite) ANI, and that this wasn't her starting a thread about somebody, but me starting a thread about her, I think it would be only fair to allow her to comment here if she wants. Let's go easy on the block button if she posts here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I'd support such a thing, but she really hasn't been doing very well on this interaction ban so far. About a month in, she already appealed to have it removed, largely on the grounds that it was "unjust", which was unanimously rejected, and she's clearly being warned about breaking it here too. I'd like to see other's thoughts I guess... Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason not to allow this, provided it is abundantly clear to her that the exemption is for purposes of participating in mediation only and she is still to stay away from the actual content and related talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am neutral about making the exception, but if it's supported, then perhaps it should specify participation on, and only on, a couple of named pages. Also, Lucia should be publicly warned (e.g., on her user talk page) that any behavior during that mediation that is even slightly undesirable will be given in evidence to get her topic ban lengthened, so that she understands the stakes for her behavior here, and everyone knows that she understands them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: Actually, communications made in formal mediation can't be used as evidence in conduct dispute venues such as ANI or arbitration. Medcom has a policy of protecting this kind of communication so that parties are able to speak freely without worrying about it being used against them later. The reason for this is that disputes are usually a lot harder to resolve when the parties are trying to make themselves look good, or other parties look bad, with future discussions at ANI or Arbcom in mind. Taking this out of the equation lets the parties focus on the actual content rather than on each other. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have had little interaction with her. All recent and mostly bad faith on her part. If I had my way I would extend it to full en:wp block for a very long time. She just doesn't seem to interact very well with other editors and makes many disruptive edits.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support specific exception to the T-Ban and I-Ban to edit exclusively the Mediation discussion page. I understand MedCom has a history of functioning independently and if all parties involved in the mediation agree to these exceptions, I can see no harm. When bureaucracy gets in the way of progress and productive work, you know what to do. Lucia knows any unacceptable behaviour will not be ignored anyhow. I sincerely hope this won't cause more problems again. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Judging by all the ranting she's throwing on my talk page to me and people watching my talk page, over my above comments, I'm going to go ahead and say she's not really able to hold a rational discussion to editors in general, let alone someone she's got a history of not getting along with to the point of needing an interaction ban, on a topic she's topic banned from. I was intrigued by "WhatAmIDoing"'s idea, but since that was shot down as well, I just can't see these mediations going well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  If the mediation doesn't go well, then that's that; we don't reach a consensus, and we continue with the status quo. However, if mediation does go well, then the dispute gets resolved, and the editors involved can go about their editing a little bit happier. The exception to Lucia's bans would only be for participating on mediation pages, so the change we are discussing wouldn't affect normal life on-wiki. The worst-case scenario is that the parties spend some time discussing the issues, and everything continues as it is now, which really doesn't seem too bad to me. Also, mediations are a lot more structured than talk-page interactions, or indeed most other interactions between editors on Wikipedia, so there is a lot less scope for editors to go off-topic or get on each others nerves. This is why I say that I can't see any bad things coming from this; the worst we can have is the status quo, and the best we can have is one less problem on Wikipedia. It seems worth a shot to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Lucia Black has frequently violated her topic ban. The appropriate response to this is most certainly not to loosen up the restrictions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @serge.You already opposed serge, why bother making another oppose? What you could do is edit your own comment. There's a policy in mind for such things. and please keep you personal bias to yourself. If I'm having an argument in your talkpage, its because I'm tired of you interfering in everything ANI I bring up. I would like some fresh eyes when it comes to ANI. You have your own "personal" reasons. And it shows outside AN/ANI. What you think of me personally doesn't outweight the other aspects. For once in your life as an admin, actually start to see things more objectively when it comes to issues relating to me. Would any admin actually use an argument from an editor against them in something unrelated?
  • @lukeno94. Define "frequent"? I've edited template an american tv show neither officially considered anime nor manga. But warned because it could be "construed" as such. That's not violating the topic ban, that's pushing for the sake of enforcement. WP:ANIME doesn't have these american shows in its scope. And the reason why that matters is because of what the topic ban is even for. I've discussed about GAN stealing that related to a personal issue regarding the topic/interaction ban. "Frequent" is an exagerration. If it was "frequent" I would've been blocked.
  • You both bullied me enough in the last ANI. Can't you concentrate on real vandals? I know a dozen of editors who are much more incivil than me, the only difference is you are the only ones who interacted with me.Lucia Black (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Can you point me in the direction that policy that doesn't allow me to make 2 separate posts, one as a comment, and then one as an official "Oppose" comment? Then explain to me why it matters. Then explain to me why you're trying to enforce this, when 99% of the time you don't even indent your messages. (See this is why discussion with Lucia go so terribly so often. Its either this sort of nonsense, or bad faith accusations and misinterpretations of policies. This is why she gets these sorts of bans to begin with.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Lucia, although I can't remember the specifics, claiming you haven't violated the topic ban is simply false, and you know that full well. There have been multiple occasions, brought up at a recent ANI thread or two, where you were clearly found to have violated the topic ban, and the interaction ban; but you got away scot-free. You need to stop making personal attacks, and stop making false accusations of "bullying". The answer to this is simple: step back from all areas covered by your topic ban and your interaction ban, or you will end up blocked. That's not a threat, that's a policy-based fact. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are the one providing false information. i have only been brought up "once" in ANI since my interaction/topic ban, and from the same anonymous sockpuppet who just wants to cause trouble which was quickly closed. Other than that, being brought up in ANI "multiple" times is false. i have not gotten a single warning on my talkpage for such occasions. SO how can i accept what you said as true?.Lucia Black (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support if and only if Chris G supports. NE Ent 18:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  Chris has clarified this below, but actually he was the editor that requested the mediation, and he had already mentioned his desire for an exception to Lucia's topic/interaction bans on the mediation page. (I should probably have made that a little clearer in my summary above, sorry.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Terrible idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but only if ChrisGualtieri agrees as well, and only for the purposes of mediation. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am going to say let her take part in the mediation and that page only. Also, Lucia Black has been blocked for 48 hours on Sept 5th for the topic and interaction ban violation.[36] Though Lucia has once again violated her interaction ban by continuing to attack to me on Sergecross's page, but I rather not have her blocked and see what mediation can do to resolve the content problem, though I think she should be on a week or longer block if she violates the topic ban or interaction ban outside this explicit and narrow definition: "Mediation page(s) only". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying this, Chris. A quick comment on "mediation page only" vs. "mediation pages only": I think the definition should be "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2, and any subpages of Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2". That should give us plenty of room for discussions and/or drafts and still prevent the mediation from affecting other areas of Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • In that case as Mr. Stradivarius has pointed out. The "Wikipedia talk:Requests for Mediation" and all subpages like "Wikipedia talk:Requests for Mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2". This way we have wiggle room and the focus is WP:RFM sections only. I don't think we need to go and make it airtight legalese, but this scope is extremely narrow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Under no set of circumstances have I seen this nucleus of editors ever interact positively. An interaction ban means exactly that, A topic ban means exactly that. It is my viewpoint that the conduct issues must be resolved prior to the content issues being resolved. I am open however to a 1 strike regime (1 warning, then a block for a second failure to observe normal wikipedia behavior) to allow LuciaBlack the opportunity to participate in this instance of a DR process. I encourage the mediators to keep a firm grasp on the behavior leashes as previous interactions and attempts at DR have been worthless, long ranging, no holds barred brawls to argue about every piece of contention and massive dumps of repeated arguments. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support because the ban expires in a month anyway, and we don't get in the way of MedCom, and ChrisGualteri, who at least some of the sanctions were to protect from misconduct, has agreed to it. However, I also think that the ban be lifted to only deal with the relevant mediation pages. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, because I think that mediation can only have a chance at working when all relevant parties are involved; the alternative, from a practical point of view, is simply to wait until November to start the mediation. I trust that Mr. Stradivarius will keep the mediation moving forward properly, and, if Lucia should get out of hand, will be summarily removed from the mediation anyway. Also, to clarify, like everyone including Mr. Stradivarius has said, this exemption would be only for the mediation pages, not any other pages including the article and talk pages that are the subject of the mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per User:Qwyrxian. I see no reason for mediation pages to be edited with parties involved. -
  

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

it would be great if a decision could be made soon. i'm already getting the mediation invite. and it's not like i'm going to be touching any other page other than mediation pages and obviously, it's mediation, so theres little room for incivility.Lucia Black (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Right now I'm seeing 7 !votes supporting unblock, 5 against. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Lucia isn't blocked - I presume you mean that you see 7 !votes supporting an exception to her topic/interaction bans, and 5 against? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support exception. Its the most intelligent approach, and allows for a real dialogue. Irondome (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support exception for MedCom only, as a believer in mediation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like this will get much more input, so could an uninvolved admin please close this thread? I'd rather not keep the participants waiting too much longer, so I think it would be best to have a decision one way or the other. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• FYI, ChrisG and Ryulong are at it again, arguing, and one has reported the other at ANI again. So, this isn't the only thing that's holding up mediation again. (These three are at each other's throats non-stop - I don't see how you could envision this mediation going well. You must have supreme confidence in the process or something...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a characterization. I reverted Ryulong once, and Ryulong knew he'd break 3RR if he continued to edit war with Adam, yet did so anyways. After Ryulong broke 3RR he then filed for page protection. In the three days since someone else (not I) took him to ANI he has continued to abuse rollback, yell in all caps at other editors and give a hostile OWN issue, which while it may be the same issue of the mediation case, is not limited to a single page. At what point does an editor have to simply allow months of bad faith accusations to stand simply because a content matter is pending? I don't like Ryulong's constant cursing, reverting proper and good faith edits and constant edit warring and in the three days since half a dozen editors expressed concern he has gotten only worse. So I am at ANI to ask for 1RR for Ryulong for one month given the hundreds of problematic edits done not just at A&M, but all over Wikipedia. Ryulong's ArbCom case is even cited in ROLLBACK; so I don't think it is just "me" who has a problem with the actions. Ryulong may mean well, and I do thank him for fixing things, but to say we at "at each other's throats non-stop" certainly isn't accurate and I've been patient and restrained against the bad faith accusations repeatedly made against me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as a judgment for or against you in your situation with him, merely a statement that arguing is happening both now and continually with varying combinations of the three of you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah okay, I misunderstood. Sorry, I haven't been that active since I've been very busy with work for awhile and I took it as if this matter is non-stop when there are significant breaks between issues and they are not even on the same subject or issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: That's right - we can't start mediation while the editors' behaviour is under discussion per point eight of the prerequisites for formal mediation ("No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums"). If we did attempt mediation while the parties were at ANI, I think it's fair to assume that the parties would be too distracted by the proceedings there to concentrate on any content questions. If mediation does go ahead after the ANI thread (and if I was the mediator, which looks likely), I would ask the parties to agree not to post about each other at any admin noticeboards for its duration. If that agreement is broken, the mediation can be suspended or closed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Current count now seems to be 9 in favor of lifting the restrictions for the purpose of mediation, and 5, at least some of whom may have made statements without the full details of the proposed limitations on editing to continue outside the mediation pages, opposing it. I can't close the thread myself, having expressed an opinion above, but I do think that it would probably be a good idea to allow participation in mediation, if it is to take place, sooner rather than later. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support- this seems to be a sensible way to proceed. Reyk _YO! 00:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support exception for the MedCom only. I know nothing about anime & manga (in fact I had to look it up in Wikipedia a couple of years ago to find out what it is) but anywhere else I have come across Lucia I have found her TL;DR diatribes to be exasperating and obstinate to the point of disruptive. She clearly has a problem of collegial interaction and if allowed to participate on the MedCom case, she will have to keep calm or expect even stricter sanctions than she has been given already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  @Kudpung: Actually, we can't base any sanctions for Lucia on her behaviour in mediation. I've mentioned this above as well, but MedCom has a policy of protecting communications made in formal mediation so that they cannot be used to determine sanctions at ANI or ArbCom, etc. This is to remove the motivation for parties to "bait" each other during mediation with a view to getting sanctions enacted at a later date. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support exception I would love to see this long running dispute finally solved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Count now seems to be 12 favoring an exception to the ban, 5 against, and the thread has been open for about two weeks. I would be very, very appreciative if someone were to review the discussion and maybe close the thread, and I think those involved in the proposed mediation would as well. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please can someone close this down now - it's been open for far too long. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please move Talk:Music_of_the_SaGa_series#Collapsed_sections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not sure of the proper procedure for this, but can someone please move and/or close Talk:Music_of_the_SaGa_series#Collapsed_sections to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Collapsing_music_track_lists? If not, please let me know what is the proper procedure. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure (which is transcluded at the top here) would probably be the "proper" place to put it, but all adminy stuff seems to be super-backlogged right now. Ansh666 04:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:AfD backlogged

We have open nominations for every day since last Thursday, and there are some day with many nominations. If you have time please consider closing a couple of nominations.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

And non-admins can help by participating in discussions, as well. Part of the problem is when consensus isn't clear, closers are hesitant to make a difficult call. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to do anything even more boring, WP:PUF is backlogged even worse. Legoktm (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:FFD and the ever-backlogged WP:NFCR. You don't have to be an admin to close discussions on WP:NFCR. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything back to last Tuesday, actually; I've closed all the remaining ones for Tuesday and Wednesday, and will try to look at the rest later (there are a lot though - over 30 for Friday alone). I (along with a few others) do tend to patrol the overdue days but I've been very inactive in the last week; some more admins looking at WP:AFDO would be great. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, for now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old has been cleared up (with two that I probably shouldn't close myself remaining). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I closed one of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And I closed the other, and bunch the day before yesterday. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I can do a few NACs if you like. (Or get off my ass, find somebody to nom and co-nom an RfA, and close lots of them, whatever's easier) I have noticed a backlog, with a number of AfDs I've participated in hanging round for longer, and I've been concerned that a number of debates have been relisted that really shouldn't have been - for instance, I would have called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Alternative Media Group as a straight "delete" without relisting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: - proceeding with your RFA would be an investment for the future...GiantSnowman 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

AFD's is a task I usually perused using my admin account ... I occassionally take a poke at a few in my current fur ES&L 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The best possible thing you can do is to improve an article so a "keep" vote is more obvious, alleviating the need for relisting or making difficult calls. Unfortunately it's one of the most difficult. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it's fairly easy: I no doubt spent less time making these changes [37], then all the time editors spent making comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Sikhism --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just a note to all of you admins who are doing this. Some things that I've seen while going through User:Snotbot/AfD report. 1) closing an AfD doesn't end at adding the tags to the AfD page. If it's "keep", "no consensus", or something of that sort (I think I saw a "keep but merge somewhere" in there), you have to go through and remove the AfD tags from the page, and add the Old AfD Multi template to the talk (most of these are from User:Darkwind and User:Mark Arsten). 2) If you're using an automated AfD closer (like User:Johnleemk's or User:Mr.Z-man's), the "delete" probably won't work if the page has been moved beforehand - it'll delete the pagemove redirect (DATA (Digital Asset Transfer Authority) --> Digital Asset Transfer Authority, Frederick D. Drake --> Frederick D. Drake, Jr., Skales (Ninjago) --> Skales, all of which were closed by User:Mark Arsten; The Iron Bubble Syndrome --> Iron bubble syndrome, closed by User:Drmies), so either the closer will need to check if the page is a redirect or some enterprising coder can try to fix up the tool. I'm in the process of fixing everything on Snotbot's page that doesn't require the tools to do. Thanks, Ansh666 06:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC) (if you wish to reply, please ping me - I don't watch the dramuh-boards even if I read them frequently)

This is why I strongly urge people not to move pages while they're at AfD... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Or at least state on the AfD page that they've moved it. When I used to go through AfDs, that was one of the tasks, to see if anyone'd moved the page and make a comment. Unfortunately, school got in the way. Ansh666 17:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban request

See the "Request interaction ban" section of WP:ANI, where an interaction ban has been requested between Guy Macon and Ihardlythinkso. Coming here because ban discussions are normally held here, so watchers should see it. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 11#Improving the instructions at the top of the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

MFD needing closure

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:How_to_draw_a_diagram_with_Microsoft_Word This has been open for over a month and I think the consensus is clear by now. Can someone close it already? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus seemed to be for archiving, which didn't require an admin, so I did it. equazcion� | 20:09, 8 Oct 2013 (UTC)

User who seemingly only exists to suck people into a weird maze of pages. Is this actionalble?

So I got a notification that Adeptzaire2 thanked me for an edit. That led me to User:Adeptzaire/አብ from the account Adeptzaire. From there, I kept getting bounced from poorly written page with odd links to poorly written page with odd links. Looking through the edit history, apparently all this person has done with their two accounts is set up an elaborate circular maze of userpages. I do believe in AGF, but in this case I think someone is trolling. Is this actionable? At the very least he's created a farm of useless pages that should all be deleted and is not using alternate accounts constructively. Possibly, it's this is a pair of accounts that exist as a joke and aren't here to productively edit, a block would be warranted. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• MfD might be an option. Reyk _YO! 06:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Forgot to link to this in the initial post, see Special:Contributions/Adeptzaire2 for evidence. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)To suggest deletion of userpages, please see WP:MFD. I'm too confused and lost to come up with better advice. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted a stray one of these in the article talk namespace--Talk:Adeptzaire2/አብ/ረዲረችት, for the record. As for further action, I dunno, I'm not really inclined to do anything. MfD en masse would be the place to go if you want to delete the pages; a reasonable move, though I'd personally say leave it if it stays in their userspace. As for a block...meh. They have a handful of edits in mainspace, which are not problematic save for a deleted article that can probably be chalked up to an editing test. Live and let live, I say, as long as it doesn't get too out of hand (especially in terms of expanding outside their user space) going forward. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm, well, they just tried blanking this section without discussion, so maybe I'll change my tune. Oh well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Well, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a free webhost... --Rschen7754 08:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

{{minnow}} What is wrong with adminania today? If it stomps like a troll... the only mainspace contributions (Adeptzaire2) I'm finding is a circular link of bogus redirects on 28 September. I've fixed the User:Adeptzaire2 redirect and left them a message. Could a bit-holder CSD (R3) the redirects without me having to tag 'em individually?
What I don't know is how to see how many other editors they're baiting with "Thanks" like they did Sven. I reviewed the WP:Notifications page and don't see any reference to a log. Does anyone here know if there is one and how to check it? NE Ent 16:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right, NE Ent. I didn't realize the redirects were pointing at each other; I just checked their current targets, which was correct, not their history, where I would've seen someone else who had fixed them. In my partial defense, I was really tired and jetlagged when I posted that, and should probably have stayed away from Wikipedia altogether; I'm just back after sleeping 12 hours to catch up. Blocking them is probably the right move; it's just that, for me, dicking around in userspace just doesn't rustle my jimmies. :P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, it looks like Adeptzaire2 has only 4 thanks, to Sven and himself (here) and none from Adeptzaire. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, we have a Thanks log? Is there a top 100 of thankers? Drmies (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, there is not only a thanks log, you can get a list of thanks you've given and another list of thanks you've received. I don't think anyone is collecting stats on thanks right now.

As I'm going through Wikipedia:Statistics, it's clear that WP has a spotty record of gathering stats on itself. Mostly, it has relied developers creating tools, many of which once worked years ago but no longer function. And stats for just a year or two doesn't tell you much.

You'd think that with a website as popular and important as WP, that WMF would really devote resources to research into the dynamics of wiki growth, changes and popularity of content, and examining Editor and Reader behavior to promote retention, training and recruitment. But, they haven't done so in a long-lasting, consistent way, unfortunately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Those wearing more cynical top-hats and monocles than I might suggest it's because the WMF is too busy working on "improvements" that nobody wants. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, it's called WP:NOTHERE. I've tagged all of the weird bouncing pages for speedy deletion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

First I noticed a thanks log. Looks like he's been doing some thanking with himself, which seems a little... unseemly. The other one is thanked too I think. At least he's obvious about it though. II | (t - c) 04:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi folks, thanks for your good comments about the Thanks Notification. Besides the log mentioned above, we also track this notification, on this metrics dashboard, under 'notifications by category'. Since we deployed it on the English Wikipedia in May 2013, about 39k thanks notifications have been triggered, and this represents about 2% of total notifications sent during that period. Oliver Keyes is doing a bit more analysis about this feature, which may be helpful here as well. In the meantime, I will add that the community response to this feature has generally been favorable, as users seem to appreciate this quick way to show appreciation for productive edits, which encourages better collaborations on Wikipedia. Learn more about this project in this recent report. Hope this is helpful. Be well :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Fabrice Florin (WMF). There have so many attempts to gather data but they only lasted for year or two. Is there a central place at WMF where there are links to all of the research and data collection that have occurred? I don't think it would be difficult for WMF to pull together and it would be useful for people who are interested in looking into the growth of Wikipedia over time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Liz! You might like to visit this Research section on Meta, where our researchers posts results of their studies, as well as this general Wikimedia Stats site, where all our metrics dashboards and listings are updated regularly. Hope this helps. Cheers, Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Fabrice Florin (WMF). Being 12 1/2 years old, I'm sure there has been plenty of research on Wikipedia user data (Readers and Editors). I am exceedingly interested in how organizations function and cooperative ventures like WP provide a unique case, a decentralized organization comprised of a global network of volunteers with only a few guidelines and a MOS keeping things in order. An ever evolving work in progress. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass creation of automated "Keychain" accounts from Apple

Over the last week or so, there has been a rash of automated account creation, with usernames generally beginning with "Keychaintest". If you look at Special:ListUsers starting with "Keychaintest", you will see close to 100 accounts by now. I've been blocking them, and User:Reaper Eternal has imposed a couple of rangeblocks, both covering IPs assigned to Apple Inc. Presumably, this has something to do with Keychain (Apple). Is there any way we can contact someone at Apple and ask them (1) what they're doing, and (2) if they would please stop? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I misread your post and looked for users beginning with "Keychain", so I noticed Keychain1113 and Keychain1234 and saw that you'd blocked them; do you think they're related? Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those two are part of it, although most of them begin with "Keychaintest". NawlinWiki (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at a couple of these accounts last week, and they were almost certainly not created by an Apple employee. However, they were created using a pre-release version of OS X, so perhaps it is a developer playing around with a new feature of OS X. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Now, taking a look at some of the newer accounts, I'm finding them all over the place, including 24 on one of Apple's ranges, so I am at a loss for what's going on. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

They've showed up on random IPs all over the world, albeit mostly on Apple's range. I rather doubt the professional software developers at Apple would use Wikipedia as a software testing platform to test their software features. I also looked at a couple and they don't have emails associated with the accounts. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

We can easily block account creation using a name that begins with "keychain" with the edit filter. Anyone in favor?—Kww(talk) 21:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in a handful of checks, I have found and blocked a number of accounts that don't fit the pattern. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You'd typically use the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist for something like this. I'm shocked that NawlinWiki didn't simply (ab)use that. It's not as though he's unfamiliar with it. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

MZ - I made a polite request here for help with a problem. Does that justify your being snarky about it? NawlinWiki (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Over the span of years, you've taken an extremely heavy-handed approach all over the site in a futile cat-and-mouse game. Indefinite semiprotections, range blocks, and title blacklist entries that are affecting an untold number of legitimate and good-faith users, while doing almost nothing to stop whoever it is you're actually trying to deter.

I'm all about solving problems. What's the problem here? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't very nice. And it's not really relevant here. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thinking on it, the Titleblacklist extension should probably be folded into the AbuseFilter extension. Hmm. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

DoRD: Can you please explain why you made these blocks? Was there active abuse or some other disruption to Wikipedia? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw a number of accounts, created in a short period of time, all technically indistinguishable, and which appeared to be related. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

NawlinWiki, same questions. I don't see any contributions from any of these accounts, but I haven't checked thoroughly. Surely there's a good reason you all have been blocking these accounts, I just don't see it at the moment. Clarity here would be great. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not other than there are over 100 of these accounts, and when I asked Reaper Eternal to check them, zhe said that they were the result of "very large amount of automated account creation". Just the fact of mass automated account creation seems disruptive to me. But if there is a consensus to the contrary, I will be glad to go back and unblock them all. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any appropriate purpose to hundreds of automatic account creations coming out of a range of corporate IPs.—Kww(talk) 22:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. I can't help but suspect that the sympathetic response to this conduct might have something to do with Apple having a generally very good reputation. If (say) an advertising company, a tourism promotion board or an arms manufacturer had been automatically creating accounts for no clear reason we'd probably be coming down on them like a ton of bricks - and rightly so. I can't see any sensible reason why Apple should be automatically creating accounts, and blocking them seems entirely reasonable. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hey guys, I just wanted to let you know that we're aware (Killiondude reached out on Philippe's talk page). I'm on vacation for the day (and so logging on from the car, may be a bit slow to respond on wikI) but am going through everything and will try to reach out to Apple. I'll be looking around myself but if you have anything specific that you want me to see please feel free to email me (EmailUser or jalexander@wikimedia.org). Jalexander--WMF 23:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Apple Inc. happens to be my employer & I'm a developer there. Let me know if there's anything I can do. I can go through 'inside' channels and try figure out what's going on. People may not be aware that they're being disruptive and I don't think Apple would willfully do so - Alison ^❤ 23:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• According to my only moderatively disruptive search engine, "Apple is number two in the countdown of the top ten most disruptive technology vendors". It's not meant in that sense though. Well, probably... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Did anybody try to email one of these users? If there's a script creating accounts, it might be registering the owner's email address. I agree that it's silly to block accounts that aren't editing. What you want to do is contact the person and ask them nicely what they are doing, and point out the inconvenience they are causing us. Maybe they are testing some software that would be really useful. Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Accounts that are being created disruptively and/or are in violation of policy should be blocked, the number of edits or lack therof is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Can you please elaborate? What is being disrupted? Which policy is being violated? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You can't email them since no email is associated with any account I spot-checked. And yes, WP:ILLEGIT seems to come into play here. Nobody needs dozens to hundreds of accounts. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOCK, WP:NOTHERE, probably WP:U, and it's WP:DISRUPTive because it's wasting editors' time and the WMF's server space. I can't think of a good reason why these shouldn't be blocked other than vaguely-waved warm fuzzies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the issue here is. What is (if there is one) the good reason we are blocking these accounts? Rjd0060 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of any either if they have never edited, although I believe I have blocked a couple of them myself because that is what is/was being done. If nothing else, it has certainly served to bring it to everyone's notice and if it helps to identify a possible security issue in Wikipedia's registration system or Apple software development, so much the better. We need to get to the bottom of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

How about WP:NOTHERE? I see no reason that WMF's server time and database storage space should be used by someone doing some sort of testing on an ongoing basis if these accounts are not being made without any intention of improving the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• These accounts are still being created. I'm looking at 15 unblocked accounts that were created from networks that don't appear to be associated with Apple Inc., and from the name of the one account I did block, I am even more doubtful that this is anything officially Apple. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Apple's trademark describes Keychain as "Computer software, namely, software for providing security and verifying authentication which allows users to gain secure access to multiple network and desktop applications."[38] Perhaps someone with knowledge of the Apple Keychain project got the idea to use Wikipedia[39] to test Keychain in some way. Has any of the users of the blocked accounts challenged/commented on their block? -- Jreferee (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a word from any of them. The last range that DoRD blocked was in China, which is a frequent source of spambots. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Please note that I have not made any rangeblocks in relation to these accounts - that block was due to an unrelated sockpuppetry case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks like your initial instincts were correct. Since none of the users of the blocked accounts challenged/commented on their block, it doesn't appear that you prevented them from doing something in Wikipedia that they wanted to do. I doubt that Apple Inc. would want a news item to associate Apple with the mass creation of Keychain accounts in Wikipedia. As of this post, it looks like there were more than 100 Keychain accounts created in October 2013 and none of them have posts on their talk page (Go to here and control-F find "October 2013"). Of the 100+, User:Keychaintest1000, User:Keychaintest55 (created 9 Oct 2013) and User:Keychaintest mj13, User:Keychaintest987 (created 10 Oct 2013) are not blocked as of this post. User:Keychaintest99, created 1 October 2013 at 18:48, appears to have been the first user account created in the October 2013 Keychain username series. I suggest unblocking User:Keychaintest99. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick update. Apple are actively looking into this right now. I'll let you know as soon as I have more information but right now, folks there aren't aware of anything that could be causing this - Alison ^❤ 21:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC) (speaking in my personal capacity here)

Trying to add to Wikipedia for the first time

I am trying to add to Wikipedia for the first time. I added the below and hope it will be approved. Thank you

Website--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.222.157 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to make such additions. You would need to find an article to which this information was relevant, and add it there. Note that ref tags are used to add footnotes, usually for the purpose of citing sources. So you don't add a ref tag unless there is something in an article which the ref would support. DES ^(talk) 15:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to experiment with editing, why not try WP:SANDBOX? GiantSnowman 16:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at the dispute resolution noticeboard

Hi all,

At present, the dispute resolution noticeboard is suffering a large backlog, and requires the assistance of willing editors to help clear it. If dispute resolution is something you haven't done before, it's not that difficult, and other volunteers (like myself) are willing to help you out. Any help would be appreciated. Regards, Steven Zhang (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Need more eyes on this article - POV issues

I have watchlisted this inexperienced user for a while. I corrected some of his more egregious issues but now he has created a new article, full of POV issues religious proselytism. As I do not want to sound callous and be the only one after this, I would appreciate some more eyes on user User talk:Nannadeem and especially his new article: Naqvi Orientation. I have added some tags and I'm inclined to PROD it, but as I said I do not want to sound like I am chasing after him or be accused of heavily using the mop. After all he is inexperienced. Another set of eyes and opinions are sought. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have PRODed the article, I can see no plausible way it is or can become encyclopedic or tolerable here. I duly notified User:Nannadeem of this. But that user has since edited the article several times without removing the PROD template. Can it be that he or she simply doesn't understand what the PROD means? DES ^(talk) 04:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A complete rewrite is not really a deletion option, but the user does happen to have gone and done the usual WP:PBUH issues suggesting that aside from being very new, this editor is of the Muslim religion and may happen to have some COI issue.[40] This editor's edit summary states "added names of sons of Imam Al Naqi and truthfulness in respect of Jafar-al-Zaki whose respect is disgraced by denoting him Al-Tawab (Tawab). This is not only sin and causing damage to my sentiments being one of the descendants of Naqvis"[41] declaring that he is a "descendants of Naqvis". The editor may mean well, but needs to be instructed about Wikipedia and its policies. The subject is also very personal so care should be taken to not offend him. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We already have Naqvis, " who are direct descendants of the prophet Muhammad through the lineage of the Imam Ali al-Naqi." This new article says "Naqvi or Naqavi is a community composed of the direct descendants of the 10th Imam of Ithna Asharis (Ali-Al-Naqi/Al-Hadi)." Nannadeem has been editing Naqvis (where most of his edits have been reverted). Any reason why this new article shouldn't be turned into redirect? Ah, yes there is - it's an unlikely search term. So it may have to go to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help people. I think it may end in AfD too. I wanted to recuse myself due to a) my involvement with this user beforehand, as I mentioned, and b) I may be biased in an overly religious proselytizing article so I thought it better to let the community get involved instead. I am still watchlisting to see where it goes and to revert any obvious POV or other issue like WP:PBUH. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Help!? :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ammend for Interaction Ban (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is shown quite clear here, the discussion is becoming much more confrontational. despite what ChrisGualtieri believes about me "wanting" to "argue", i'm an involved member in this discussion and its nearly impossible for me to respond, he made himself involved to the discussion. And i know how AFD works well enough if this goes on it would either be kept for "no consensus" or be "kept" until i have to respond to the same argument all over again. I'm trying my hardest NOT to confront this editor but still make a point in the AfD. but its being difficult if he's allowed to.Lucia Black (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see much point in a topic ban and interaction ban if every time the subject of the bans wants to break them she is issued with permission to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - the point still stands, i brought up a discussion, i should be able to discuss freely. ChrisGualtieri has already been advised to avoid topics that i've started. This isn't about me trying to break the rules. We shouldn't be voting oppose for the sake of principle of a ban.Lucia Black (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Lucia Black, I think the diff you posted above is incorrect. Do you mean as "shown quite clear" here, where, citing "violating interaction ban", ChrisGualtieri removed your AfD post that replied to ChrisGualtieri's post? Would you mind providing a link to the interaction ban. Also, please provide a link to where ChrisGualtieri has been advised to avoid topics that Lucia Black has started. If there are other diffs that put limits on Lucia Black-ChrisGualtieri interaction, please post those as well. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Lucia had just had her topic/interaction ban ammended for the mediation in the thread above.Here. And was reminded about her sanctions. Sanctions here:[42]. Of the three AN requests to remove/alter her sanctions only this one is relevant.[43] While I am not interaction banned and am allowed to reply, I am following exactly what I said to UltraExactZZ: "I'll refrain from edits relating to the Square Enix project after this AFD, okay? I'd like to remain free to edit other video game articles during this time, considering the related GANs (like my re-nom of Persona 4) and subject matter around visual novels. Would that be acceptable?" This is the same AFD and the work is nearly GA level after my extensive work to save this article; Lucia who is dead-set on its removal by deletion or merging argues with every Keep and insults Masem while misinterpreting GNG criteria. I removed her post and did not report her, her vindicitive claim I find enjoyment in it says alot. Despite repeated warnings and a block for violating the topic and interaction ban, Lucia has learned nothing. Someone should close the AFD so I can do some final work and get it to GAN, as AFD is a quick-fail of stability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• comment this thread is about Lucia/ChrisG. ChrisG shouldn't be using it to demand that the AfD be closed the way he wants it so that he could "do some final work and get it to GAN" per WP:CANVASS. Such requests must be neutrally worded and made at the appropriate forum, which is Wikipedia:AN/RFC. I strongly encourage ChrisG to withdraw that part of his above comment.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this pointy proposal, support block for Lucia. Again, we have another interaction ban violation by Lucia. Again, she is filing a frivolous complaint at AN. This is precisely why I personally rejected any amendments to her topic ban; because if Chris is involved, she becomes an incredibly disruptive presence. Chris has been advised to avoid you; however, he is not subject to an interaction ban (unlike you), and this is related to a pretty major topic; not some obscure 1980s game. Lucia is becoming an enormous drain on the project, and we really need to stop her skirting around the fringes of her IBAN and TBAN and getting away scot-free; in fact, there have been blatant cases that have simply been ignored. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making a pointy proposal. and you admitted this is "personal". And again, it has been proven recently, i am not solely responsible for the disruption ChrisGualtieri brings on himself. But regardless, i have provided proof in the past, in which Lukeno94 clearly tried to sweep it under the rug. If i had the link, i can show everyone here how much he tried to cover up when i had provided proof. Not only that but he's the proposer for the ban. SO its more of a proposition bias.Lucia Black (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I closed the last request to amend the interaction ban. We have a tricky situation here, where Chris responded to Lucia's post and called her out by name. I know Chris doesn't have an interaction ban, but Chris should nonetheless avoid baiting Lucia into situations where he responds to her and she cannot respond. I'd suggest Chris impose a self-non-interaction ban until November when this thing finishes, and just, literally, ignore every post of hers, don't respond, don't respond to the points within, let other editors do so. Lucia, this thread has gone on long enough, so I'd suggest you stop posting - remember you are under an interaction ban so continually mentioning and arguing with Chris is in violation thereof.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

if i request it to be amended, that shouldn't constitute as violation to the ban, even if it is rejected. It says so in WP:BAN that is the exception.Lucia Black (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• As anyone who's ever had a sibling can tell you, one-way interaction bans are just asking for trouble. --erachima talk 23:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Business and management research

I have only limited time now, so perhaps someone else can take a look and see if anything dubious is going on. The brand new article Business and management research is being edited by 5 brand-new accounts and one that edits only every five years or so, all using VisualEditor to boot. This may be some kind of school assignment or something more nefarious, I don't know, but it certainly is highly unusual. Fram (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

One editor left this message on User:Deb's talk page: "we are trying to write a page about Business and Management research based on the book 'Research methods for business students'. And we did not find any page about this subject. We have searched : management and business research, research in business, research management. We didn't find anything. Could we have just half an hour to improve the page ? Following wikipedia standard." Seems to answer the why, but raises other questions. Rgrds. --64.85.216.130 (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that they have ignored my previous advice. I've sent them all a message now. Deb (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am quite active in deleting PRODs; in my work there I have come across a number of 'essay' style articles, all relating to business management and PR, created by a number of different editors (many with Indian user names) - do we have a rogue class on our hands? GiantSnowman 08:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We've certainly had them in the past. It's hard to know what age group these are and whether anyone's in charge or whether an ill-informed teacher has just told them to "write an article for wikipedia". Deb (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and get a list of editors together if/when I have time; otherwise feel free to go through and check my 'delete' log, the articles on business/PR are quite easy to spot. GiantSnowman 10:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you. Fram (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Judicious Google searching suggests that this is probably part of an online business course connected to a private French college, Pôle Enseignement Supérieur de Jean XXIII in Montigny-lès-Metz. The longest term registered user of those who have edited Business and management research (apart from Deb and the editor tagging it for page curation) is almost certainly the course coordinator. Voceditenore (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

interwiki fa links being mass removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

Not sure where to take this so I'll post here - User:Yamaha5 is currently mass removing fa.wikipedia.org interwiki links from a great many articles. I've posted on the user's page but no response as yet. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I remove them because they have confilict and most of them have interwiki in wikidataYamaha5 (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

7 edits/minute if my fuzzy math is correct. This really does need intervention, unless someone sees a valid reason remove fa.wiki links en masse. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

for example I removed this if you check fa:دهستان عظیمیه it has other page in enwiki (Azimiyeh Rural District)!

@Tarc: I am not new user you can check my activity (fa:user:reza1615)! so I know what I do Yamaha5 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

did you check my contributions? can I continue?

I am not a new user I was an admin in fa.wiki and wikidata (Reza1615). Now I am solving Interwiki conflicts Yamaha5 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was looking at this yesterday and saw several Farsi WP links that were incorrect (i.e., the Farsi link for the English article "Smith" would be the Farsi article "Jones". I think this is a bona fide problem that Yamaha5 is fixing. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am working on it fundamentally ! At the first with d:User:Yamaha5/ConflictBot I collect a list for Farsi after that for other langs. in these lists me and some of my friends remove incorrect old interwikis from en.wiki. Yamaha5 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, this all seems above board in that case - if this is sorting out a problem. I was just uncomfortable seeing Farsi mass removed with no apparent explanation. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Will someone please close these months-old CfDs?

OK, this is somewhat embarrassing. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 27#Category:Chefs by location has been open since late July. Pretty sure the de facto result is No consensus at this point. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 9 has three and looks like it needs an actual admin for some of them. Rest of the past-due list can be found at WP:CFD/Working#Discussions awaiting closure, of course, but if we could at least deal with the particularly egregious cases, that would be nice. --erachima talk 04:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If you weren't involved in obvious no-consensus or keep cases you could just close those yourself (WP:NAC). equazcion� 05:11, 12 Oct 2013 (UTC)

I'd contend that the close is not obvious since it has been open so long. Consensus is not a counting exercise. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with closing discussions myself where possible, but it's often not and I was hoping to net a few pairs of eyes to clean up the backlog. --erachima talk 05:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Reverse AFD"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Somewhat facetious as a way of asking, but what's the right venue for nominating an article that we wish to keep? In this particular case, a user proposed a merge of Article A into Article B, failed to gain consensus for a merge, nonetheless converted to a redirect to Article B without merging (effectively deleting all the content in Article A), and is now edit-warring to keep the content deleted while refusing to open an AFD. The article has large amounts of sourced content that it's obviously desirable to keep, but I'm not actually sure what to do in this scenario. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well basically you establish consensus that it should be kept on the talk page and then you just revert the guy whenever he tries to redirect it. And vice-versa in the opposite case. --erachima talk 16:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There hasn't been consensus to delete it, and s/he continues deleting it anyway. I don't want to edit war for this - the ideal scenario would be for this user to accept that hir proposal has not succeeded, but since that isn't working, I was wondering if there might be some other venue to discuss the article. If I wanted to delete it, AFD would obviously be the place, but I don't; the other user does, and is refusing to use AFD in preference to edit-warring. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Look on the talk page. There was 100% consensus for the merge, and not a single view against it. Still, can you justify the difference between 'Persecution of Muslims' and 'Islamophobic incidents'? The article said that it was about the time. When does it change? Plus, much of the concept in the Is.Inc. article was state persecution, not 'incidents'. Come off your high horse Indiasummer95 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If your "consensus" is two people and then someone disagrees with you, you need to reconsider your "consensus" instead of edit warring. I've explained in the merge discussion why I oppose the merge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD isn't actually necessary for merges. This is a case where you need to talk/edit, and if it turns into a full-blown edit war, then show up with the diffs on ANI. --erachima talk 16:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I should just nominate it at AFD on Indiasummer95's behalf and then present my own argument - what do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

don't do that, per WP:POINT. Neither "side" here can rightly claim there is a clear consensus for their position, the discussion on the talk page is too brief and sparsely attended. WP:DR suggested. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that there's a clear consensus to keep. But generally how things work is that we require consensus to delete or merge, and that absent such a consensus, the content will stay. Indiasummer95 is trying to circumvent that process by edit-warring. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Then ring them up at WP:ANEW; WP:DRN and/or WP:RFPP might help too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help with moving article history from Dave King (businessman) to Dave King (entrepreneur)

Hello. Once upon a time the article Dave King (businessman) had as its subject the Liverpudlian digital entrepreneur who is now the subject of Dave King (entrepreneur). Several years back someone had a brainstorm and repurposed the article to be about a different (tax-dodging Scots-South African) Dave King. Bleh! Could someone cleverer than me move the history of Dave King (businessman) from here back to the day it was created over to Dave King (entrepreneur). Thanks very much in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: does most of those repairs. —rybec 20:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about talk page access during blocks

You may perhaps be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proper use of talk page access when blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Technical admin needed

Can a technically minded admin who is familiar with Wikipedia scripts and the reference toolbar please have a look at this and, if you can, help out with getting autofill sort of working? Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion that

For posting inappropriate material relating to an editor with whom he is subject to an interaction restriction, Mathsci is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban not less than six months from the date this motion passes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 09:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Close needed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right

The RFC on whether to add a template editor user right comes to a close today and will need to be assessed by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks to whoever chooses to take it on. equazcion� 16:46, 10 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Any takers? PS. Be sure to use {{closing}} if you've taken this on but haven't posted the close yet. equazcion� 02:40, 12 Oct 2013 (UTC)

The proper place to ask for closure is at WP:AN/RFC which I've already done. It appears that admins are busy with other fires currently... Hasteur (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-guideline page being edit-warred to be marked as guideline.

WP:MOSAM - which has never received any sort of community approval process - keeps being editwarred to be marked as a guideline. It's a poorly-written mess, and well below the standards of any real guideline. It has never had any sort of community approval process, it was just marked as a guideline, while existing so far out there from normal editing that no-one noticed for a while. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, but, I strongly advise you to drop the issue. There appears to be a consensus at VPP that this isn't a problem and it's been de facto accepted as a guideline due to it's unchallenged use. Right or wrong, your concern has not gained community support.--v/r - TP 22:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's been marked a guideline for half a decade, and it's regularly enforced, so it is a guideline. A less-than-professionally written guideline, certainly, but even our most globally relevant and accepted policies started in similar states. More to the point though, Adam, since you've rejected and ignored many invitations to collaborate in improving it —even refusing to explain what you wish it said in the part you dispute— in favor of policy-violating forum shopping, canvassing, and edit warring, there is no reason to take any complaint you make about it seriously any longer. --erachima talk 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this *is* a guideline, by silent consensus, and through the actions of editors enforcing that written in the guidelines across various pages. Promotion to a guideline simply requires consensus, and if nobody complained or was able to remove the guideline tag in all of these years, that suggests the bulk consensus is it is a guideline - we're not a bureaucracy and we don't always have to follow proper procedures. I'd suggest you (a) identify clearly the problems with it and work on a consensus basis to improve and (b) or if you think it is unfixable or in need of a massive rewrite that will take months, start an RFC that is broadly advertised to have it downgraded from guideline status.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be WP:EDITCONSENSUS, to drop the proper bit of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The only people who were calling for it to be a guideline at VPP are the members of the Wikiproject. Literally all non-membersd thought it was questionable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Being a member of a wikiproject doesn't make their views any less valid. You seem to really want this downgraded, and a broadly advertised RFC is the best way to make that happen. Consensus can change, and maybe now there is consensus that it is not a good one. I'd suggest rather focusing on fixing it until it's at a state you and other opponents can accept as guideline-ready. The tag at the top of the page is not the most important thing here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Close - per close at VPP (to allow discussion to be in one place or to be posted to a forum where such guideline decisions can be made). However, here's my two cents. Guidelines require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline (not just WikiProjects). See WP:PROPOSAL. There does not seem to be too much participation in developing that page.[44] Only one editor with more than twenty edits to the page and none of the editors with more than ten edits are an admin. There are a lot of What links here linkes, but it's hard to say what that means (e.g., whether the page has been used/enforced as a guideline for years or something else). If the page sat at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles for years with a guideline tag, then WP:EDITCONSENSUS would seem to apply. When was the page first listed at Manual of Style? Why the opposition to this page being a guideline (do other MoS guidelines already sufficiently cover the issues in the page)? Given the lack of users who have significant edits to the page,[45] I tend to think that following WP:PROPOSAL with a request to make Anime- and manga-related articles a guideline may be needed to establish a high level of consensus from the entire community needed to create a guideline. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Close as per the previous VPP close. There's no issue with the only people supporting a subject guideline being from that subject's WikiProject. At the end of the day, it's that WikiProject that set it up, and will use it most often; unless their guideline directly contradicts any policies or wide-reaching guidelines, then it should remain a guideline. Issues with exact content, writing style and so forth should be dealt with via reasoned discussion, or proactive attempts at improving it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user do attacking me personal. Also he is not going for a objective factual dispute but is simply allegations and personal assessments as facts. Would be nice if someone could tell him this is not legal on Wikipedia. Thank youGeorgLeft (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Recommended reading: Talk:Michel von Tell. Michel von Tell is a recreation (by GeorgLeft) of an apparently self-promotional article that has been previously deleted at AfD both under tha current name and as Michel Von Tell (the latter as recently as a week ago...). Which is why I have nominated it for speedy deletion as G4. And there have of course not been any personal attacks. Nor have I been informed of this AfD other than through the notification system... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any ground for the dispute. You created an article which has previously been deleted and which does not contain a single reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

And again. Everyone else got to proof everything 10 times and eaven this is not enough. But Mr Thomas just claim whatever he wants. And the best argument he got - an OTHER article about this person has been deleted once. Bye the way Thomas. this is not the subject here. the subject is you are attacking me, dont be nice, objective, stay with facts and dont follow many wikipedia rules and act like you would be the King of wikipedia. You decide whats right and whats wrong, you dont need facts, if you say something this is fact enough and you are the greatest here. Thats what it is about here GeorgLeft (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The salient fact is that Michel von Tell does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, as has been repeatedly made clear. And yes, if you post here, you can expect your own behaviour to be looked into. Including asking whether you have used multiple accounts. Have you also posted as User:Adolfoo? Before you answer that, I suggest that you take note that we have methods which can detect the use of such multiple accounts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not - not eaven talked to him. If i see this right he nominated the article for deletion. Dosent make much sence. But this isnt the point here. The point is Thomas attacking me personal. This is what it is here about. GeorgLeft (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Well, since it's Saturday evening here in Europe I guess incoherent posts should be expected. I'm bowing out of this pointless "discussion" here on ANI because having incoherent posts about Michel von Tell in one place, Talk:Michel von Tell, should be more than enough. Besides, since I wasn't even properly notified, as the rules say I should have been, I guess I wasn't invited to the Saturday night party on ANI anyway. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

the rules say - be nice - stay objective - no personal attacks - no assertions - and so on. lets make it short. the only thing you had to say - an OTHER article about this is deleted before - its not the same article so this is no argument at all. you just declared personal that all the 23 sources are not good - without any prove or argument - you just say so- you ignoring every of my arguments because they are fact and then you attack me. you just switch subject and assert i have an other account. eaven if this is absolutely irrelevant for the debate if this article is keep or delete. and also this guy was on your side not on my! but have a nice evening - maybe you are less destructive after it. have fun GeorgLeft (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"in one place, Talk:Michel von Tell" - which may be deleted. Talk:Michel Von Tell has been deleted before, was there any discussion there? Peter James (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slightly belated reply to User:Peter James: I wouldn't call it a discussion, it was more of an incoherent rehash of previous AfDs for [Michel von Tell] and [Michel Von Tell]. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• (e/c) Just a quick explanatory note: it was, indeed, essentially the same article; 23 sources this time, but they were the same type as the five sources in the deleted article, and none of them addressed the notability of the article subject. That's enough re-creation; I've salted both titles, and WP:Deletion review will need to be used if someone ever wants to recreate the article. Also, if I had more time, I'd probably file an SPI on GeorgeLeft, except now that the articles can't be recreated at will, it probably doesn't matter. And Thomas, I didn't see any personal attacks, but I did see some rudeness - probably due to frustration, which is understandable - that were nonetheless unhelpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing what is obviously the exact same person do the exact same thing, creating a (self-)promotional article about the same thoroughly non-notable individual, only a week after the latest AfD ended, almost made me lose my temper... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, sock or not, I've indeffed Adolfoo. There's been nothing but disruption from the account. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC).

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

There is sort of a war going on in this articleAncient Egyptian race controversy, There seems to be an issue with some edits on this page. 2 editors claim the IP editor has done something wrong. and has reverted the edits. I don't see anything wrong the page was dull before it now has life and images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.61.128 (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup. There seems to be an edit war - what looks like a single (possibly banned?) user is adding material against consensus. The IP above appears to be the same user, and has made a personal attack in an edit summary. [46] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that IP. I don't have anything to hide either, if I did I wouldn't have brought it here. I made a sarcastic comment based on what the other editor wrote he doesn't know if the ip was a banned editor or not. So I guess he also made a personal attack on someone instead of assuming good faith right? 150.108.61.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no absolute requirement to assume good faith if there is serious reason to believe otherwise. Please note that I have subsequently reverted your own edits, and have indicated that at this point the appropriate way to continue this matter, should you wish to do so, would be to start a discussion on the talk page regarding the material you seek to add, why you seek to add it, and the sources to support that material. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're not the same IP, even though you're editing the same article from the same range? Pull the other one. If you have nothing to hide then WP:REGISTER. GiantSnowman 17:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Also I guess you are personally attacking me as well correct? I usually don't waste my time with Wikipedia because of petty things like this. I don't see anything wrong with the edits the IP user made, that is why I brought it here so Admins can get involve, LOOK INTO IT and stop the war. But since I'm being accused by you, I'm just going to leave it 150.108.61.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that John careter posted here as well should have come here before I reverted. Why are all these attacks coming from and how do you know I'm that IP?

IP, you're now at 3RR (using the two IP addresses - we're not stupid y'know) - one more reversion and you'll be blocked. GiantSnowman 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

cleary you are the smartest man alive, so smart you belive what ever pops into your head, why don't you prove that I'm the other IP and lets see how smart you are then. Stop making foolish acusations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.61.128 (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"discussion on the talk page regarding the material you seek to add, why you seek to add it, and the sources to support that material" what are you talking abput I did't add anything to it what sources. the only thing that was added by that IP was an art gallery and images did you even look at the article before you attacked me for doing something wrong? Why didn't the others explain or list the reason behind why they did the reverts.150.108.61.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Also doest wiki keep the disputed edits there untill the issue has been resolved or a consensus had been reached? so how do any of you revert the edit I brought on here just like that without any reason as to why? Then treaten me Is that how its done on wikipedia? 150.108.61.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest you read WP:DUCK, and stop thinking we're idiots - you're at 150.108.61.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the 'other' at 150.108.160.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Same range, same location - making the same edits? 150.108.160.69 mentioned in their edit summary coming to an admin board - and yet it was 150.108.61.128 who brought it here. So unless it's a massive coincidence that two separate people from the Bronx both have the exact same opinion about such an obscure topic, you're very clearly the same person. GiantSnowman 17:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And the assertion that all that was added was images is demonstrably false: [47]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There's also the 206 IP. Semi-protection? Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Probably can't do it myself, as an "involved" person per my last revert, but I would support it if someone else wanted to. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably a blocked or banned editor. The article has an odd editing history - accounts with maybe 4 edits only to this article, loads of IPs, an SPA or two with more than a handful of edits. Maybe Yalens will have a clue if he's around today or tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR

Given the seriousness of the problem Wiki-PR presents, I think it would be good if a public discussion about potential community responses to Wiki-PR was started. I'm sure discussions are taking place on private lists like the functionaries and arbitration lists, but I think that, since openness is one of our founding values, it would be good if potential community responses were discussed in open forums as well. I had not intended to start an AN section about Wiki-PR yet, but I'm worried that the discussion about WikiExperts a few sections up risks generating a lot of acrimony between people at a time when we are going to need to come together to figure out how to formulate a reasonable response to Wiki-PR as a community, and think that it may be better to start this discussion earlier rather than later. As a side note, several journalists have also been in contact with me in recent days about Wiki-PR, and at least one piece that provides new and interesting information about Wiki-PR is likely to be published on monday.

Here's a summary of some of what we know about Wiki-PR so far from publicly available sources, including the signpost article, the daily dot article, and the SPI/LTA case pages:

• Wiki-PR has successfully inserted a large number of articles in to the encyclopedia by using an extensive network of sock and meatpuppets. Most of these articles have not yet been detected, and may number as high as 12,000.
• Besides damage their direct work has done, the case has also led directly to the effective retirement of some long-time respected editors, including Dennis Brown.
• Many of these articles covered non-notable subjects, and a number have been deleted. More articles still exist than have been deleted. Most Wiki-PR articles that were deleted were deleted through the Morning277 SPI, which is now effectively closed. I don't want to speak for the checkusers since I am not one, but I think it's a safe assumption that the closing of the SPI was related to at least two main factors (a) the number of IP ranges WikiPR uses makes it hard to impossible to take effective technical action against them, and (b) the workload involved in trying to do so was also quite high.
• Although most discovered articles were quite low profile, Wiki-PR has apparently also worked on a significant number of articles about higher profile topics, apparently including articles related to Viacom, Imagine Dragons, and Fictionist.
• The Wikimedia Foundation is either contemplating taking some form of legal action against Wiki-PR, or otherwise expecting that this will turn in to a legal issue in the near future. The Wikimedia Foundation has also stated that, although they have a part to play in dealing with this issue, a community response is also needed.

Although I hope WMF is able to find a way to stop ongoing damage to the encyclopedia, I doubt they will be able to correct the damage that has already occurred, and I suspect that the community will need to find a way to do so. I also feel like this incident will force us to re-examine our approach to paid-editing and find a way to prevent another covert entity of Wiki-PR's size forming and doing the same thing again a year from now, but I feel like discussions of how we will react to Wiki-PR and how we will stop it from happening again should probably be held separately.

I don't have perfect ideas about how to deal with the past (and ongoing) disruption caused by Wiki-PR, so I figured for now I would just throw this up as an open thread. It's clear that a community response to Wiki-PR's activities is necessary - what form can that community response take? Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The best solution I can imagine is a clear policy of some sort effectively dealing with paid editors, and some sort of mechanism, like maybe through OTRS or maybe this noticeboard?, for publicists and individuals who might want their articles improved, to be able to either indicate that they have reliable sources dealing with them that they would want considered for inclusion in the article or otherwise indicating that they think their existing articles might be unbalanced, and, maybe, an informal group of editors willing to tackle such matters. There would be questions, reasonably, about whether such a group of editors would necessarily be indicated to bring articles up to GA, FA, or whatever, or whether they should simply work to bring it to C or B, depending on the amount of material available. Just a few early ideas, anyway. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see the diff of notable, relevant, sourced content kept from the mainspace because the originator revealed a COI. Tiderolls 20:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A good partial solution is to be clear on what constitutes a reliable source for business topics. These groups depend on sub-standard publications being accepted as reliable sources. A clear guideline on the quality of publications that are required for establishing notability and inclusions of claims in business-entity articles will help alleviate this issue. Instead of keeping the bar low and concluding that any piece from a news agency is reliable enough (even when these can easily be promotional pieces or otherwise inserted as a favour for the company or its agents), we can set the bar higher and limit this to general news coverage in select high-quality publications (Businessweek, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc.), and not coverage in low-quality publications, nor blog, opinion, or promotional coverage even in the high-quality publications. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• There's a double edged problem. (1) Paid editors can be annoying, troublesome, or edit contrary to our content policies. (2) Wikipedia articles about businesses can have a negative impact on the business if the article is out of date, erroneous, or poorly written. If we are going to ban paid editing, then we have to put in place a process to fix articles promptly if a business complains. If we don't have the resources to operate such a system, then we should leave open the possibilities that businesses can "self-help". One possible solution would be to have a noticeboard where paid editors could disclose what projects they are working on, and their work could be reviewed. If specific paid editors caused trouble, we could be pretty quick to ban them. If paid editors chose to operate sub-rasa, we could have a policy to ban them whenever discovered. So, the policy would be "Disclose paid (or COI) editing so we can monitor your activities, or else you will be banned on the spot if it is discovered that you've been editing on the sly." I think the first step is to ensure transparency. If we implement that and it does not work well, I will be open to consider stricter measures. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• One more thing... This noticeboard isn't going to establish a new policy. After people make some comments, you should organize an RFC, and let that run for a month. That could result in the formation of a policy. The above threads suggesting bans of paid editing services should be tabled until there is solid policy to stand on. Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I know this noticeboard isn't going to establish a new policy. I was more hoping this thread could be used to discuss ways to react to the immediate problem at hand: that there's a network of socking undisclosed paid editors who have created or monitored as many as 12,000 articles, who are active in at least some big name areas, whose actions have driven away multiple long time prolific editors, and whose activities are ongoing. I think an immediate response of some sort to WikiPR's activities likely needs to happen before serious discussions of long-term policy adjustments, and with the SPI basically shut down, I think potential community responses should be discussed somewhere publicly other than Jimmy's talk page and the signpost talk page - this seemed like an appropriate forum. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the first step is to put in place a paid editing policy. Then we go to the known paid editor agencies, and point out this policy and ask them to confirm that they will comply. Then, we can be on very solid footing if further undisclosed paid editing occurs, and the agencies may find themselves in hot water if something goes wrong and one of their clients sues them for violating Wikipedia's policies, thereby damaging the client's reputation. Our policies do have real world consequences. Once more than one person knows about something, it's not really secret. Paid editors may think their activities are secret, but sooner or later the activity could (and probably will be) exposed. Right now they can hide behind the excuse, "there's no clear policy on paid editing." Once we take away that excuse, they'll have to comply with our rules, or else they'll be taking a rather large and stupid risk. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

With several hundred blocked socks, I'm not sure why it would be necessary to wait to discuss further action specifically re: Morning277/WikiPR in particular for us to have a paid editing policy in place. We've categorically established that the people behind the operation engage in systematic sockpupppetry to avoid scrutiny, sockpuppetry to manipulate AfD's, sockpuppetry to make it look like multiple users are pushing for the same set of edits, etc. Waiting to take further action against Morning277/WikiPR until we have a more firm paid editing policy in place is, quite literally, saying it's okay to violate any ENWP policy you want - but only if you are a paid editor. These people can't hide behind the excuse "there's no clear policy on paid editing," because there are loads of clear policies that they are violating.

Getting a comprehensive paid editing policy in place is going to take a lot of time and work. Waiting to get that policy in place before we try to start formulating a response to a particular problem that has already resulted in the loss of multiple long-term prolific contributors to the encyclopedia, significant damage to parts of the encyclopedia, etc, is not something that we want to do. The problem is not paid editing, and we need to come up with a community response to Wiki-PR faster than we'll be able come up with a comprehensive paid editing policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For WikiPR, have at it. If they are found to be socking, block them all, end of story. You don't need to reference paid editing to do that. Sock puppetry is a blockable offense. My concern is that we don't start banning people merely for paid editing without proper disclosure. We should make it be policy that paid editors have to disclose, then we can ban anybody who doesn't. Jehochman ^Talk 22:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The intended point of this section was to discuss potential community responses to Wiki-PR in specific, not broader questions of paid-editing. It's been established that Wiki-PR, in particular, is violating our policies at a colossal scale, one that is likely unaddressable through normal SPI procedures, but one that is, because of its sheer scale, important to address. I'm not sure how best to address it, and thus put the question forward here. This is not intended to be a general "let's block all paid editors" thread, and I would request that people generally attempt to confine discussion to the narrow question of "Wiki-PR is a problem, what measures can we take to begin to address it?". An issue this large needs discussion of potential solutions at a public community forum; ignoring it isn't very likely to help it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• This really needs to be an RFC that is widely advertised and hosted at a more appropriate place. I would suggest an RFC on a dedicated subpage, but WP:VPP is another option. I would also like to take a moment to shamelessly plug my own essay on the subject of such discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Agreed, not just on these specific instances but exactly what we expect from paid editors. There's at least three different convos, one here, one at WP:COI and one at WP:NOT, and they're having conflicting advice. I strongly suggest centralizing what policy/guideline change (if any) needs to be made in light of the paid editing issues. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Although it's certainly true that a centralized policy discussion about the issues surrounding paid editing is necessary, I would suggest that it's probably not the greatest idea in the world to not have a separate discussion about an appropriate response to this particular set of incidents. Perhaps I should have posted this at AN/I instead of AN, but I see a whee little bit of a problem with an active group of paid editors who have created or effected thousands of articles including some about significant subjects who have in doing so violated almost every blockable policy we have and there being no public effort to block of any of their accounts, re-NPOV any of the effected articles, or otherwise respond in any form. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with those who think a formal, centralized discussion is needed to promulgate policy. But I also think Kevin Gorman was right to raise this issue. It has already identified the need to have some separate discussions. I won't speak for Kevin, but I don't see evidence that he is opposed to those discussions taking place, he is simply trying to ascertain what can be done now, for this specific situation. Yes, we need a policy on paid editing. That will take months. Surely that isn't the only thing that can be done.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

For example, we have policies that allow edits, even otherwise valid ones, to be removed if know to be by a sockpuppet. I gather that we have passed the time when it is feasible to determine whether the ips are socks or not, but if we have a sense of which articles have been edited, we can make sure the edits are compliant. If the sources are suspect, or non-existent, we can take a hard line on the content addition.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Al fatiha

Dear adminisator,

I noticed dehonesting text in article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fatiha. In the begiijig there is writen "for the homosexual rights organization". I tried to remove this part as its quite very dehonesting the serious article which is for 1.6 bilion people very important. I will understant your will to keep it there but just want to appel on your heart to remove this part. thanks you very much. Abdel Malik PS: i font have anythink against other sexual orientations but this should pe always a personal way to everybody himself not a public show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.49.174 (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The hatnote linking to the homosexual rights organization is provided because it shares the same name (i.e. al-Fatiha) as the chapter of the Qur'an. To assist people who end up at the al-Fatiha article but are actually looking for the information about the Al-Fatiha Foundation, that text and link need to be at the top of the article. -- tariqabjotu 00:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we have lots of hatnotes of that kind because a lot of people, rightly or wrongly, type in a short text when they're looking for something which has either a longer name or is here included in a different name, and we try to make it easier for those people to find the article they're actually looking for this way. Other articles which have similar hatnotes which some editors regret, but which we more or less need to make ourselves as useful to as many editors as possible, can be found at Catholic Church and a large number of other articles. John Carter (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC validity review requested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am concerned that a recently-closed RfC substantially violated WP:RFC, resulting in keeping away interested editors and biasing the ones who appeared. I would like the validity of this RfC ruled on. For details, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 8#Talk:Ayn Rand.23Request for comment: Qualifying .22philosopher.22 in the lead sentence, particular the first link in it, which summarizes my concerns. MilesMoney (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a content issue, not an administration issue. I respectfully point out that this is an inappropriate venue. Yworo (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. If you click that link you will see that the user who closed the thread at ANRFC directed him to bring it here, and if I take the meaning correctly what is being asked for is a review of the RFC itself, not the underlying content issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• And having reviewed the supposed "violations" in the framing of the RFC I must agree that there are none and the opening statement was appropriately neutral. And the close looks perfectly fair and clearly had a lot of thought behind it. I therefore endorse both the RFC itself and the close, and remind the reporting user that consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for decision making. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you. I had no horse in this race, and tried to write a neutral RfC. Yworo (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In regards to my decision to close rather than declare the RfC null and void per Miles' arguments, I did not agree that the opening statement to the RfC was particularly malfomed:

1. Miles argued that the opening (seen here) was biased because it omitted material such as tertiary sources that favored use of qualifiers and lacked arguments based on Rand's academic standing. None of this is required in an RfC opening. Miles also objected the use of the word "opinion" to describe the use of "amatuer" and "self-styled" as qualifiers to describe Rand, which they were (because this description of Rand is not present in reliable sources).
2. There was disagreement between Yworo and Miles on the phrasing, where Miles attempted to correct the RfC opener with this statement which definitely does not present the topic neutrally, and this statement in a later section. Yworo later reverted these changes here and here. This disagreement was perhaps a little disruptive, but given that the argument of initial bias is questionable, I do not believe this is a valid reason to call the discussion biased.
3. Miles argued that because the RfC was only included in the Biographies subtopic and not the Religion and Philosophy subtopic, the article attracted insufficient participation from the proper venues. He argued that this omission "...brought in editors who were interested in biographies, not philosophy, making it difficult to bring them up to speed on the relevant issues. I didn't see any evidence that lack of education or interest in philosophy detracted or muddled the discussion.

What I do see, if anything, is a great deal of bludgeoning on the part of Miles in the discussion, and this request to question my close, while valid, seems to be a continuation of that behavior. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Why was the RfC closed so quickly? I was in the process of developing a list of sources (I had already went through 13, published by Blackwell, OUP, CUP etc.) in order to offer an argument in the discussion. I would note that the discussion was mainly devoid of reference to reliable sources. The RfC started on September 24 and closed Oct 8th. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I asked for an admin to rule on its validity and close it on a policy basis so that it could be opened again neutrally. That's not what happened, which is fine. The sooner it's gone, the sooner we can move on. MilesMoney (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It was closed because MilesMoney specifically requested closure, here. It seems to have backfired on him. Yworo (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@Atethnekos: the discussion actually started back in August. See Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 46#Again.2C not a philosopher. And with 46 archive pages for Talk:Ayn Rand, I bet your RS has been hashed out previously. So I recommend you check. But please do feel free to improve the article. I hope you enjoy the foray! – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand: that edit shows explicitly that he requested it be closed on "the basis of policy, not consensus". But the RfC was closed on the basis of consensus, explicitly. I still think the RfC should have been let to run for longer, if even just up to the standard 30 days. The RfC was being edited substantively less than 3 hours before closure (compare: [48] and [49]). One can dismiss my would-be contribution as "hashed out" before having even seen it, but I think standards were not met with the result that I was not allowed to present it at all. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the close and in the ANRFC request, assessing consensus is assessing relevant, policy-based arguments. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@I JethroBT:, I think you misunderstand MilesMoney and Atethnekos. MilesMoney said, to paraphrase, 'please close this as malformed based on the procedural policy WP:RFC rather than weighing the merits and content policies.' After weighing the procedural policy, and finding it had not been violated, Atethnekos expected you to decline the close as you determined no procedural reason for close existed.--v/r - TP 13:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does make more sense to me when described that way. Thanks for clarifying. Given that consensus was fairly clear though, I did not see much harm in closing. @Atethnekos:, I'm open to hearing your arguments if you think they were 1) not considered in the present discussion and 2) present a compelling, new argument that would change consensus per Wikipedia:Closure_review#Challenging_a_closing under "Closures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review:" #1 and #3. You can leave those comments on my talk page. However, given that consensus was fairly clear this time around and was endorsed, it might be better to to simply wait until the next RfC on the topic, which I anticipate will happen in a month. It's up to you what you'd like to do. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

JethroBT did the right thing and did it well. The RfC was closed on the basis of consensus, and the various arguments about the lede were well laid out in the discussions. More importantly, no WP policy was violated in the discussion as the article complies with WP:POLICIES. The other issue concerns guidelines for reaching consensus. E.g., were guidelines followed in setting up the RfC or in how it was carried out? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But editors are smart enough to figure out what editing issues were at stake. They had their say in this regard. Since no POLICY has been violated as a result of the RfC, the issue that MM is concerned about – policy violation – does not provide a basis for reversing the results of the RfC. @I JethroBT: you did good. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, aside from making another appearance in your whistle-stop and flattery tour for Admin candidacy, what earthly reason is there for you, an involved editor, to comment here after the matter has been reviewed and resolved? Please consider a ratchet down. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, I shall take you up on it. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Self-hatting own comments which are tangential to concern raised by MilesMoney. – S. Rich (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Specifico, I do not understand your comment. Seems that most of the editors in this discussion were involved in the Rand RfC. (Didn't you comment elsewhere on that talk page and comment on the same issues?) Please clarify how your comments help resolve the concerns that MilesMoney has raised here. (MM said: "I would like the validity of this RfC ruled on.") You might provide guidelines that say these involved editors (or any involved editors) should not "comment here after the matter has been reviewed and resolved". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)17:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I created this section because I wanted the RfC's validity ruled on by an admin, not just an editor who chose to volunteer. I had expected an admin to respond to my closure request, so when that didn't happen, I came here. The RfC has since been ruled valid, and regardless of how I feel about the ruling, I am bound to accept it. As I said to Mark Arsten, "I will not dispute the results of this RfC nor edit against its stated consensus", and I'm going to continue living up to that.

So I'm not going to dispute the results, but I'm still going to comment on how we got there, because it wasn't quite right. I'm glad the RfC is closed, one way or the other, because I don't see how dragging it out any longer could have helped. In my view (which is contradicted by Beeblebrox), the RfC was too flawed to come up with a meaningful result. Best to clear it out of the way and move on. More deeply, I think it was a case of the tail wagging the dog. The lede has to reflect the article, so any progress has to be to the article as a whole before the lede can be updated to reflect it.

Anyhow, TParis is correct that I requested that the RfC be closed on a policy basis, not a consensus basis. The result I expected is that, if there was no willingness to close it on a policy basis, it would remain open. JethroBT took matters into his own hands and did more than I requested. It didn't much matter this time, but it's still a bad thing. Editors answering requests shouldn't just go off on their own.

My other concern is that JethroBT, in explaining his decision, admitted to some pretty basic factual errors. The biggest one is that he claimed there were no reliable sources for "amateur" or "self-styled". In fact, the two qualifiers are supported directly by the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and Reason.com, and nobody has seriously questioned their reliability. The counterarguments have been on other bases, some of them involving policy.

While I am still not disputing the results, I don't feel that this methodology was sound or should be repeated in other cases. In particular, if he made such basic errors, then I don't believe he was qualified to come to any conclusions. I would politely suggest that he avoid getting involved in RfC's if he does not have the time to invest in actually reading what was posted. It's highly counterproductive.

I would also have preferred it if Beeblebrox, not JethroBT, had explained their reasoning. I'm sure you can understand that "I don't see nothing wrong here" isn't a very satisfying explanation. If nothing else, I would have learned something if they'd explained their view of policy as it applies here.

Finally, I feel strongly that the behavior of both Yworo and Srich32977 here has been atrocious. They show a strong WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, and their subsequent actions on the article talk page were gross violations of WP:TPO; both took this as an opportunity to shut down discussions.

That's all. Once again, I want to remind you that I am not disputing the results, and I will remain bound by them. That doesn't mean things were done right, and it doesn't mean Yworo and Srich32977 should go unpunished for their behavior. Regardless, the matter of the RfC should be considered closed. Please consider this a post-mortem, as we're examining an issue that is very dead. MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is dishonest of you to say "I'm not disputing the results" and then go ahead and dispute the results by criticizing pretty much every step of what happened. I see no link to any URL pointing to Reason.com in the discussion (nor anywhere on the page currently), and I already noted in my close why the removal from the Oxford Companion is not compelling on its own: Removal from a single compendium of philosophers does not seem to constitute a need to qualify the term. It's true that no one questioned the reliability of the Oxford Companion. But that wasn't really the point-- several other concerns about heavy reliance on this source were raised: [50], [51], [52], [53]. That you disagreed with all them does not null their arguments. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Calling me dishonest is simply a personal attack, as you are accusing me of intentional deception. I recommend that you redact that and accept that we have an honest disagreement.

Unfortunately, you've made another factual error. If you read carefully, you'll find that there are two references to Ayn Rand in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. The one you referenced is in the preface, on page x, which briefly mentions that Rand's bio was rejected. The other is on page 762, where it calls Rand's philosophy "amateur". It's mentioned on the article talk page, and I even linked to a full copy of the relevant OCP article. The fact that you are unaware of this issue is deeply concerning.

As for resistance to this source, the usual argument is that it's "only" one source, as if we need more, or that it's insulting, as if that's relevant. However, I haven't seen anyone claim that the Oxford Companion to Philosophy is unreliable, and I wouldn't take them seriously. If anything, it is one of the very best sources available, given its high academic standing.

I'm sorry, but the facts here are entirely clear. I am not asking you to change what you did, or even apologize for it. I would prefer, however, that you recognize the errors you made and try to avoid making them in the future. I have to admit that you strike me as defensive and dismissive. I noticed, for example, that you didn't acknowledge that you went too far when you closed the RfC on the wrong basis. This is, as I said before, highly counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to require disclosure of paid editing

• I hope some of this good energy can be directed toward a workable policy. See Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal. The gist of this policy is that disclosure is required. That would be the first step. If in time we see that disclosure is not sufficient, we can figure out what the next step would be. Jehochman ^Talk 23:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Might it be better to toss that up on the WT:No paid advocacy page where there is an attempt to centralize all this discussion, as an alternative proposal? --MASEM (t) 23:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Help with image deletions

Here's some images from various queues that I am unable to delete, because I am the person who nominated them. If someone could evaluate them for possible deletion I would appreceiate it:

• File:10th-Provincial Assembly-KPK.png
• File:Cucho tailor.jpg
• File:Cuchotailor2.jpg
• File:Monster on boardwalk mermaid 2007 .jpg
• File:Pervez-Khattak-CM.jpg.gif
• File:Circle II Circle.jpg
• File:Criss Oliva.jpg nomination withdrawn
• File:Jeff Plate.jpg
• File:Jon Oliva's Pain.jpg
• File:FG Original title card.png
• File:Justice Lords.jpg. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

These are all handled. Thanks to those who helped out. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

John Shand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

I wanted to nominate John Shand for AfD as 'not notable' (after trying prod), but I can't proceed as an IP. So can you please make Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Shand and do whatever else is needed, thx. 88.104.26.129 (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to do this. Given the detailed entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, and the list of positions the subject held, I don't think such a nomination would have the slightest chance of succeeding. Hut 8.5 06:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask for an opinion, I asked for a technical task. 88.104.26.129 (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors are not obliged to complete deletion nominations for IPs. They can, but they don't have to. As someone who does sometimes complete such nominations, I would be happy to complete it if I thought it had any chance of succeeding. Hut 8.5 07:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hut, you reverted me. Do you not understand "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed"?

Perhaps you think you are 'special' and that does not apply to you?

I did not ask for your opinion, I asked <admins> to perform a routine adminny task. Is all.

When admins start making decisions like that, outside of policy/consensus, we're really fucked. 88.104.26.129 (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. The notice can be removed because there is no deletion discussion. As an unregistered user you don't have the right to start AfD discussions. The most you can do is ask that a registered user start one for you, and that registered editor would be well advised to use common sense in deciding whether to do so. In this case the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline and a nomination with a rationale consisting of "not notable" would be frivolous. Hut 8.5 07:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I was about to remove the anon's earlier prod of the article but got interrupted. I agree an AfD is unlikely to succeed, but my understanding is that anons are allowed to nominate articles for AfD, and the procedure for their doing so is set out at WP:AFDHOWTO. They cannot complete the nomination, but they can ask for a logged in editor to complete it for them.-gadfium 07:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As an unregistered user you don't have the right to start AfD discussions ??? O_O

You've lost the plot entirely. See WP:PILLAR, why don't ya?

Where does it say that "The notice can be removed because there is no deletion discussion"? Or did you perhaps just make that up, and hope the stoopid IP wouldn't know better? Please answer. 88.104.26.129 (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You of course understand the word "right" was obviously meant in the technical sense, not in the authority sense ... like "reviewer right" and "admin rights" ... or is that a huge WP:BATTLE in your pocket? ES&L 16:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As the creator of that page, I've completed the nomination. I suggest we take this conversation there and discuss the content. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have closed the AFD per WP:SNOW. GiantSnowman 15:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am afraid I might screwed up smth and I need advise on how to proceed. Yesterday I blocked ‎R.stickler for outing. They have an idea that another user (User:Martinvl) is affiliated with a certain organization and is therefore editing in COI. They went to the user page of Martinvl and asked them to identify themselves as a member of the organization. The user asked the edits to be revdeld (not by me). Then they went to the talk page of one of the pages Martinvl edited and added a notice that he is a COI editor. Martinvl reverted, they re-added. At this point I reverted again and advised them to read WP:OUTING. They did, decided that it is not applicable to their situation, and went again to the talk page of Martinvl and ask them to admit that they are a COI editor. Then I blocked them and revdel the edits.

Now, they posted an unblock request (still to be acted upon) and point out to Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest which indeed says they should post at the talk page of the COI editor and on the talk page of the article. They say the guideline does not limit the number of times they should do it, and therefore they got blocked for nothing. I also got an impression if they get unblocked they are determined to continue, but I do not know for sure of course.

I do not have much experience with outing, and I would appreciate some help in this case. I do not have problems to unblock the user, but I am sure they should not behave in the same way as they did before being blocked. Thank you in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I'm inclined to back you on this one, at least initially. Attempting to edit-war a controversial notice onto an established editor's talk page, when said user is currently in good standing, is bad enough. Trying to force a discussion about said issue, despite the clear fact that Martinvl did not wish to discuss it, is also very poor form. R.stickler has yet to actually provide any evidence of this claimed association, am I correct? If that's the case, then this COI claim is indeed an attempt at outing (although a pretty lame and half-arsed one) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Indeed, I have not seen any evidence of the association (and the evidence is not on Martinvl's user page).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  On his user talk page, R.stickler has offered to provide the evidence of the association to trusted parties, but has not posted the evidence publically as he says that to do so would reveal Martinvl's identity and that would indeed be outing. To me, this doesn't sound unreasonable. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  (This was posted after my reply here). I would still at this point appreciate a second opinion (formally they posted an unblock request anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  I too am not an admin, but as far as I can see it there are two questions requiring a second opinion:

1 the block

2 the revdel

- David Biddulph (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It may become known that a user is an African American, an Evangelical Christian, a member of the National Rifle Association, or even a member of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science but that does not justify anyone insisting that they reveal any such affiliation when editing articles on slavery in the United States, Christianity, assault rifles, or evolution.

I don't think affiliation with an ethnic group, religion, political party or other organization should justify COI tags or challenges for articles about things that those groups are involved in. Obviously we can challenge concrete claims. This should perhaps be made even clearer at WP:OUTING. --Boson (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As a reminder, administrators should not use any options labelled "FOR USE BY OVERSIGHTERS". If you think you might be revdeleting something covered by the oversight policy, use an innocuous reason in the RD summary and report it to the Oversight team for evaluation. LFaraone 14:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it applies to my case but done that anyway, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Valid block per harassment. NE Ent 14:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It does seem that someone created this account and named it Arse Tickler for this sole purpose. NebY (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you please remind us, NebY, when the account in question was created, and when there was first any interaction with Martinvl? I'm not convinced that your (and Martinvl's) SPA allegation is proven. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't prove it - not from the evidence I have to hand. But I have seen a number of attacks on Martinvl over the last couple of years and they often start with a few edits to establish bona fides as an editor followed by a sustained campaign culminating in the blocking of the account and considerable wiki-lawyering. This history of seven edits in February and five edits in July followed (starting in September) by nothing but attacks on and arguments with Martinvl followed by a block and wiki-lawyering fits that pattern. NebY (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• The comment at "17:02, 14 October 2013" at the bottom of User talk:R.stickler is clearly designed to encourage onlookers to do their own analysis to out an editor. That is not an acceptable use of any page on Wikipedia and talk page access should be revoked ASAP. Johnuniq (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• R.stickler made exactly twelve edits before first leaving a note at Martin's talk. The third edit, and several others in the first twelve, demonstrate knowledge of internal policy that you'd never encounter simply by reading the encyclopedia (project shortcuts, e.g. WP:ELN), and yet the first edit to the userpage, just two days before he links WP:ELN, asks a question that you'd only ask if you're completely new to MediaWiki or trying to appear completely new. You could learn shortcuts like WP:ELN by editing as an IP, but then you'd understand the basic workings of MediaWiki — the only way you'd make this combination of edits is if you're trying to look new when you're not. Clearly a sock of someone, and harassment is not one of the acceptable uses of alternate accounts. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Good block; looks more and more like WP:NOTHERE. That username still, um, sticks in my craw. Miniapolis 00:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin bot

Would it be possible to start a bot with admin rights, to do very basic tasks, such as deleting redirects to deleted articles, deleting talk pages without a main article etc.? Or does one already exist? GiantSnowman 11:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There are already several admin bots, though I'm not sure if they do what you're suggesting. equazcion� 11:56, 11 Oct 2013 (UTC)

...bots run by admins or bots with full admin rights? GiantSnowman 12:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) There are less than 1000 bots, and scanning through them I saw 8 that had both a bot & sysop flag. They are:

• 7SeriesBOT (talk · contribs)
• Cydebot (talk · contribs)
• DYKUpdateBot (talk · contribs)
• ListManBot (talk · contribs)
• Orphaned talkpage deletion bot (talk · contribs)
• ProcseeBot (talk · contribs)
• TorNodeBot (talk · contribs)
• Yet Another Redirect Cleanup Bot (talk · contribs)

Check out each one and see what turns up. Rgrds. --64.85.215.22 (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Since 7SeriesBOT already does deletions, this makes sense as an added task ES&L 13:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If it could do that would be great. I'm trying to think of similar tasks that would be suitable for a bot but I think those two are all for now. GiantSnowman 13:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Per the community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). Most of these bots haven't edited in more than a year and should have their Admin rights removed until they are needed. IMO these are even worse than individual accounts because they are bots. 7SeriesBOT hasn't really done any editing in a long time. Just a couple edits that appear to potentially be errors or test edits on the part of the operator.138.162.8.59 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

7SeriesBOT doesn't EVER edit anything ... it only deletes. It's exempt from the desysop due to non-editing ES&L 16:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reserved Cyberbot III for when/IF I become an admin. I'll ping BWilkins to see if he's willing to add this task to his bot. IP, the bot is active in deleting stuff. —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Psst...He's already here: ES&L=BWilkins. Rgrds. (same 64.85 as above) Rgrds. --64.85.217.134 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hold on a second. Redirects often have history, may be required to remain for attribution purposes, and can often be just re-targeted rather then deleted. Likewise, talk pages without an article are sometimes the result of an article being created in the wrong name space, or may otherwise contain information that needs to be reviewed. We need to be exceedingly cautious with bot deletions. Monty₈₄₅ 14:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• An article is created at Monty Monterson (runner) and is then moved to Monty Monterson (athlete), creating an automatic redirect. The latter is deleted at AFD, but the admin forgets to delete the redirect. I see no harm at all in having a bot clean that element up. GiantSnowman 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• An article is created at Monty Monterson (runner) and is then moved to Monty Monterson (athlete), creating an automatic redirect. At AfD the consensus is "Merge content to Atheletes of nowheresville and delete" This is done, but the history remaing under the redirect is required for proper attribution of the merged content. How does the bot tell this case from the previous one? DES ^(talk) 16:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Monty Monterson (runner) has no history in this case, only the creation of a redirect. All the history was at Monty Monterson (athlete) - which is why "merge and delete" can not be an AfD result because it creates WP:COPYVIO by breaking the attribution chain. In "merge" results a redirect must be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline) and WP:Merge and delete (essay) are the relevant pages. Merge and delete is usually – but not always – an incorrect outcome. WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 47#G8 vs. redirected material (January 2013) has some discussion about G8ing redirects without sufficient checking. Talk page templates like {{Copied}} and {{afd-merged-from}} are supposed to prevent incorrect deletions. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who tries to maintain Broken Redirects to a reasonable level, I can certainly say the biggest influx of these is by former titles of now-G13'd AfC submissions. I've tried using Twinkle's batch-del functions to rather mitigated results. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the problem stems from Admin error. Perhaps this is due, at least in part, to the current climate of not promoting the right editors to admins. If we were promoting those who were technically competent rather than only those who play nice and stay in their corner, we would have less problems with these things not being done correctly. I see no reason to create a bot to clean up after complcent admins. It would be better to ensure those folks fix their mess or allow people who know what they are doing to help instead of tell them they aren't needed or wanted because they are critical of admins and the broken system that is currently in place. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. Most admins I know use an AFD helper script to close AFD's. If that script were somehow tweaked to check the "What links here" for the article, and see if any of those were redirects to the article being deleted, and then delete that redirect at the same time the article was deleted, then you would not have these occasional glitches. ES&L 16:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As I just pointed out below, it already does. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What they should be doing is checking the what links here for associations before running the helper script. So yes, it is a result of the admins not doing what they should be doing. Not as an afterthought. Part of that problem is that there is more work for the number of people doing it, hence all the backlogs. So many of them feel rushed to get it done. Hence, more help being needed from experienced editors. If only we still assumed good faith in our editors and everything in this Wiki weren't protected, life would be a much better place. But, since we no longer have faith or trust in our fellow editors, have massive amounts of content restricted or blocked from view/edits, we are left with an overburdeoned admin corps. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

For straight up deletions, I always check the "Delete redirects" box, or check for redirects to be deleted manually. I agree that admins deleting pages without doing this (despite the system message reminding them to do so) are the ones performing their work incompletely. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Which goes back to my earlier point that too many (and more so in recent times) of the admins being promoted are political/popular promotions rather than promoting the people with the skills necessary for the job. Its common to see an editor get promoted who knows nothing about the technical side but doesn't ruffle feathers. Its relatively rare to see a technical editor who frequently participates in the drama boards and deals with controversial stuff, and isn't already an admin, get the tools. So whether its the intent or not, the morale of the story is if you ever want to be "trusted" don't participate in any of the controversial areas until after you get the tools. Otherwise your likely to torpedo your chances. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

*shrugs* I'm not arguing about admniship or RfA. All I'm saying is the administrators are specifically reminded to delete redirects when deleting a page, whether manually or via the closeAfD script; negligently failing to do so needlessly creates broken redirects. It literally takes mere seconds and it is the responsibility of the deleting admin's to clean up after themselves. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

And that is why it will continue to be an issue. Because the only ones that want to talk about and fix the broken RFA system are the ones no one wants to listen too. Part of the reason why this is a problem is because we don't have enough people with technical skills with with the admin tools. Just the folks who hide and slide. Of the 25 or so editors who got the tools this year, less than 5 are technical. Only a few use their tools on more than an occasional basis and most of the rest rarely use their tools at all. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• i'm pretty darn sure there is a bot that tags talk pages with no corresponding article for speedy deletion. Forgetting to do so is one of the more common admin errors, especially with new admins, but it is hardly indicative of some sort of serious problem as some are implying here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I delete thousands of pages that are former titles of now-G13'd AfC submissions per month, and the names of the deleting admins are certainly recurring; same goes for redirects to other deleted pages. The biggest problem isn't about talk pages of deleted pages, it's redirects to deleted pages. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think bot deletion of orphaned talk pages is a good idea. Not infrequently the author of a speedy-deleted page who has contested deletion on the talk page re-visits it to add a further comment/complaint/question, and (some of) those need to be answered. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: — we already have a bot working on pages that redirect to deleted or nonexistent pages; it's Legobot, run by Legoktm. Rather than deleting them, the bot tags the redirects with {{Db-redirnonebot}}, because these pages often shouldn't be deleted; that's the reason the template has a big warning in red letters. Sometimes someone vandalises the redirect so that it goes to the wrong place, while for other redirects there's a related topic, so the solution is retargeting rather than deletion. As a result, there are numerous cases in which blind deletion would be harmful, so a bot to delete broken redirects would not be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop being negligent

• Currently working through a batch of these, and while I hate to single anyone out, I'll politely remind the two admins whose names I see over and over again (although this stands for every admin working on page deletion), @RHaworth: & @Sphilbrick: (I consider these pings notification enough), to please clean up after themselves and delete redirects to pages they delete, especially declined or abandoned AfC submissions. Having to G8 thousands of broken redirects negligently left behind on a monthly basis is not something anyone should have to do. The "normal" broken redirects that need to be fixed are already numerous enough. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Salvidrim Question Since it's my bot that's been doing a fair amount of the G13 nominations, would a preemptive tagging of the redirects to the G13 nominated article (Some hybrid of G8-G13 to indicate that once the G13 goes through the G8 should be processed) be helpful for reducing the amount of broken redirects left behind? Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Meh, whether someone patrols broken redirects or G8 deletions, it still ends up involving two people having to check out the same set of pages twice to clean it all up. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: that's silly. If they're taking the time to delete orphaned G13's which aren't any good, why make them do any more work? The broken redirects aren't going to cause any major problems and someone will clean out the backlog just like you're doing. Legoktm (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What's silly is involving two people having to repeat the analysis of the same set of pages, instead of one doing it all at once. It causes confusion amongst the users drafting through AfC, because often they have their userspace draft watchlisted, not the AfC sub because it was moved later, and they don't see the G13, they see my G8 of their userspace draft-redirect and come to me for explanations. It'd be highly preferable if the person cleaning out the declined AfC submissions also took care of the userspace redirects so that the drafting user only sees one name across the board. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have a page watchlisted and it gets moved, the new page is on your watchlist too, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Legoktm (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant bookmarked (new users possible are even unaware of the Watchlist function). See lower my other reply. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: and they don't see the G13, they see my G8 of their userspace draft-redirect and come to me for explanations I'm going to call BS on that. The bot notifies the creator once the page is eligible for G13 that they need to do something. The bot notifies the creator when the nomination for G13 actually occurs. TWINKLE notifies the user who created the page that the page is being nominated for G13. The only reason why a user might not get a notification of G13 nomination is if someone was doing it by hand. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Oh, please. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: Example by example analysis

1. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/B S Ajaikumar has never existed, so your misleading deletion rationale is your own fault.
2. That doesn't appear to be a complain of "why did you" but a thank you for helping them consolidate and delete
3. User is indef blocked for edit warring but their AfC submission still exists. They appear to be poking you about getting help with the AfC submission, not complaining about a stealth deletion
4. User's submission still exists and hasn't been deleted, user is just petitioning you about how to improve the article, not complaining about deletion
5. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The AIDS Support Organization (TASO) still exists and the user is trying to get a new "trial" by changing the name which I would assume that you can admit is deceptive and evasive of the established processes.

Any more diffs you'd like to present to shore up your case or should we dismiss your complaint as grumpy-old-man syndrome? Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You should listen to my complaint, even if it's a grumpy-old-man syndrome (or projected OCD), but I don't see any reason to dismiss a reasonable request for admins to perform deletions correctly and thoroughly in order to simplify everyone's workflow. You're of course absolutely free to disagree with the merits of said suggestion if you prefer the current status quo. The point with the above diffs that you seem to be disregarding is that the users came to my talk page after I deleted a userpace broken redirect which should've already been deleted by the admin who deleted the target of said redirect. I shouldn't even be involved; I'm just the guy who cleans up messy broken redirects left behind by other valid deletions performed by other admins who should be the ones to answer queries about their deletions. Having no broken redirects ever is clearly utopian, but IMO such maintenance-positive goals are things everyone should strive towards. It's nice to have obsessed gnomes like me cleaning these things up, but ideally it shouldn't be needed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What I have done

I have just broken my promised holiday from my admin account in order to semi-protect 2 user talkpages from what was increasingly disgusting and persistent acts of threats, personal attacks and vandalism towards those two editors from someone with both the will and ability to change IP addresses very quickly. The two user talk pages are:

• User_talk:MoonMetropolis (specific edits needing removal and leading to protection: this and this
• User talk:PantherLeapord {specific edits needing removal and leading to protection: this and this

It was my belief that due to a) the fact that I might be one of the few who have both of those talkpages on my watchlist b) the disgusting and violent nature of those attacks, and c) the speed with which they were changing IP's, that rather than post a request at ANI or RFPP, I was better off protecting the pages immediately myself.

I welcome review of my actions in this specific case. I will be notifying the two users whose pages I protected momentarily for their comment. ES&L 10:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It needed to be done so I have no complaints. As for who the IPs are: I have NO idea! I reverted their vandalism on User_talk:Jeremy112233 and then they just started coming after me. I also have no idea as to why they went after MoonMetropolis as they are currently blocked for edit warring. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree it needed to be done quickly. I have revdel the revisions from the history because they are extremely offensive. GB fan 12:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it was terrible and that you should either: shave your head and become a Buddhist monk or immediately commit seppuku. Oh wait, nevermind, this isn't Clavel's Shogun. Carry on. GregJackP Boomer! 14:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The IPs are proxies, probably open proxies and should be blocked for longer. Peter James (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reblocked 62.103.75.93 for six months as a proxy server. Could you please supply the other IPs here? Bishonen | talk 10:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC).

Three have already been blocked as proxies (72.252.114.147, 202.43.188.5 and 188.95.32.186); the other is 190.151.10.226, which was only blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. Peter James (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Good, this person is helping us find quite a few open proxies. One year for 190.151.10.226 also. Thank you, Peter. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC).

Good calls, good work, and quick action was certainly needed there. Has anyone notified WMF of the threats? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Our charming little vandal appears to have come back now that the talk pages of User:PantherLeapord and I have become unprotected. Oddly enough, they seem to only target us as far as I know.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted, Revdeled, and blocked 116.90.230.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 197.210.252.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) each for 6 months. GiantSnowman 09:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Deprecate PROD, close unchallenged AfDs as delete without prejudice

I have made a proposal to deprecate PROD in favor of closing unchallenged AfDs as if they were successful PRODs. Since this will likely effect the workload of administrators in one way or another, I'm notifying you of the discussion as well as the relevant deletion process talk pages. If you have an opinion on the matter, please chime in there. --erachima talk 17:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for paid editing firm wikiexperts.us

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So, I'm here to propose that we enact a rather unusual community sanction.

I am proposing that we ban any edits made by or on behalf of the firm which runs wikiexperts.us [54], and any editor who is paid, compensated in other means than money, employed, or otherwise encouraged to edit on behalf of this firm or its clients. This will also apply to any companies which may be reasonably construed as related to this one, such as spinoffs, parent/child companies, renamed companies, new management, or other changes of that sort.

This company's contemptuous attitude toward our conflict of interest guidelines may be found at their site above, as well as at their comments on a Signpost article here: [55], and in their statement on the CREWE Facebook page here: [56]. They note in their statement that several CREWE volunteers, not exactly harsh opponents of any COI editing, stated their approach is unethical and unacceptable.

The company claims that they will act ethically and that it respects Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with the exception of COI. We should put to the test whether they will respect our policy on bans by refraining from editing once banned from doing so, as paid editing without full COI disclosure is inherently unethical. The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases.

Note that this should not be considered or turn into a referendum on all paid or COI editing. Those PR persons or corporate representatives who respect our site guidelines and engage according to them are not at issue here. What is at hand and must be dealt with is a company which has explicitly stated that it will not follow those guidelines and in fact considers it "unethical" to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - a firm which considers it "unethical" to adhere to the guidelines of a private site regarding conduct on that private site can reasonably be seen as having a really strange concept of ethics. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'd support this if there was a way of identifying these people immediately, but without a a firm grasp of who is editing in spite of COI and who is not, how are we going to enforce this? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I realize the difficulty in enforcing this, and I'm under no illusion that we can do so perfectly if they choose to defy it. I'm proposing it for a few reasons. The first is to simply say, as a community, that we find this type of conduct unacceptable. The second is that it would allow us to act on any discovered instances without any uncertainty. The third is that since we are aware of the identity of a company representative and can notify them of the ban, they would likely be required to notify their clients that they are not allowed to actually edit Wikipedia, and must do so in defiance of site requirements. That could cause some difficulty for them in doing such business. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• I am wondering if we are taking the wrong approach to this. If we try and police/ban these editors they will find ways around it. What about looking at a policy to manage these people and help integrate their service into our community. If we know who they are we can better judge their edits and allow the community I scrutinize their work.Mike (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The big man what's in charge has explicitly said he is not interested in following COI procedure and that he considers doing so (i.e. following it) unethical. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • And if it becomes known to prospective clients that this firm has explicitly said it intends to violate the rules here, it might cause prospective clients to wonder whether they want to be, potentially, linked to a firm which engages in extremely dubious behavior, and might potentially cause the firm to revise their procedures. Most firms won't want that sort of negative publicity. Mrfrobinson might have a point about maybe, somehow, creating a location where PR people can announce datadumps of RS material which independent editors could then use for developing articles here, and I wouldn't mind setting up some way to allow that, but that is a separate matter. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, after the comments made in reply to the signpost article, it's clear that they are not here to improve the encyclopedia, have no interest in reforming to do so, and belive that avoiding/flaunting Wikipedia policy is "ethical" and following it "unethical". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support this measure simply on the basis of the representative's posturing and messages. It all feels rather "Methinks he doth protest too much". This assumes, of course, that the gentleman in the CREWE group does represent the firm. Had those pronouncements not been made I would have expressed the opposite view. I believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', but he could not resist having a go, and thus, in my view, lost his own case. Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - self-declared outlaws who pretend to a "right" to violate our terms and conditions for profit. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Orangemike (talk · contribs), is doing something "for profit" a bad thing? Of course it could create a bias, but all edits are made by biased editors (there is no such thing as an unbiased editor). What matters is whether the content is NPOV (and compliant with our other polices and guidelines). No? --B2C 21:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Uh, yes, it is, considering that there is a more or less obvious bias for a firm to get paid, and that is a bias only for-profit editors would have. It is almost a presupposition that companies will be extremely unlikely to offer any sort of bonus, or repeat business, or renewed contract, if the results of the first term are unacceptable to them, and that would reasonably include if the firm created an article which is less laudatory than the client would want. Yes, all of us have bias, but only for profit-editors also have a corporate bottom line to worry about, and there is no really good reason to allow that additional difficulty a factor, nor, honestly, can I really see why a company would really want to face that problem, if they were in fact ethical. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, other than "they get paid and that upsets me" what exactly is the reason for the ban? Seriously, everyone shut up about people getting paid to edit, as long as they follow our policies on NPOV, OR, RS etc etc and their edits are not vandalism, leave them alone. Paid editing itself is not a reason to ban. I'm sick of this crap being talked about everywhere constantly on Jimbo's page and every where else that someone can stick it in, it's getting disruptive. If their particular edits don't follow our policies and guidelines then there are procedures and policies to deal with those editors as it happens, because any editor would get in trouble for those things. To single out those that get paid is wrong. You don't think it's fair? Find someone to pay you.Camelbinky (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the proposal carefully, please. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, their argument supporting keeping their clients anonymous is well taken. In theory, those clients could create anonymous accounts and edit WP directly. They are simply hiring an agent to do that.

  Second, what matters much, much, much more than WHO is editing, or WHY they are editing, is WHAT (content) they are editing. As long as the WHAT is consistent with our policies and guidelines, why does it matter WHO made the edits, or WHY they made them?

  Third, this is practically impossible to enforce, and and any efforts to investigate and enforce per this proposal is bound to be more detrimental to WP than the supposed problem itself.

  Finally, I just read WP:COI for the first time and I find it to be ridiculous. The emphasis on WHO and WHY rather than on WHAT is absurd. A COI could lead to bad and inappropriate edits. But everyone edits with a bias. The edits of anyone editing with a COI should be given the same scrutiny as any other edits, with an eye towards compliance with NPOV, Notability, basis in reliable source, etc. I don't think WP:COI improves WP - to the contrary. It's probably against broad consensus, but I, for one, call WP:IAR with respect to WP:COI. The emphasis there is inherently totally wrong, and, I believe, harmful to WP. --B2C 21:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban. The refusal to declare their COI is problematic for many reasons. These include that any account taking a pro-corporate stance is now often assumed to be a paid advocate, and this has led to a lot of bad feeling on various articles, with editors at each others' throats even more than usual. The best thing PR companies can do for Wikipedia (apart from staying away from it) is to engage ethically so that their presence here doesn't cause the atmosphere to deteriorate for everyone else. The way to do that is to declare their COI and stick to the talk pages, per the WP:NOPAY section of the COI guideline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), what about deleting WP:COI? Wouldn't that resolve the problem as well? Seriously. I see that WP:COI can create "a lot of bad feeling on various articles, with editors at each others' throats even more than usual." Does WP:COI do anything else? Does it do any good for Wikipedia? Like what? A better place to discuss this is probably at Wikipedia talk:COI#WP:COI guideline seems contrary to the interests of WP. Make it an essay? Delete? Or can you defend it?. Thanks. --B2C 21:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi B2C, what causes the bad feeling is the knowledge that some PR companies don't respect the COI guideline, so editors are constantly (often unfairly) suspicious of people who arrive with pro-corporate positions. The best way PR companies can help us avoid that kind of damage is to behave ethically: declare their COI, stick to talk pages, not try to ghostwrite content, make sure they don't overwhelm editors with requests, respect our policies, and provide independent sourcing for any suggestions they make.

So no, the way forward is not to delete the only guideline that, for all its inadequacies, is the only thing standing between Wikipedia and wall-to-wall paid advocacy. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support, in line with the existing ban on the similar business Wiki-PR a.k.a. Morning277-of-the-300-socks. We may not have discovered this one's sock-farm yet, but I'm sure it's out there. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COI is indeed ridiculous and ought to marked historical. Eric Corbett 22:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Take it to WP:VPP, then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

    Why should I take the trouble? Eric Corbett 22:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Given that he admits he uses multiple undeclared sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny, I'm not sure why this is even a question. I believe 100% we need a more functional system to deal with PR type editing than we currently have, but we don't need to endorse sockpuppetry in the process. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Blatantly disclosed misbehavior such as this muse be met with concerted action, or we leave ourselves open to all kinds of mischief. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that we need to be very careful about only banning those who are correctly identified. I think one of the newest gambits of tendentious editing is to accuse those editors with whom one disagrees in a content dispute of being COI editors, simply to gain the upper hand in the content dispute. But I certainly think that the recent SPI mega-case is an appalling assault on what Wikipedia stands for, and I support standing up against it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a deliberately punitive measure, pour encourager les autres. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  Encourage them to do what? Eric Corbett 22:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  To not act like these people. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Given that this company has been using dozens of sockpuppet accounts and IP-hopping unregistered accounts to evade accountability, this is a no-brainer: they're plainly not here to develop neutral articles through collaboration-based editing. I'm all for mass deleting the articles which they created to send a message, and this should be uncontroversial for the articles in which no other editors have made significant contributions per WP:CSD#G11. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Alanscottwalker, Beyond My Ken and others. Wikipedia is supposed to be a hobby, not a job. While it should come as no surprise that there are a few paid editors, we shouldn't ever encourage it. It might be necessary if this needs to be written in stone to reopen the effort to formally make paid editing against policy.--MONGO 23:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  Who has ever said that Wikipedia is supposed to be a hobby? Eric Corbett 23:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a hobby... unless you choose to see it that way. It is a public tool that is open for most people to use and keep current. I AM A BOX! OF APPLES! (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  What was I supposed to call it? I don't and won't accept money to edit...I do it for free in my spare time when and if I want. That seems to fall into a definition of hobby to me.--MONGO 23:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Reluctantly. I have worked with several declared COI or paid editors, and generally found it a positive experience. Nor have the subjects of those topics gotten the kind of bashing this company's spokesman claims to fear. If some of the points maind in the signpost respone had been made at an RFC to amend or delete WP:COI they might have gotten some traction. But to declare willingness to abide by all the rules except the ones you dislike does not show good ethics in my view, and given the socking history here, I see no reason to trust these editors. DES ^(talk) 23:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. At the moment, they aren't even acting against the guidelines. The COI guideline strongly discourages paid advocacy, but doesn't ban it. Even if they were acting in opposition, they would, at most, be acting against a behavioural guideline, not a policy. First, let's fix that - instead of strongly discouraging paid advocacy, let's make it a policy that all people with a financial conflict of interest must declare their COI, and block accounts which do not. Then we can talk about banning wikiexperts.us if they violate the policy. - Bilby (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per Alanscottwalker and multiple comments above - using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, means to continue. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a matter of WP:COI guidelines. This statement by chairman of the company, Alex Konanykhin (if I understand correctly) looks to me as a declaration of war on this site by openly defying our rules. If this proposal passes, we should delete two pages: Alex Konanykhin and WikiExperts.us. I am not sure you realize who this man really is: his BLP page does not explain where and how his initial capital came from. My very best wishes (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  So, you accuse him of a "declaration of war" and then you do the same by saying the article about him should be deleted because he doesn't play by our !rules... um, either his article does not deserve to be here already or it does, how he feels about Wikipedia or what he does to or on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the article about him. Ridiculous comment and clearly a !vote with no merit, remember this is not a democracy of who has the most !votes, it is about who brings the best facts of argument.Camelbinky (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Then let me clarify. If a wikipedia user openly tells that he is not going to follow our basic rules and actually does it, he would deserve be banned. Now, imagine this is not just an ordinary user but a head of a PR company who makes their mission to undermine integrity of Wikipedia, and that is what he tells [57]. That is what I call a "declaration of war. As about deleting these pages, OK, let's wait if this community decision passes. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoa up there! We have articles here on every tinpot dictator and mass murderer on the planet; just because we stop him spamming, doesn't justify deleting articles about him or his company, if they meet WP:BIO and WP:CORP respectively. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Point here is not that he is a "bad guy" (this is not a reason for deletion), but his company which uses Wikipedia for advertisement. If these articles were created and developed by banned users for the purpose of advertisement (one of them was blocked long time ago [58]), then edits by banned users can theoretically be removed by anyone. I saw his BLP page and more or less familiar with his story. Creating a neutral biography in this case is very difficult because he made a lot of PR effort and spend a lot of money to create a favorable publicity for himself in external sources/publications that ought be used in his BLP article. Saying that, I know that his company is not the worst player who is working to subvert wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support as their actions have conclusively demonstrated that their goals are incompatible with Wikipedia's, and they have no intention to change them. Remember that this is not a general referendum on COI editing, this is a discussion of the individual entity wikiexperts.us. It's possible that another company might do COI editing in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia's goals; this isn't the case with wikiexperts.us. It does seem that our approach to COI editing as stated at WP:COI doesn't exactly exclude it, but there's no reason to shoot ourselves in the foot on principle with wikiexperts.us until we fix it. Zad68 00:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Per Nick-D and others. Alex and WikiExperts have attitudes that are contrary to what Wikipedia is about. Manxruler (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support This is a sensible cause of action to take, it will give admins extra help in dealing with the fallout of edits by this company. WP's reputation relies upon it's WP:NPOV policy any paid for editing that puts a dent in that reputation and thus is prejudicial to the projects long term goals and we need to act to prevent that. LGA _talk^edits 00:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per many above. NPOV is far, far more important than a paid PR firm's desire to control content in their clients' interests. The fact that this firm intends to mask COIs, thus actively hampering the project's ability to enforce this, is not acceptable. Resolute 00:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not sensible to ban an editor (or group of editors) without first presenting diffs showing bad editing. If the WikiExperts are so bad, their edits will stand out, and there will be a trail of problems behind them. Surely a few diffs could be provided. If the WikiExperts are so good at what they do that we can't detect them, nor come up with any diffs, we are placing a symbolic ban that we cannot enforce. We should not help them gain business by giving them lots of attention. Do please consider restarting this discussion once you've found diffs. Jehochman ^Talk 00:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should state that it's okay to violate WP:SCRUTINY just because we've been unable to prove the person has been making bad edits (which cannot be done precisely because they are violating WP:SCRUTINY.) Will it have a huge effect on their business? Probably not, but there's no reason to let Alex contribute to discussions onwiki. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The information at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277 isn't enough? Zad68 00:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion to ban Morning277 and any meat or sock puppets. If the discussion started that way, I'd support it. Jehochman ^Talk 00:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And anyway, they are already banned. MER-C 02:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So why are we here? Block any socks of Morning277 and call it a day. Why are we here? Jehochman ^Talk 02:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Morning277 and MooshiePorkFace are a different spamhaus (Wiki-PR). MER-C 03:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support The clearest infringements of policy of this firm is in regards to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The infringements of this policy have been systematic and malicious in the intent to avoid consensus and undermine WP:NPOV, a core policy. An encyclopedia-wide ban for the firm is an obvious and legitimate solution. Meat puppetry is covered by the policy. All the accounts and IPs associated controlled by this organization should be banned as sock puppets or meat puppets. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support If I'm correctly understanding the people who oppose this proposed ban, they're saying that we need evidence of misbehavior. The diff and the Facebook link provided by Seraphimblade demonstrate that this company (1) is actively trying to influence content here on Wikipedia, (2) plans to do its best to circumvent standards that we apply to everyone and everything, and (3) openly rejects and cannot be convinced to follow those standards. How is that not sufficient evidence that these people should not be members of the community? Banning them will mean that we can actively delete anything that they write, without regard to whether the pages in question look like spam; I am actively an opponent of deleting useful content written by banned editors, but this is different, because if we identify anything to which they've contributed without removing it, we help them by allowing them to demonstrate what they've been able to do. We have the G5 speedy deletion criterion, the 3RR exception for reverting banned editors, and other ways of getting rid of things added by banned editors; we need to be able to use all of them. On top of that, (1) During the discussion at the Signpost article, someone suggested that the US Government's Federal Trade Commission be notified because this company's perhaps engaging in an illegal kind of advertising. Perhaps banning them would enhance the legal issues if they keep on going. (2) We need to be careful to mark pages that they've edited: put the {{COI}} template on any such articles, and be sure to delete new articles with the G12 template, so they'll be marked as blatant spam instead of under G5, since these creations are done essentially for the company's own purposes. Finally, perhaps we can ask admins to log pages on which we've caught wikiexperts editing, and ask someone with a WMF email address to contact these companies, letting them know that someone looking for them on Wikipedia will now notice that the page is marked as a COI problem or that it has been deleted as spam. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nyttend, I don't believe that you are correctly understanding the people who oppose this proposed ban. We are not saying that we need evidence of misbehavior. We are saying that, given a situation where there is clear evidence of misbehavior and where the misbehaving editor is expressing an unpopular opinion such as "the rules should be changed so that I am allowed to misbehave", you should support a ban based upon the bad behavior, but oppose a ban based upon expressing the unpopular opinion. You should not say "I support the proposal because there is also bad behavior" but instead should say "I oppose the proposal as written -- we do not ban based upon expressing unpopular opinions -- but would support a ban based upon evidence of misbehavior." It is a subtle distinction, but an important one, because it goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is and stands for. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support WikiExperts has openly declared war on Wikipedia, e.g. [59] "Wikipedia IS a marketing tool, the most important one in online visibility, with most companies using PR pros to improve their profiles. We have helped hundreds of clients." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide some links to show infringements of policy? This thread is turning into torches and pitchforks. Where is the evidence? I see an appeal to emotion, a very successful one, but that's not the way we should do things. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

He explicitly admits to violating WP:SCRUTINY on the most recent signpost's talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And where is our policies is an editor not allowed to explicitly admit to violating WP:SCRUTINY, as opposed to actually violating WP:SCRUTINY? You say he did both? I agree. So write up a proposal for a ban based upon violating WP:SCRUTINY. Supporting a ban for explicitly admitting to a violation is wrong. The proposal should based upon an actual violation. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. We do not punish thoughtcrime here. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose A rather IDONTLIKEIT proposal, given that nowhere on Wikipedia is paid editing absolutely banned. If the OP could prove that what they were doing was harmful to the encyclopedia we might get somewhere. KonveyorBelt 00:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree, I want to see diffs. I want a discussion based on policy and evidence, not emotion. Jehochman ^Talk 00:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason it's hard to provide diffs proving disruption is entirely because he's violating WP:SCRUTINY with his socking. If he weren't violating the sockpuppetry rules and we could actually scrutinize his edits, I wouldn't support banning him. But as it is he is breaking WP:SCRUTINY (which is why there are no diffs of disruptive article space editing,) and saying that we shouldn't ban him just because we can't prove disruptive article space editing is pretty much equivalent to saying it's okay to violate WP:SCRUTINY as long as you are good at it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And how do you propose that we enforce this ban, if we can't even generate a few diffs? Are we going to get a psychic to identify the banned users' accounts? You know what this ban will lead to: lots of false accusations and the resulting disruption. Remember MyWikiBiz? The hunt for Greg Kohs sock puppets and other "enemies" of Wikipedia led to a lot of harmful dramas. Please, let's not repeat those mistakes. Jehochman ^Talk 01:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I cannot imagine this proposal leading to the block of any user account other than the one currently commenting on the signpost article since he's good at covering his tracks. I'd be more worried about WikiPR blocks targeting the wrong people, because they are horrible at trying to cover their tracks. But seriously, why should we let this dude comment on the Signpost article? It's not the biggest deal in the world which is why I didn't bring it up myself when I saw him pop his head over, but what possible good is there from not blocking his admitted account? There's no reason User:AKonanykhin should not be indeffed on ENWP. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look at the signpost comments and block him if there's any problem with his edits. We should not block or ban people for merely disagreeing. There has to an action and a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 01:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly block User:AKonanykhin and add him to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wexperts, containing already blocked socks (see block log here [60]). See [61] and [62] if you want unambiguous evidence of sockpuppetry. If WikiExperts contractors or employees want to appeal their block, they should make a request as per Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, like every other blocked user.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What evidence do you have connecting these accounts? How do you know that's not some other troll having a little fun? There's needs to be a thoughtful presentation and discussion of evidence, not a rush to judgment. If there is sock puppetry, please go report it here: [[[WP:SPI]]. Jehochman ^Talk 02:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Connecting those banned socks? I gave the diffs, and obviously the blocking admin agreed. As to connecting the User:AKonanykhin, I only said "possibly". Thoughtful presentation and discussion is always a priority, and this discussion now is part of that. When looking at User:AKonanykhin's edits, it is pretty clear, or as many people at SPI say, WP:DUCK. Also, his contribs admit meatpuppetry explicitly. For example here [63] User:AKonanykhin explicitly says that he is part of an organization which supplies "a growing network of participating wikipedians with paid assignments". That is describing and admitting to unambiguous meat puppetry, at least when combined with the admission here [64] that not announcing the conflict of interest is done to avoid scrutiny. Assigning edits to other people to make edits for a common purpose and trying to avoid scrutiny of this activity is a clear infringement of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, and I think the majority of editors agree with this. I think the editors voting support here are just part of that majority who have the same judgement. It's not a rush to judgement.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

All these accounts pre-date the existence of WikiExperts for over a year. AKonanykhin (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This kind of flagrant declaration to violate Wikipedia guidelines means these editors have already lost the faith of the community. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Per several editors above, it seems hypocritical that they will respect all WP guidelines but COI and have intentions to to declare war on WP. At first glance, it even reminds me of how Jimbo went ballistic over Tony Ahn's PR firm including WP article creation services. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Declaring that you disagree with our policies and guidelines, and even stating you wont obey them is itself not a reason to ban. Everyone commenting here about "declarations" and "war" and they "don't respect us" and "he doesn't agree with our policies"... you're !votes seriously are illegitimate since they are not based on any policy! You have to back up your !vote with policy instead of, as another editor stated "emotions". Who cares if they don't respect us or have faith in the community? Are you that much of a control freak that we have the idea of a 6 year old "I'll take my ball and go home" because they wont play the game by the !rules we made? Wikipedia is what our readers need it to be. Seriously, grow up everyone and just go edit an article and close this shit out, if they break a !rule they will be punished. Until then mind your own business.Camelbinky (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the issue is if they have said they will not obey the policy and guidelines when challenged, that's disruption, and that's why we impose blocks and bans as to prevent such. Now, whether we do that in a precautionary manner, that's a different question, but I have seen this used before, so it seems to be valid option. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Really? That's hearsay. Can we please ask the editor a few questions and let him answer in his own words, instead of jumping to conclusions. This discussion is much too hasty. We need to be more thoughtful. Jehochman ^Talk 02:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)\

Hearsay? No, that's Masem's opinion of the statement and the guideline/policy just like all of the Users' comments above. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. MER-C 02:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've just exchanged a few emails with Alex and he seems to have the potential for reasonableness. I think we need to walk back this dispute and try to understand what exactly people are objecting to, and how each side can understand the other's concerns, and how there can be an agreement about what sort of editing (if any) would be allowed. Placing a hasty ban will not prevent harm, and may just drive the activity deeper underground. Jehochman ^Talk 02:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If he is a reasonable guy, he should prove it by providing a list of all their accounts - now and forever, which of course goes against his comment cited in the beginning of this thread. If all of them can be watched, and he follows his part of the bargain, then outright ban may indeed be unnecessary. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As an absurdly broad restriction. Were this simply saying that editors who work for the paid editing firm are banned that would be one thing, but what does "otherwise encouraged to edit on behalf of this firm or its clients" mean? It seems to be worded in such a way that takes this restriction well beyond the firm itself or regular paid editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Guilt by association is simply wrong. What makes it even worse, is that many of the supporters of this admit it will be symbolic anyway, as we can't readily identify who is subject to the proposed ban. So now you banned if your an employee, of a client, of the company who has never violated WP:COI? Talk about over broad. Act in good faith, follow COI and self identify, but if you work, not even for the company, but a client of the company, you are banned. While we are banning categories of people, lets ban all racists, we can worry about identifying them later. Monty₈₄₅ 03:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• OPPOSE such a broad ban. It's ridiculous to apply a ban to anyone associated to the corp. Let alone, possible to enforce. How about a ban of the editors and management of the firms? —(っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 03:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• SUPPORT until they change their declared policy and commit to stating their COI and restricting their edits to talk pages. I'm perfectly happy to work with open COI editors. (What this whole issue throws up is the need to improve the skills of our new page patrollers, recent changes patrollers and AFC helpers.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Just like any other site, following the terms of service is not optional. These guys have indicated that they will actively violate Wikipedia policy. That is an option granted to absolutely no one, not even Jimbo. Ban these scumbags until they agree to follow all Wikipedia policy, including COI. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:IAR - paid editing would destroy the project unless we will do something about it. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support, but I agree with Bilby above when he says "let's make it a policy that all people with a financial conflict of interest must declare their COI, and block accounts which do not". Then we have a clear supportable policy for paid editors. They can edit but they must admit they are paid and by whom. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: This ban is based purely on speculation. Not one person has come forward with an actual example of an edit that anyone related to WikiExperts has made that egregiously breaks Wikipedia’s actual policies. Needless to say, since this ban was proposed, my own Wikipedia profile’s talk page has already been vandalized—with a user claiming that despite charges being dropped in a past event, the reason why is to be suspected. This is a very clear personal attack that breaks Wikipedia’s Biography of Living People protocols.

I invite anyone to look at my personal user profile here, which has not made one single edit to article space in the entire time I’ve been on Wikipedia. Banning me for editorial breaches would not make sense, as I’ve never edited Wikipedia’s articles. As Wikipedia administrator User:RKlawton on the WikiExperts.us Wikipedia page so recently pointed out in an edit summary, COI is a guideline on Wikipedia, not a protocol. There is no policy that requires a declaration of COI. A ban should only be in place if someone or some entity actually breaks a Wikipedia policy repeatedly, which there is absolutely no evidence WikiExperts has ever done. I believe we have never broken a policy, and the evidence appears to support this.

Firms that have actively flaunted Wikipedia policies could be considered eligible for a ban, such as Wiki-PR or MyWikiBiz. However, evidence of said flaunting of actual policies must be in place before such a ban can be enacted. My own personal disagreements with the COI Wikipedia guidelines, is in no way contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Real discussion on COI issues is beneficial for Wikipedia, as there are no firm policies on COI and therefore the only way to form them is through a firm policy and the discussions that lead to it. Instead of trying to ignore my ideas and force a community ban on a company that has never been proven to flaunt Wikipedia rules, perhaps a formal discussion on creating an actual paid editing rules should be completed.

Let me clarify something. I believe that COI guidelines on Wikipedia are ineffectual and unfair, but I am not stating, nor have I ever stated, that we have ever edited with a conflict of interest. We edit with pure neutrality and only for very notable individuals or organizations. COI guidelines state that it is very hard to edit without a bias, and we do that very hard job. The COI guidelines do not state that it is impossible to edit without bias, and rightfully so. We do it.

The nominator has claimed WikiExperts is an “unethical” company, but can provide absolutely no evidence that something unethical has taken place or that a single Wikipedia policy has ever been broken by WikiExperts. A breach of normative ethics is also different than an actual breach of policy, which has not happened. If my previous remarks have insulted people here on Wikipedia, I do apologize, as I was simply trying to start a discussion. I would add that these discussions were all had off Wikipedia’s pages, unless Signpost is considered a Wikipedia page. I would also add that we have spent a lot of time investigating how to best implement the COI guideline into our company model and have done so to the best of our abilities, to ensure only neutral edits are made.

In terms of the accusations above:

User:John Carter wrote “ if it becomes known to prospective clients that this firm has explicitly said it intends to violate the rules here, it might cause prospective clients to wonder whether they want to be, potentially, linked to a firm which engages in extremely dubious behavior, and might potentially cause the firm to revise their procedures. Most firms won't want that sort of negative publicity.” This is administrator has clearly stated that he intends to harm the business of WikiExperts with the tools of Wikipedia if he can, without providing any evidence that WikiExperts has broken a single Wikipedia rule. This is an abuse of administrative authority.

User:TheBushranger clearly states that his impulse to ban WikiExperts is based off of comments on a Signpost article that disagree with COI guidelines. He adds nothing else to support his argument. How is expressing someone’s own viewpoint on Wikipedia guidelines or policies against the spirit of Wikipedia to the point that one must be banned?

User:OrangeMike calls WikiExperts “outlaws”; what law is being broken and what policy. Either COI guidelines really mean that it is only strongly suggested that COI be declared, or that is false, and COI must be declared or a user will be banned. It cannot be both.

User:JohnCD states that a ban of WikiExperts would be the same as a ban of WikiPR. WikiPR was proven to have flaunted actual Wikipedia policies time and time again, and no such evidence is provided against WikiExperts. The two cases are not at all the same.

User:Kevin Gorman has stated something plainly false, by claiming that Alex Konanykhin uses sockpuppets to edit Wikipedia. Let me make this clear; my user account nor WikiExperts has ever once used a sockpuppet for a single edit. That is contrary to Wikipedia policies, all of which we follow to the letter. In addition, accusing someone of sockpuppetry without evidence is a serious thing here on Wikipedia, and inappropriate without evidence.

User:Beyond My Ken states that I have blatantly disclosed misbehaviour. Which misbehaviour is that? I have stated WikiExperts disagrees with COI guidelines. I did not ever say that we disagree with any actual Wikipedia policies. We agree with the lot of them.

User:Tryptofish has stated that abusers of Wikipedia need to be identified to be banned, we agree with this. And if we are proven to be abusers of Wikipedia policy, there is no way we would continue in a similar vein. We would correct any potential abuse of policy if there was one. Fortunately there has never been such abuse.

User:Nick-D also falsely accuses us of using “dozens of sockpuppet accounts”. We have never used a SPI to post an article and have never once had more than one account edit the same page, ever. In fact, we don’t have any “accounts” at WikiExperts. Wiki Experts have their own accounts and work entirely independently of one another.

User:MONGO has stated that Wikipedia is a hobby, not a job. There is no Wikipedia policy that supports this.

User:DES accuses us of only abiding by rules we like. WikiExperts abides by all actual rules on Wikipedia and has never said otherwise. COI is a guideline, not a rule.

User:Bilby is correct.

User:Tom Harrison also unfairly, and without evidence, accuses us of using multiple accounts.

User:My very best wishes has made a clear and inappropriate personal attack on me in the above string.

User:Orange Mike claims we are spamming Wikipedia. We are not. In fact, we have never encountered Orange Mike before despite his valiant efforts to keep spam off Wikipedia. That is because we have never spammed Wikipedia, and we do hope that such a significant figure on Wikipedia would be able to find value in our well-researched and community accepted articles if he ever came across them.

User:LGA discusses “fall out” from our work on Wikipedia, but does so without any evidence an article we produced was not within Wikipedia guidelines.

User:Jehochman is making the only argument I’d really like to make myself, which is, we’ve never broken any actual rules nor have we damaged Wikipedia in any way. No evidence exists to say we’ve broken policy or added non-notable articles, and I myself am telling you we have not ever damaged Wikipedia’s copy and text. Each article we have worked on has in fact received a great amount of praise from the community, from barn stars to personal thanks.

User:Resolute accuses us of breaking NPOV. Let me reiterate, we have never broken NPOV, and are known to our clients as very restrictive on only posting neutral material.

User:Atethnekos also accuses us falsely of sockpuppetry, when it has never been proven and isn’t even the subject of this proposal.

User:Nyttend is using speculation and original research to try and piece together an argument to keep WikiExperts from editing Wikipedia. He also accuses us of possibly breaking the law without any evidence whatsoever. I believe this is very contrary to Wikipedia’s rules.

User:Eaglestorm has declared that WikiExperts has declared “war on Wikipedia”. Firstly, at no point has this ever been stated by myself or WikiExperts.

In short, there is no evidence that WikiExperts or users associated with it have ever broken a rule on Wikipedia. Recently I have tried to state my beliefs on how COI guidelines have failed people we work with time and time again, and how we have been able to abide perfectly by the guidelines without announcing a potential COI, which is the truth. If stating we don’t follow a “guideline” that is not a “policy” here is enough to ban, I would request the closing administrator state as such. If guidelines are in fact enforceable policies, let this be the precedent. I would also add that while we would fight any policy that explicitly states we would have to declare COI for our clients, if made actual policy we would have to abide by that rule, as we abide by all others. AKonanykhin (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

AKonanykhin, the rule you are breaking is WP:COI. The fact that we say guidelines may have the "occasional exception" does not mean, once you're aware of them, that you may blow them off entirely. You and your company's representatives, or anyone else you're paying/rewarding to edit, must disclose COI and stick to talk pages/noticeboards rather than editing directly in the COI areas. It is not optional. The "occasional exception" is not "an editor who disagrees may just ignore it altogether."Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

AKonanykhin, nice try with that lengthy diatribe of yours and your comments on what I just wrote. You forget that I got that from similar points by Smallbones and a few other editors. Paid editing is paid editing, in the same principle of reporters being paid a sum to write favorable stories about certain people. Don't forget that there are editors who are adding or deleting info about the organizations or companies they actually work for.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Very well, AKonanykhin, show me that you are maintaining NPOV by revealing your client list so that the relevant articles may be inspected for such. PR firms exist to promote a company or individual's image and the nature of the business is inherently POV. If you and your group are that incredibly unlikely exception, then you should be willing to stand behind your work. Resolute 18:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It would certainly be permitted for you to reveal the list of firms you have here, unless the contact forbids making such revelations, but that is the only good reason I can imagine for withholding full public disclosure. And even in that event, it would certainly be possible and I believe permitted for you to e-mail the list of clients and known or presumed identities of editors to OTRS or ArbCom or somewhere (I admit I don't which would be most appropriate) so that they can review the edits and see if you have, in fact, been abiding by the standards of wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, AKonanykhin, WP:COI is a guideline; however, Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy. Wikipedia's guidelines are determined by consensus. Bans are enacted to prevent disruption of, and harm to, the project. A statement that demonstrates a unilateral refusal to abide by WP's guidelines due to one's personal perspective tends to show an inclination to disrupt and/or harm. Tiderolls 14:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, of course. "Just a guideline", while in some rare instances a valid argument, is incorrectly applied more often by people who don't quite understand what guidelines are and their relationship to policies. Guidelines describe how consensus has determined policies are to be interpreted in particular circumstances. The WP:NOTHERE argument is also quite valid; While we can ensure some paid editors' intentions to purely produce accurate information on a company, a refusal to abide by COI as a matter of course makes it likely enough that their intentions are otherwise. equazcion� 14:38, 13 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Can you point out where the employees, of the clients, of wikiexperts are failing to abide by COI as a matter of course, because the proposal bans them as well, and what policy would justify such a broad ban? Monty₈₄₅ 15:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Guess the more accurate wording would have been, "as a matter of policy", but the point still stands. I can't point out actual infractions, if they exist, since their policy of not revealing themselves prevents us from identifying their potential COIs. Perhaps there's no written policy in place that dictates a ban in this situation, as we've probably never had such a situation before, but that doesn't really matter. It would be best for the encyclopedia to prevent institutions that state they plan to flout Wikipedia's rules from editing, as best we can. equazcion� 16:57, 13 Oct 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I think any PR company which openly declares their Wikipedia services [65] must be outright banned, unless they: (a) immediately and openly provide list of all their past and currently active accounts, and (b) promise to follow all basic wikipedia rules and actually keep their promise. This should be included in WP:COI, unless it's already there. This is nothing personal. Based on their statements [66] and actions so far, this company openly defies such requirements. And, yes, the idea of collective responsibility must apply in such cases because these users may act as a group. For example, one can easily imagine a situation when several users from such company support each other by comments, votes or reverts - hence the open disclosure of all their accounts is absolutely necessary. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• The above "action" was done prior to WikiExperts' opening and was not WikiExperts business. AKonanykhin (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The key is not that they are doing paid editing (which is not outright disallowed), but that they refuse to attach identity to the accounts that do that paid editing as such those contributions can be reviewed, as per WP:COI. That's the more troubling aspect. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@AKonanykhin: Honestly, that comment you made regarding me is at least to my eyes pure bullshit. At no point did I indicate that I would take any sort of direct action, which is an unwarranted assumption that you seem to have jumped to rather easily with little provocation. Please refrain from such incendiary, irrational comments in the future, because if nothing else they raise very serious questions regarding your input. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I object that this thread is commercial slander and a violation of BLP. Bad things are being said about a person and his business without proper evidentiary diffs. Jehochman ^Talk 16:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Replying to each of the individuals above stating things I believe are false is not a diatribe as User:EagleStorm has stated--I was putting all my replies in one place rather than scattering them across the votes above, paying attention to what each user has said, and responding where I can to make sure my side is clearly laid out, as should be done in any AN conversation. User:EagleStorm states that he received my "war on Wikipedia" comment from listening to other editors, which is exactly my point. There is a lot of misinformation being perpetuated above in terms of what WikiExperts does or does not do, due to large scale speculation. Let me reiterate. I have one and only one account and would never use another. Anyone who contracts with WikiExperts is instructed to follow COI guidelines to the letter as well as all Wikipedia policies, excepting only an official declaration of COI, to ensure our content is perfectly neutral. That has resulted in no complaints from any Wikipedia user upon reviewing our the articles we post. Regardless, the COI guideline is under much debate and constant editing. We don't have a clear consensus on Wikipedia. Banning WikiExperts without any clear evidence that WikiExperts has harmed Wikipedia in any way would merely be a backdoor to banning paid editors without first gaining full community support on paid editing generally, and that is both unfair and ignores the actual consensus that Wikipedia has reached--that only the current somewhat lenient COI guidelines can be agreed upon, and that banning paid editing is not something the community is willing to do. Until this is resolved to policy level, I have believed that following the more lenient approach that paid editing is allowed, so long as neutrality, verifiability, and other content policies are strictly followed. I would follow that up with a caveat that for anyone here who has a policy they believe we are not following, and that should be followed, please inform me of it so that we can review it and integrate it into how we edit. We want nothing more than to continue to be constructive members of the Wikipedia community, and very much sympathize with those that might be sensitive to the idea of paid editing. Our only intention in our off Wikipedia commentary being used to judge us above, was to open a dialogue on how we believe that COI declarations are not mandatory and can harm good, neutral editing Wikipedia paid editors by subjecting them to the same often over-the-top accusations that appear in this very comment string. AKonanykhin (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

How can an objective review of your contributor's content be accomplished without the requisite COI disclosure? Tiderolls 16:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• • • Wikipedia has many different methods of vetting articles and contributions, including new page patrol. Each of our pages gets patrolled when added. We write every article objectively, and they are all subjected to the same oversight that every new article has when being added. I'm not sure what you are asking for, for an additional level of scrutiny being given to us over other editors? Where would that occur? AKonanykhin (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not sure what I'm asking? OK, I'll bite; I'm requesting that you and the editors from your organization edit within the policies and guidelines of this project. Tiderolls 16:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head with your suggestion that you should be subject to "an additional level of scrutiny ... over other editors", AKonanykhin. The difference between your team's contributions and those of other editors is that you are acting as the agents of parties who quite naturally wish to be presented in the best light possible. Neutrality (a Wikipedia-wide policy) - i.e. a presentation of the negative aspects of the companies you represent along with the positive aspects - is strongly impacted when your paycheck comes from those that desire the minimization of their negatives and an emphasis of their positives. Considering that there is an actual motivation for you to violate or at least skirt NPOV, there is clearly extra reason to review your contributions. You've previously made the dubious claim that all editors present a biased perspective when they write articles, but the reason that these alleged biases are only subjected to normal scrutiny is that they occur on the individual level whereas your group is engaging in systematic editing. -Thibbs (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• • • (c-e) :::Agreed. And the rather weak statement that "we don't choose to follow unofficial rules" is clearly a rather weak statement. Repeated violations of such "mere guidelines", are I believe themselves in at least some cases demonstrably enough for editors to be banned or otherwise sanctioned by ArbCom or on these boards. The fact that an organization seems to boast that it can, and apparently does in some cases, violate the conduct guidelines established at a private site, where editing is a privelege, not a right, does I believe raise serious questions which have not yet been addressed about the ethics of the firm involved, and such questions about the ethics of PR firms, if publicly discussed, could not unreasonably result in damaging press and damage to the reputation of the firms involved. And, yes, contentious matters around here get discussed in a lot of external media fairly regularly and sometimes thoroughly, whether we want that or not. Your statement, in effect, seems to be little more than a statement of "Trust us - we know what we're doing", by a source whose ethics pretty much indicate that they are about as trustworthy as the first person that quote is attributed to. And, in response to the above comment, that isn't an answer. You seem to be attempting to dodge addressing the fact that you have one method under your control, regarding which you apparently insist you have a right to act contrary to guidelines. That apparent stated, insistent, refusal to abide by guidelines cannot help but damage any credibility you or your editors, and potentially all their edits, might have so long as you continue to make that insistence. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

AKonanykhin certainly likes to rebut my comments. Hurt much?--Eaglestorm (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm inclined to oppose per Bilby. WP:COI doesn't provide a particularly solid basis for blocking when it goes out of its way to use words like "advice", "recommendations", "discouragement", etc. It's not that COI is just a "mere" guideline, but the language it uses is exceptionally fuzzy. I for one am grateful to AKonanykhin for clearly illustrating the weakness of our COI [recommendations] guideline. As Bilby pointed out above, this guideline should really provide the basis for a new policy explicitly requiring the declaration of COI for individuals and corporations writing about themselves (broadly construed) and including their agents and paid advocates. Rather than blocking AKonanykhin for failure to follow fuzzy recommendations in a guideline I think it's high time these common sense rules were made into firm policy. The only thing that holds me back from opposing the proposed block entirely is the sockpuppetry aspect of it. That really concerns me because when systematic corporate-backed sockpuppetry starts it just takes a few more turns of the wheel until we have flotillas of sockpuppets voting in AfDs, jiggering consensus on RS determination, and otherwise degrading our ability to form a clear consensus. Atethnekos's links above provide enough circumstantial evidence of this kind of taint to restrain me from opposing the block. -Thibbs (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Policies are not laws and there need not be a policy in order to take an action that people feel is necessary. Practice often tends to come before policy. Those who feel that COI should be a strongly-worded policy should not feel there's a technical reason to oppose this action merely because COI isn't codified as such yet. equazcion� 18:51, 13 Oct 2013 (UTC)
    • Obviously the community can do as it pleases, but my lean toward "oppose" is based on moral, not technical grounds. I'm opposed to any kind of ex post facto proceeding. I can't help but imagine myself on the wrong side of a "practice often tends to come before policy" argument and it makes my skin crawl. If we are serious about tackling this issue then we need to craft serious rules. Blocking AKonanykhin for ignoring our suggestions misidentifies the source of the problem. -Thibbs (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ban people for what they do, not who they are affiliated for. If we start preemptively banning editors because of their personal life and/or employment instead of because of what they actually did on-wiki, where will it stop? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• I find it significantly sad that there is an AN discussion this long and this contentious about WikiExperts, when there has not been a significant public thread about Wiki-PR. Wiki-PR has hundreds of confirmed clients, many more suspected clients (including *Viacom*, and a number of fairly notable bands,) and thousands of more as of yet undetected clients. The sockpuppet investigation in to Morning277 has been effectively shut down, and their work is continuing. All this thread is serving to do is let Alex get free advertising by managing to inject himself in to a discussion that should be centered around a different group of paid editors. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as utterly excessive. WP:COI is a guideline, not policy. I'm not a big fan of paid editors, but I fully understand why a company would wish to keep the exact identity of their clients private. If all of the company's accounts were labelled as being linked to the firm, then there's little need to be this draconian. Beyond that, the proposal is VERY extreme, as it is literally just an enormous blanket; "otherwise encouraged to edit" is WAY too overreaching, as what is wrong with someone with this firm asking for one of their friends to update, say, the 2013 British GT season results table? That would violate this ban, and that makes this ban a bad idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Everything here is a strawman argument. WP:PAY does not explicitly prohibit paid editing. Since the proposal cannot back up its claims with policy the whole thing should be withdrawn before anyone gets any silly idea about "declaring war on paid editors". KonveyorBelt 19:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest tabling this thread and instead using the energy to conduct an RFC on paid editing with the goal of forming a solid policy. In the thread below I suggested that the policy might require paid editors (employees of the subject, or contractors), to disclose their work on a noticeboard set up for that purpose. Once the paid editing is disclosed, we can monitor it for problems, and take any measures needed, including swift blocks of problematic editors. We can hold paid editors to high standards and not waste time with any who try to play games. For any paid editors who try to avoid scrutiny by omitting the disclosure, it could be our policy to indef block them. I think such a policy would be better than what we have now, and alleviate the biggest concerns. If we test it and there are still problems, we can then discuss next steps. Jehochman ^Talk 20:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think having that RfC is a wise idea regardless. There's a real quick way to table the current discussion, though, and that is for wikiexperts.us to say "Alright, we get you, consensus is clear that we must reveal our edits. Here's the list of articles we've edited so far and the times we did, and we'll clearly mark such edits in the future." The fact that they won't do that makes it look even more like there's a reason they don't want those edits to be examined. AKonanykhin, would you be willing to do that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    • (e-c)Just adding this before the thread is closed. That proposal above sounds really good to me. There might be problems with undisclosed editors for hire, and I would myself also like to see some such noticeboard to also include a way for corporations who see problems with their articles but don't want to have paid editors be able to contact people with sources to use to develop articles. But that proposal is at least a really good start. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I think we have an emerging consensus that paid editors should disclose. If their editing is good, disclosure should not have any downside. People look at the edits and go, "Yep, those comply with our content policy. Good edits. Thanks." If not, remedial action can be taken as needed. For the moment, I suggest that Wikiexperts agree that from now on their paid editors will go the relevant article talk page and post a note that they, the individual editor, are working for the subject and that they welcome scrutiny of their edits. There is no need to for individual editor to identify Wikiexperts as the agency-intermediary on the transaction. It's not our concern how somebody has been hired; it's not our desire to interfere with a business contract that might stipulate confidentiality; we just need to know that they are being paid so we can check their edits more carefully. Can everybody agree to that as a temporary measure until there's an RFC which sets up a general policy, and possibly a central noticeboard? Jehochman ^Talk 21:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
        • For me, at least, so long as someone says "I'm getting paid to do this", I couldn't care less who it is paying them. I just want to know, to be aware of what I'm looking for. And that's not even to say paid editors will intentionally edit badly, but subconscious bias can creep up on the best of us. It's possible the paid editor didn't find some serious negative information about their client, because, well, they weren't terribly well inclined to look. I am going to object to closing this thread, though, because we do not yet have any indication wikiexperts, in particular, actually plans to do that. If and only if they do commit to doing that, I would say they're no longer engaged in the behavior the ban proposal is for, and at that point the discussion would indeed be moot. That hasn't, to my knowledge, actually happened yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - largely per Monty845 and Jehochman. No need to so passively assume bad faith; surely we can wait until they at least do something to violate policy. Go Phightins! 22:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• That was a violation of policy which resulted in blocking an account by an arbitrator. I am sure there are many other similar accounts; I simply did not investigate (that's why Mr. Konanykhin is probably hesitant to disclose all his accounts). Mr. Konanykhin claimed above that it was not his company. Well, based on the editing pattern, that was either Mr. Konanykhin himself (in which case he should be blocked right now) or someone else who worked for Mr. Konanykhin. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support in principle. There are many rules that are good to have as rules, even if difficult to enforce. I have no great aversion to the idea of paid editing, so long as it is done aboveboard, with disclaimer of all conflicts of interest. bd2412 T 00:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support but Oppose simplistic ban as written, preferring to insert the word "undisclosed" into the wording. Prohibition doesn't work. It just sends the practice underground where it is more difficult to monitor, let alone control. Paid editing is a fact of life. Some paid editors will be better, as in more compliant with our values, than others. We should reward the more compliant editors, the ones who self declare stick to that single account, and try to comply, so that their life is easier than paid editors working undeclared.

  What if they declare that they are a paid editor, but refuse to say who pays, or to give details on their COI? I can see that they may justify this refusal on privacy concerns. I have seen privacy suffer due to attempting to declare details of COI. I think some balance can be found here. If they declare that they are paid, and declare that they have a COI, that is way better than editing undisclosed, changing account every time caught, until they become good at being undetected.

  Tryptofish's concern is very important.

  Agree with bd2412. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• So how to do this?

Proposal: Undeclared paid editors are banned, effective from today. As banned editors, their edits are not welcome, even if otherwise constructive. Any pages authored by banned editors are summarily deletable per WP:CSD#G5. G5 deleted pages may be recreated by another editor in good standing, but they must be written afresh, as the banned editor's contributions are not welcome, and reuse of their material would require attribution per our licencing.

The question of whether an editor is an undeclared paid editor is resolvable at WP:COIN.

An undiscovered undeclared paid editor may retrospectively avoid banned status by immediately declaring as a paid editor.

An editor declaring their status as a paid editor must make a clear note to that effect at the top of their userpage.

Notes: There is little point attempting to punish accounts. Accounts are cheap and disposable. What matters in paid editing is their product. If we delete their product, per their terms, they must refund the fees paid. This will make them pay attention.

Paid editors still need to be afforded personal privacy. It is not necessary to disclose full detail on who is paying them, and exact what they are paid to do. Having them disclose that they are paid editors will be a very good start, and quite possibly sufficient, as they can be watched. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support The gentleman and his associates have blatantly declared that they have an agenda that aims to subvert the open-source, public interest character of Wikipedia, as per the following statement on his Wikipedia article Alex Konanykhin

  "We believe that boycotting fundraising efforts of Wikipedia might compel it to raise billions via advertising and develop content of significantly better quality."

He's a vulture capitalist tool of the "investor class", in short, targeting an organization that looks like easy prey to him.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposal violates everything we stand for. If someone says they think vandalizing Wikipedia is a good thing without ever vandalizing Wikipedia, soapboxing, or otherwise violating any policy, do we ban them? If someone says that Wikipedia should deny the Holocaust but never goes beyond expressing that opinion, do we ban them? It goes against our core principles to ban for thoughtcrime or for expressing unpopular opinions. Bans should be based upon specific edits that violate specific policies or guidelines, not on having a "contemptuous attitude toward our COI guidelines". I am very disappointed in those of you who support this, and I can only hope that you just didn't realize what you were doing. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider the caveats of Tryptofish and SmokyJoe. This is an "ounce of prevention" approach. Disclosure is a core component of the COI policy, and the pretense to taking the moral high ground is made with accompanying statements that exceed the reprehensible and duplicitous. He is deviously waging an anti-Wikipedia PR campaign, like a devious PR man would be expected to do. What's wrong with upholding the stature of Wikipedia in the face of such chicanery.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, if someone says that Wikipedia should remove all material critical to Scientology but never violates any rule or goes beyond expressing that opinion -- once -- on the Scientology talk page, do we ban them? You are asking what is wrong with banning someone because they express an unpopular opinion. My answer is that everything is wrong with banning someone because they express an unpopular opinion. You may one day express the opinion that you disagree with the way Wikipedia is run. If that ever happens, would you object if we banned you for waging an anti-Wikipedia PR campaign, even though you had not broken any of the rules? In my opinion, your willingness to punish thoughtcrime hurts Wikipedia far more than any PR flack or sockpuppet ever could. Nonetheless, I would oppose banning you for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. If you can think of a reason to impose a ban which is explicitly based on policy, then I would like to see that reason, but until then... "The company claims that they will act ethically and that it respects Wikipedia's policies and guidelines with the exception of COI. We should put to the test whether they will respect our policy on bans by refraining from editing once banned from doing so, as paid editing without full COI disclosure is inherently unethical." basically means "They say they're ethical. I think they're not. So let's ban them, and if there are any edits later, that proves they're unethical!". Banning somebody to give them a chance to prove that they won't edit through a ban is just a 21st century form of witch-dunking. bobrayner (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Let's face it: paid editors are here to spam and spin. No one pays an editor to objectively edit something like Ancient Rome unless they are trying to sell a book. So why pay for an article here? To sell a non-notable thing as "encyclopedic". 'Cause of the artificial notability. For me, Paid editing = spam. Doc talk 13:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• You do realize that you just supported a proposal that, as written, bans someone who has never spammed, never accepted pay for editing Wikipedia, and indeed has never edited an article, or done anything other that expressing an opinion that such editing should be allowed, right? I don't think anyone here has a problem with nuking actual spammers, but that's not what is being proposed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• My support isn't going to make any difference in this. I have a black-and-white view of paid editing in general. No one gets paid to edit an article for truly encyclopedic purposes. Who would pay someone to improve, say, Cuisine of India? Unless they have a financial incentive to promote something? I work for free here as a volunteer, and am highly suspicious of the motives of any paid editor. That us all. Doc talk 00:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - they are everything that Wikipedia is not and should not be. Independent paid editors can be tolderated; a full company cannot, as they cannot be trusted to abide by our neutality, bias and POV policies. GiantSnowman 13:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Let's stop this now. This ban proposal is premature. We need to first work out the policy basis by having a discussion to the effect that undeclared paid editing is unwelcome. Once we have developed that consensus and tag the page as policy, then we can look at specific cases in violation and deal with them. If this ban is placed, I will request arbitration to have it overturned. It is silly to keep going here. We need to resolve the policy question first. Jehochman ^Talk 13:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What policy question? Tiderolls 14:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"Undeclared" paid editors usually get tripped up due to their use of WP for non-encyclopedic purposes. How else would one identify undeclared paid editing? Doc talk 14:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: I've always found WP:COI to be misused in the vein of the Spanish Inquisition and heavily tilted toward those editors interested in writing about corporate entities. Until the community requires disclosure of a COI by any editor who might have one (instead of strongly advising), (See this comprehensive description in WP:COI), this type of ban request is merely an inquisition. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

So your position is that if the wording is changed mandating disclosure that the expressed intent to violate the WP:COI policy would be sufficient grounds for banning, but with the current wording

If you have a financial connection to a topic...you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection.

at Wikipedia:Coi#Paid_advocacy.2C_public_relations.2C_and_marketing), insufficient?

Maybe it is time to close that loophole.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's helpful to call it a loophole. AFAIR, the guidelines have been clear for a long time that neither is disclosure required nor is editing with a COI including paid editing forbidden. As I said below, despite some occasional confusion this seems to be supported by long standing practice. And while there are arguments for and against this stance, I'm pretty sure at the time of formulation the lack of a requirement for disclosure was intentional. If people want to change the guidelines, there are ways to go about, clearly trying to use a different intepretation at AN is not the way to go about it. If consensus is reached that failing or refusing to disclose a COI is blockable that's fine but it should be full thought given to the implications of such a requirement. (Personally I think if full thought is given the requirement will be far more more limited most likely only applying to a specific form of paid editing.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: I think my position is clear. COI as written and invoked today is grossly biased against editors who might want to contribute to corporate related articles because it presumes anyone with a COI can't contribute well sourced, neutral content to notable corporate topics. Such presumptions demonstrate great upfront bias and POV. I do not think that requiring disclosure of COI is neither wise nor practical. However, unless it is made a requirement and applied equally to all forms of COI--Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. (from WP:COI), ban requests like this will remain an inquisition. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Editors should be judged on their editing behavior per WP:COI not who they might be in real life. This includes the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their gender, their education, their age, their nationality, their philosophy and their employer. This proposal, if passed, is the beginning of open-ended and "legalized" discrimination on WP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Let's face it. This is subversion of the project. Yes, it makes a lot of difference if someone edits in his own capacity, rather than as a member of an outside organization with goals very different from our goals. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think this entire discussion went on a wrong track. This is not a "COI problem", but a "MEAT problem". If people work on behalf of an outside organization or another person, they appear essentially as "meatpuppets" and therefore must disclose that they belong to a certain organization or work on behalf of another person (who might also have his own account like Mr. Konanykhin).

• Support ban. This company isn't only advertising that they will create articles for companies that meet our notability guidelines - they're also advertising that they will keep these articles free of negative content (eg. "Your Wikipedia presence is completely safe, if you entrust it to us"), presumably even if well-sourced. I would appreciate more evidence about specific users identified as working for this firm, or pages the firm has edited, but even without that, I think we have enough to show that they are not interested in following policy in the specific, as well as a general problem with WP:NOTHERE (their goals and the encyclopedia's goals are not similar, and they've outright mocked our guidelines and people who try to enforce them). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I see too. Taking negative content out of the articles seems like owning it - sometimes, truth hurts, live with it. Unfortunately, that's gonna happen if we let these Wikiexperts clowns run wild in the project.--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support: the very existence of a website like that one undermines the whole concept of WP. Its manager/CEO/whatever openly stating that he will not follow WP:COI and adding gems like this one:

RE: "you have no actual right to be allowed on Wikipedia. -- How come? I'm out, even though any looser can be there, safe in his anonymity and bullying experts and professionals?[67]

is a clear indication that he has zero respect for the project and the people involved in it. Even if the ban is technically very difficult to impose it sends a clear message and acts as a warning to anyone out there thinking of giving money to them. Gaba ^(talk) 20:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very strong support " "..a company which has explicitly stated that it will not follow those guidelines and in fact considers it "unethical" to do so", seems to have been demonstrated by the OP. A function of the organization appears to be to use Wikipedia for reasons outside our core pillars.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support I was originally intending to strongly oppose based on the fact that the common reasons given aren't actually supported by our guidelines. In particular, our COI guidelines do not stop people with a COI from editing articles nor do they require disclosure. They simply strongly discourage such editing encourage disclosure This is supported by long standing practice where an editor is not blocked for editing with a COI nor for failing to disclose it, but instead only for actual violations they commit due to their COI and where we do perhaps have a lower tolerance for such poor behaviour for editors with an undisclosed COI. While I recognise a number of editors disagree with this, this obviously isn't the right place to change the guidelines. However looking more carefully, I see there is a resonable case to be made that the editors are actively violating WP:SOCK namely using multiple accounts to violate scrutiny so there is some merit to a block. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If people work on behalf of an outside organization or another person, they appear essentially as "meatpuppets" and therefore must disclose that they belong to a certain organization or work on behalf of another person (who might also have his own account like Mr. Konanykhin). My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that in addition to unproven accusations of sockpuppetry against myself or WikiExperts (we have never once broken the rule against sockpuppetry), some editors are also bringing up unproven accusations of Meatpuppetry. The meatpuppetry on Wikipedia policy discusses the use of more than one person being used to sway an argument on Wikipedia, which is something we have never done. Never once has WikiExperts ever employed a series of individuals to support or oppose an argument on Wikipedia, including here in this comment thread. I'd also like to point out that I myself have plainly declared who I work for (as owner of WikiExperts) and my position there, and have never made an edit on a talk page without using this account, which features my real name. Even if there is a proclamation that editors must OUT themselves in all cases of potential COI in the future, I myself have never broken that possible future rule. Why would the argument that COI must be treated as policy and not a guideline result in the banning of a person who is open about their connection to a company being discussed? I've been very clear about my association. However I refuse to OUT any other editor, as this is against Wikipedia policy. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you work for your clients. Given that you refuse to name them, your claim that you have "plainly declared who I work for" is objectively false. Resolute 20:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As someone who cracks down very hard on attempts to out users...I find the outing argument completely weak and fallacious here. If you don't want to be identified as being affiliated with a company, don't edit articles in a promotional way on behalf of that company. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Konanykhin. No, I think at least three accounts (in addition to your own account) already acted as your sock/meatpuppets: [68], [69], [70] while editing your biography alone, and I am not counting other suspicious "trough away" accounts who edited the same article. One of them was blocked, and rightly so. Who knows how many others are out there editing other articles? My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry says: "Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." The link there, to Wikipedia:List of guidelines#Behavioral, says "Do not use Wikipedia to promote yourself, your website, or your organization." On Novermber 10, 2010, 15:36 default time, User:Eclipsed starts adding material to the page Alex Konanykhin [71]. Same date, 17:50 default time, new user named "Konanykhin" on Commons adds a photo of "Alex Konanykhin, author of book Defiance" and describes it as "own work" [72]. Same date at 23:46 default time, User:Eclipsed adds that photo to Alex Konanykhin article [73]. User:Eclipsed continues to edit Alex Konanykhin article, which also involved removing potentially negative information (November 20, 2010: [74]). User:Eclipsed also edits the KMGi (advertising agency) article, including uploading the KMGi logo [75] and adding it to the article [76]. On January 4, 2011 User:Eclipsed indicates [77] that he does paid editing and says that he has a "financial connection" with Alex Konanykhin and KMGi (advertising agency). All of this shows clear conflict-of-interest meat puppetry, an infringement of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. So, this is fourth meatpuppet account. I am not arguing that corporate accounts should be forbidden, but only that they must be properly registered as corporate accounts to allow scrutiny by community. Perhaps we need a separate category of accounts, called "corporate accounts", which would be a subject for more stringent rules, because a group of hidden corporate accounts can cause significant damage for the project, as we actually just have seen in case of Wiki-PR? My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of accusing me of sockpuppetry here UserMyVeryBestWishes, please note that your prior attempt to investigate me for sockpuppetry ended without evidence to support your claim. I welcome you to do the same with any other account, as I have never committed sockpuppetry--in fact, I've never edited an article on Wikipedia before. Just review my user contributions to verify this. Also, User:Rosceles, no one has proven that I or anyone with WikiExperts has ever edited in a promotional manner, so I don't agree with your argument in favour of outting other editors, as it implies that we must be editing promotionally purely because we are being paid to edit. And, User:Resolute, please see our policy here, where we stated explicitly "We do NOT upload articles provided by clients. We do NOT upload press-releases, advertorials, or other material not in compliance with Wikipedia standards.". We create referenced, neutral Wikipedia articles on companies or individuals looking to have a presence on the site. I work for myself, as the owner of the company. Clients purchase our services, I do not work for them. Just as McDonald's does not work for you when you purchase your meal. Besides the fact, that the meatpuppetry policy on Wikipedia covers a very specific practice--the use of multiple editors editing in concert on a talk page in order to sway an argument. You've misinterpretted the policy. AKonanykhin (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

He is accusing you of sockpuppeting because you are sockpuppeting. KonveyorBelt 22:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:KonveyorBelt, I would encourage you to take a look at my response to his accusations here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts . I may post my response here, but am not sure what the protocols are for including identical information on that investigation's page and this page, as User:Atethnekos is doing? I think it would be beneficial to add the explanation here as well, but don't want to be accused of spamming the message. Would it be appropriate to add it as a comment below? AKonanykhin (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC on WP:BRIGHTLINE An RfC has opened on whether Wikipedia:No paid advocacy (BRIGHTLINE) should become policy. See Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I think real problem here is not paid editing, but whether someone works as an individual or on behalf of an outside organization/another person in Wikipedia (added later)). In latter case, they appear essentially as "meatpuppets" and therefore must disclose that they belong to certain organization or work on behalf of another person (who might also have his own account like Mr. Konanykhin). My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Everybody belongs to some sort of organization. Would you force every editor to disclose their entire life story, their family members names, positions, affiliations, lovers, bastards, and so on? Come on, this is just getting too crazy. Jehochman ^Talk 23:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am talking about someone working on behalf of an external organization in wikipedia. I thought that was clear. For example, I never worked on behalf of an external organization or another person in Wikipedia. Do you? My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• support at a base level I was opposed to this proposal, because we should keep open access, but they have really shot themselves in the foot by explicitly saying they indent to ignore our policies. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never been paid to edit Wikipedia, but I've been paid to write articles for others to publish on Wikipedia. I then took that article to DYK of my own accord because it was interesting and DYK-worthy (w/o getting paid). If this policy passes, what stops me from being punished? I've never been accused of not being WP:NPOV or posting articles that failed WP:GNG, so why shouldn't I continue to edit the way I do?--v/r - TP 23:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If it passes, then yes, that would fall under the policy. But then, if the community decides that writing WP articles for pay is a problem, then writing Wikipedia articles for pay to be posted by a third party would also be a problem. Arguably not as big, and harder to detect, but still an issue. That's largely what has been happening with the Morning277 case - he writes the articles, and other people post them on his behalf. - Bilby (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. That company should be banned from editing the Wikipedia. It is scarcely credible that someone who is paid on a regular basis to edit in Wikipedia can avoid conflict of interest that would defeat the usual Wikipedia criticism and contest process.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose You can't get rid of it, all you do is drive it underground. The best way to deal with it is find acceptable guidelines, such as private disclosure (public would present obvious problems) and try to channel it. And, by the way, having recently been paid for an article (non-wiki) in real life, I find I like it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this issue is here to stay, if there's fuzzy guidelines rather than clear and actionable policies its our own fault. Admittedly the attitude of this particular "company" (?) leave a lot to be desired Jebus989^✰ 15:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Why would not Mr. Konanykhin simply tell us: "Our company has editors X, Y and Z. They created/edited such and such pages. Please inspect: this is good job". No one would object this. To the contrary, their company could earn a very good reputation here. There is no good reason why they can not do it. The argument about "outing" (working for a company) is indeed unconvincing. However, if they do not do it, there is only one logical explanation: they are going to violate our policies, exactly as Mr. Konanykhin said in some of his statements above and publications (e.g. No donations to Wikipedia). My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: To answer the question as to why I cannot divulge our client base, beyond the Outting rule and the fact that as of now COI guidelines are suggestions and not policy -- we have non-disclosure agreements with our clients and editors. That means we cannot legally disclose who our clients are, or who works with us as editors. So long as COI disclosure is voluntary and not mandatory, we feel that a lack of disclosure is within the rules and policies of Wikipedia. If COI disclosure does become policy on Wikipedia, we would have to reconsider our own policies, however this would never be done in a retroactive manner.

Secondly, I want to highlight my response to the accusations of sock/meatpuppetry above. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts#Comments_by_other_users. I prefer not to add it piecemeal to the above discussion as there is enough confusion over the "evidence" for our supposed bad deeds, and I want to record set straight. AKonanykhin (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

So, based on your response, I assume that you have already a lot of clients and currently active editors bound by a non-disclosure agreement. Well, I do not see a lot of difference between your company and 50 Cent Party or web brigades. And you are not logical. Your own article tells that our problem is anonymous editing. This is valid point. Let all your staff edit here under their real names and disclose their affiliations. But instead of bringing more transparency here, you created an underground army of paid propagandists. This is forbidden per WP:SOAP. My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification I consider "We believe that boycotting fundraising efforts of Wikipedia might compel it to raise billions via advertising and develop content of significantly better quality." an obvious declaration of war upon everything that Wikipedia stands for, as it is a call to impoverish and eventually destroy us, and reduce the remnants to prostituting our once-valued name and reputation to the great profit of companies like his own. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support. As per Orangemike. Those statements from Wikiexpert is truly a manifesto of WP:NOTHERE. Let them take their political agenda elsewhere. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - I'm going with Orangemike on this one, it was a great point made. 173.58.61.71 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban. The goals of marketeers are incompatible with those of Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban. You know what, I think they should stop operations until they come clean.

1. They're obviously using sock accounts in contravention of established policy. For those saying that, "oh, there's no confirmed socks", well, do you see any clean, COI-disclosing accounts anywhere? I sure don't.

2. "We believe that boycotting fundraising efforts of Wikipedia might compel it to raise billions via advertising and develop content of significantly better quality." This is just BS. So basically they're trying to starve us to the brink of death, and then say "Hey, here's some funds. Now, would you kindly kneel down to the interests of corporate entities by sticking stupid advertisements everywhere?". Why the heck do we want to raise billions? We're more or less a non-profit foundation, and our servers are running just fine with our donations here. Sure, we could always use some more money, but do you want to dirty your hands with blood in order to get some extra cash? One of the fundamental ideas about Wikipedia is that we don't accept advertising and we never will. People use Wikipedia in no small part because we don't have ads. Why don't we get people to boycott you and force you to run ads everywhere at every click? In addition, it's kinda hard to stay neutral when your life depends on companies that you're supposed to be writing "neutrally" about.

3. We don't really need diffs for evidence of misbehavior. The FOUNDER of the company has said himself that he's intent on not following our policies, so even though some of you might think that he hasn't violated anything yet, if the company really has "helped hundreds of clients", I'm sure that they skirted more than a few policies.

Overall, I think what they are doing is disreputable and must be stopped immediately, until they promise to come clean and stick to only a few accounts and stop violating our policies. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• support it's plain they won't follow WP:COI. That is enough by itself in my opinion. But in addition there pretty damning claims of puppetry. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New "templateditor" user right

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right I have deployed the requested change and there is now a Wikipedia:Template editor user right that can be granted to users by administrators. This group allows editing of pages protected with the new "Protected template" level, and overrides the title blacklist.

You can see the new user right the user rights list special page. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 02:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template editors needs help. Legoktm (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Made some bold additions. Comments welcome. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Replacable non-free

Can someone deal with these? Thanks!

• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 21 September 2013 (discussion on file page)
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 14 September 2013
• Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 13 September 2013

— Train2104 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:Requests for permissions/Template editor

Could an admin clear the backlog at WP:RTE? NE Ent 02:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

2 requests is not a backlog. Legoktm (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

1 when he posted. It's a joke and a way to let people know the noticeboard exists. Or at least that's how I took it. Hobit (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This must be the fastest turnaround of a new feature in the history of the developers! The two successful candidates, User:NE Ent and User:Technical 13, should be congratulated. But meanwhile we still have a few details to specify. The template editor user right should be documented like the other permissions. A description should be included at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Permissions. There was a section called 'Guidelines for granting' in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right. Assuming that those criteria now have consensus, they should be included on the permissions page. Each applicant should (from now on) be prepared to show that they met the requirements stated in the RfC, such as 150 edits to template space and five requested edits to fully protected templates. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This new user right is not going to be useful for template editing until various templates are re-set to the new protection level. This addition did not automatically change the protection of various templates as far as I know. For example, {{Navbox}} is still currently set at full "block all non-admin users" protection, not the "protected template" setting. So is some admin or bot going to go through all these templates? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've already downgraded one template, see [78]. I don't think a mass unprotection is a good idea, rather if any template editor wants to edit something, they can ping me or any other admin and once it's downgraded, it'll stay there. It kinda reduces the whole point of the right on the first run, but mass null editing the most used templates on the 'pedia is not a good idea :). Legoktm (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think a recent change to MediaWiki made it safe to make null edits to widely-transcluded templates, so a mass conversion may not be problematic. You should check that rather than take my word for it, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I too am very impressed with the turnaround on this, and hereby thank all the developers and admins who are working on it. See Wikipedia:Template editor and feel free to discuss changes on its talk page. For now I think we can go with the "by request" method of protection change, and after this whole thing has proven reliable for at least a little while, we can perhaps propose a sweep of the remaining templates. equazcion� 05:21, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Anybody notice that we admins also now have the technical ability to apply "protected template" to any page, not just those in the template namespace? I successfully just applied it to one of my user sandbox pages as a test. The option appears on all other namespaces as well. Is this an unintentional bug? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This is how the code that Coren deployed works. It simply created a new protection level, but the MediaWiki software doesn't have any way to restrict that to any namespace. Legoktm (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think this is a bug. Restricting the protection potential to a specific namespace isn't technically feasible at the moment, if I understand correctly. The protection is only to be applied to pages that are/were transcluded to such a rampant degree that full protection was warranted, which should only be the case for Template: space pages. However if there are any such pages in other namespaces, it could be applied to those as well. PS, regarding the posting of the guidelines, it seems most other permissions at WP:PERM have their guidelines laid out at their individual project-space pages (eg. Wikipedia:Autopatrolled), rather than at their actual WP:PERM request pages. equazcion� 05:32, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it would take a huge amount of coding to make this possible (maybe I'm wrong), but the way I see it, why bother, when presumably all of our sysops can be trusted not to misapply this option. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Someone should make a new protection template for this instead of the redlock we use on full protected high risk templates. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Pending some decisions here equazcion� 16:01, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
• Let me add my kudos to the developers. I am supportive of the new right, but wondered if it might take some time for implementation. That was fast. Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• You're cordially invited (everyone) to help choose a padlock color for the new protection level. Apparently this is the most time-consuming part of the whole implementation :) equazcion� 17:04, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)
  • This is only to be expected, per WP:BIKE :) -- Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please remove this page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please remove! Someone put false information about my business and about it's employees here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Seaman_Guard_Ohio. Furthermore you will notice most of the information in the article is about the company when the article is supposed to be about a ship, not the company. So not only is it false information, but it's not even related to the subject matter! I tried to edit it but they keep changing it back and now they have given me warnings as if I was the perpetrator of this business war! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmartin77 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're trying to edit a page that you're connected to, I suggest you read conflict of interest, since users should try to not edit pages that they're affiliated with. ZappaOMati 13:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I DID go there but it told me to come here! "For internal conflicts of interest involving Wikipedia administrators, see Wikipedia: Administrators: Involved admins."

You can't use read a small sliver of the page and then go here. You need to read the whole page. ZappaOMati 13:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so (and you may be right about the COI), but you need to read the entire article to see if there's anything to the complaint. I think there is, and I have removed that section from the article. Such indirectly related negative information needs to be presented in a balanced way, and this particular article does not, as yet, strike me as the proper place to put it. Thank you Jmartin. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@ALL: Hello, I am the person who widely researched and contributed to the MV Seaman Guard Ohio article and see that my contributions have been discarded. Please check that I have consistantly given my sources of info and not reported any 'made-up info'.

Three other users sessions already deleted all my submissions and I had to revert it and request them to open any discussion in the article's talk page. I feel that deletions of my contributions, which are done in the spirit of Wikipedia, should not be quickly deleted without any prior discussion. However, I notice that multiple persons (which seem to appear to be the same user) are more interested in deletions without discussing the matter on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.180.58 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The back-ground info about the AdvanFort, which as since been purely and simply DELETED (but which you can view here [79]) is HIGHLY relevant because the firm is presently being investigated in India for illegal entry with military weapons and guards. The firm also has a past history which is far from clean. Therefore the history of the firm can and should be cited here in the article.

81.240.180.58 (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin-bot op needed

here.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 16:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

How to request mass template removal?

Ï have just closed a TfD which is to keep 340 templates. Is there a regular place to request a bot assistance for this? I checked a number of instructions and could not find anything useful. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Maybe ask the operator of the bot that's put them there in the first place? Doesn't take a genius. — Lfdder (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I can try this. Btw you are not in a position to reopen the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Lfdder, you've been blocked before for personal attacks, what's the point in being so unnecessarily aggravating? GiantSnowman 20:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I'd expect a proper fucking summary for a discussion this long and heated. But you probably can't write a proper fucking summary cause you either don't understand or didn't bother to read it. — Lfdder (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC) What fucking summary do you expect if it is 28:9, and 9 = merge + delete? Prepare the nomination better next time, and you might get a chance to delete those templates.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC) it's not a vote count, you're supposed to look at the merits. And I wasn't objecting to the outcome. — Lfdder (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Lfdder blocked. Let's discuss the matter of removing the templates. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, don't worry about it. This is one of those rare situations when rollback is appropriate for non-vandalism, so I've removed everything I could find. It was a simple matter of going through the bot's contributions and rolling back 50 edits at a time, and then checking WhatLinksHere for templates named "icon" that linked to the TFD. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's also a great way to move on up in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Nice work, Nyttend! The collapsed content makes for interesting reading, and it was probably headed that way already. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you very much @Nyttend:--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)