Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

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

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 60 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 122 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 119 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 119 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 90 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 71 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 70 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 55 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 55 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 48 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 46 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide

(Initiated 44 days ago on 19 July 2024) Talk:List of genocides#RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

(Initiated 43 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#RFC Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

(Initiated 35 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

(Initiated 26 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election#RfC:_Trump_infobox_photo

(Initiated 21 days ago on 10 August 2024) Several users have discussed the issue sufficiently, but others agree that there are too many options to reach a consensus.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Please properly format this request and list it in the proper section. See the rest of the requests above as well as the instructions at the top of this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @voorts, Thank for your kind advice, I updated the format after reading other requests and instructions. Please advise me if it still needs to be fixed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Just needs to be moved to the RfC section as far as I see. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And done. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V,Thank you for your kind advice and contribution. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Erledigt. C F A 💬 14:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

(Initiated 20 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

(Initiated 15 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	32	0	32
TfD	0	1	6	0	7
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	65	0	65
AfD	0	0	3	0	3

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17#Category:Discotek Media

(Initiated 31 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#Merge proposal

(Initiated 316 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 118 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Cartoon_image_near_lead

(Initiated 117 days ago on 7 May 2024) 34 comments, 17 people in discussion. Discussion has mostly died down. Not the most monumental of issues, but closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 96 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 94 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 84 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 63 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 55 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 21 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion#Requested move 10 August 2024

(Initiated 22 days ago on 10 August 2024) It's clear there's no consensus, both to not move the page to the initially desired page title or to certain alternatively proposed page titles, but the discussion has run stale and the page needs moving now that it is no longer August. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2024 (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)

RfC validity review requested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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: [1] and [2]). 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: [3], [4], [5], [6]. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 [email protected]). 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."[7] Perhaps someone with knowledge of the Apple Keychain project got the idea to use Wikipedia[8] 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.[9] 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"[10] 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. 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:[11]. Of the three AN requests to remove/alter her sanctions only this one is relevant.[12] 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. 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. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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.[13] 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,[14] 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)

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. Alle 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 oder 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)

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)

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)

"Reverse AFD"?

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

User:Thomas.W

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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).

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)

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

Community ban proposal for paid editing firm wikiexperts.us

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 [15], 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: [16], and in their statement on the CREWE Facebook page here: [17]. 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 For all the reasons listed already. It is unethical to pretend to not represent who you represent in order to make an edit. It is, moreover, damaging to trust in the work of editors, here, and therefore damaging to Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 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 [18]. 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support WikiExperts has openly declared war on Wikipedia, e.g. [19] "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)

• 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 , containing already blocked socks (see block log here [20]). See [21] and [22] 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)

• 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)
• Kommentar 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)

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)