Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Normally when a page is semiprotected, nonconfirmed users get an automatic invitation to make a semiprotected edit request. For the vast majority of pages that is well and good. Alas, certain pages are the targets of off-wiki campaigns. Most recently OpIndia and the Discovery Institute have launched such campaigns, but it has been an ongoing issue. The sign of this happening is new user after new user flooding the talk page with near-identical semi-protected edit requests, none of which even attempt to follow the...

"This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. 'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'."

...instructions.

I propose that on selected talk pages we disable the automatic creation of edit requests and instead send the unconfirmed user to an edit window with a new section on the article talk page. I wouldn't want just anyone to be allowed to do this to a semiprotected talk page, so I would like to make this something an administrator would do.

My first question is, is this a good idea or a bad idea?

If the answer is "good idea", what are the nuts and bolts of making this happen? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that on the talk pages of certain semi-protected articles, a non-confirmed user attempting to make am edit request would be forced to provide the required full statement of what is being requested. Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. They're simply suggesting the removal of the edit notice on certain semi protected pages. The edit notice includes a button to make an edit request. It makes it easier to make an edit request and explains what you're supposed to do including saying editors need to make a full statement of what is being requested. Incomplete or unclear edit requests are generally rejected but the problem with these sort of pages isn't so much this although many such edit requests are incomplete. The problem is even if the edit request is complete, it's something already rejected 100 times over and clearly lacks consensus. The message does explain that edit requests are only for simple or uncontroversial changes and to make sure there's no discussion, but such messages are either not understood or ignored. If editors here are still confused about what Guy Macon is referring to, I suggest they check our a semi protected page like

Jordan Lawson as the template on the page (but not the edit request) is very similar. The hope seems to be the removal or change of the edit notice will make it less likely editors will make useless edit requests since they will need to figure out how to find the talk page and post. (Well to make an actual edit request they will also need to figure out how to use the template but frankly for the sort of pages and edits Guy Macon seems to be referring to, I don't think it matters if the template is used. I'm fairly sure most of them are dealt with by page watchers rather than those looking into the cat or whatever.) The whole point of the edit notice is to encourage edit requests by making it easier for editors to figure out how to make them, but this is maybe undesirable with a small number of pages. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Exactly. Here are some examples:

[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

All of the above were handled by the editors on the talk page.

They should have been normal comments, not edit requests.

There was no need to needlessly fill up the edit requests category with the above requests.

The user should not have seen a button to make an edit request.

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume that we have a consensus to take away the edit request button on the minecraft talk page (looking at the examples above I don't see how anyone could oppose that). How would that work? Is it even possible, or is it "baked in" to the Wikimedia software? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This could be done with a

protection notice. Examples here. I think any user with tboverride rights can create one of these. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, nobody has come out and said it was a bad idea, so I am requesting that the edit notice that creates a button that generates extended-confirmed-protected edit requests on Talk:Minecraft be removed. There are a couple of other talk pages that are being flooded with edit requests but I would like to see how taking away the button works on the Minecraft talk page first. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take care of it if nobody gets to it before I can log in to my admin account, I agree it's worth a try. A while back I recall asking about an edit filter for empty edit requests, but I can't find the request now and it's possible I just dreamt it. So, how about an edit filter to block empty edit requests, or to throttle too-short requests on pages with heavy request activity, or something like that? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  On second thought, there have not been any edit requests on that page in over a week, and the two that have appeared since April 24 have both been in good faith. Is there a page currently experiencing a problem we could try this on? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you are going to find a page with 100% bad edit requests. The question is not whether nonconfirmed users sometimes make good suggestions but rather whether they will continue to do so if you take away the button, and whether the suggestions are responded to by those who are watching the talk page or by someone summoned from the list of unanswered edit requests. How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion and especially its background cross off one of my personal WP-mysteries regarding the vast amount of empty or severely incomplete edit requests. I had no idea that's how it worked. I cannot but support something like what Guy Macon is floating. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples on other pages:[18][19][20][21][22] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, should I post an RfC on each individual talk page that is being flooded with edit requests because of our "one click" button? Or can we just try it on the Minecraft talk page and see how it works out for us? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. another one.[23][24] What a shock. Who could have predicted that this would happen? Related: Attractive nuisance doctrine. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not strictly opposed to removing the click-and-save method of spamming help requests for high-trafficked pages (and/or pages that are repeatedly spammed) but I haven't had an opportunity to look into the issue enough to know exactly how to enact that. I feel like it would need to be a dev-level change. I also feel like it should be required that any such changes be logged somewhere, so that there is a record of currently-active we've-removed-functionality articles and pages. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. The entire edit request system is built using local templates and modules, so this can be done locally. In fact, any template editor, page mover or admin can override the entire message shown when editing a specific protected page by creating "Template:Editnotices/Protection/<page name>". Just to make sure I understand the proposal correctly, it's proposing that the "submit an edit request" button omits the usual preload and editintro and just goes to the same place as clicking "New section" on the talk page? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose then clarification would be indeed needed, because I wasn't necessarily referring to the specific "request an edit" template that we use (I do know how to do that) but rather the page message that is displayed when an IP tries to edit a protected page (at the very least, it feels like it would be in the MediaWiki: namespace) but I don't know where it is or how it's set up. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That message is

protection notice exists, and if so calls it, and if not produces a standard message based on the level of protection (Template:Protected page text/semi for semi-protected pages, Template:Protected page text/extendedconfirmed for extended-confirmed-protected pages, etc) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. That is my request. As I wrote before, "How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page?" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt at implementing the technical side of this. First, an admin needs to carry out my request at Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021, and then any template editor, page mover, or admin can carry out this proposal by creating the appropriate editnotice (for Minecraft: Template:Editnotices/Protection/Minecraft) with {{subst:manual edit requests}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer

crickets, so agree some action should be done: @Ivanvector: (or anybody, really)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I've got it. Izno (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purposely implementing user-hostile design to discourage unconfirmed editors from making any edit requests with no replacement is

WP:BITEY

and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, specifically that "anyone can edit". I hate this idea. This is just a band-aid "solution" designed to circumvent community consensus by ensuring that anyone who might actually use an edit request on certain pages are unable to do so due to a lack of knowledge. In essence it's just blocking edit requests for certain semi-protected pages.

Maybe we should be focusing on implementing a better solution that actually directs users seeking to edit semi-protected articles to potential options other than "submit an edit request". Looking at the editnotice, I see a big wall of text full of boring stuff about what protection is and wikibureaucracy. Then I see a big blue button saying "submit an edit request". The average person is going to assume the only way to propose changes to the article is by clicking the big blue button. They are usually not going to click on the wikilinked "discuss this page with others" that doesn't really clarify that a normal talk page thread is where controversial changes or less specific ideas should be proposed. And even if they do, I have to scroll down through a bunch of hatnotes, see sections, etc etc and have no idea how to do any of this talkpage etiquette without reading wiki help pages that aren't linked anywhere for me.

I would like admins to consider potentially changing the template to make the blue button "open a talk page thread" (which directs the user to create a new section on the talk page) and shift "edit request" to a white button, as well as a brief explanation as what opening a talk page thread entails. This makes it clear that the preferred and normal option is to open a talk page thread while still allowing users to make edit requests. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 09:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to admins to make such a change, it would have to be a community decision. Admins are entrusted with tools needed to perform certain chores. Policies, guidelines, and procedures are set by the community as a whole. You can start an RfC to change the template yourself, and any Wikipedian can comment on it. - Donald Albury 13:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Albury: If it's supposedly "not up to admins" to make changes to this template then why wasn't this proposal given an RfC? Why was the only discussion on the talk page of the template in question an edit request (ironic isn't it?) and on the administrators' noticeboard? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 03:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to post an RfC; this is the first hint that I have received that anyone might find this template change controversial.

Just to make sure that I ask the right question in the RfC, as I understand it the request at Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021 only makes changing the "edit request" button so that it opens a talk page section possible but does not actually change anything, right? So the objection is to making this an option? Or am I misunderstanding?

Note that I specified in my original "possible new tool/technique/procedure" question that we require an administrator to evaluate whether edit requests are disruptive on a particular page and make the decision to change the "edit request" button to a "post talk page comment" button on that page. We also discussed trying it on Talk:Minecraft to see if it causes any problems. Given those restrictions is there still someone who objects?--Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've understood the technical aspects correctly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess:I apalogize, as I seem to have misunderstood what was happening here. I was reacting to the implication that only admins can/should edit a template. As the template in question is protected at the extendedconfirmed level, it would indeed take an admin to actually edit it, but anyone can request the edit at the talk page (a bit self-referential, there). - Donald Albury 16:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re the comment above:

"Purposely implementing user-hostile design to discourage unconfirmed editors from making any edit requests with no replacement is WP:BITEY and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, specifically that 'anyone can edit'. I hate this idea."

That would be a valid objection if that was what was being proposed, but the "with no replacement" bit is factually incorrect. I proposed that on certain pages, determined by an administrator to be experiencing disruption that we take away the one-click edit request button and replace it with a one-click open a new talk page section button. We aren't "discouraging unconfirmed editors" doing anything. They simply click the button, say what they want to say, and the comment gets handled by the regulars like any other talk page comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This thread gave me a really bad idea for handling this sort of situation, which you can read at
  WP:VPIL#Dealing with off-wiki campaigns with the power of upvotes. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

So basically admins get carte blanche to implement a new tool that takes away the ability of often new users to make edit requests (because let's face it; there's only a handful of non-autoconfirmed editors who would know how to do a manual request edit or are willing to go through the mounds of wikibureaucracy to figure out how to request an edit). This tool will be used by admins to just take away the request edit button if they believe a page is "experiencing disruption". The "replacement" is you just get sent to open a new section on the talk page; the original proposal wasn't very clear on how this was done and it appeared to me as if users just get sent to the talk page without any real guidance on how to suggest changes (just a new section on talk page go nuts!) And of course, this gets implemented because at this random Administrator's Noticeboard thread admins haven't really disagreed with your proposal. Admins not voting to give themselves more power.

I would like to see this proposal more fleshed out before it even goes to RfC. I'd like to see some kind of central logging for when admins disable edit requests; not just a category of all pages currently under manual edit requests but a central place that logs when, why, and on what pages admins have decided to implement manual edit requests so we can actually have oversight. I'd also like to see something more substantive than just when an admin believes a page is "experiencing disruption". Is it when we get organized groups of people filing obviously frivolous edit requests? Or will this be used whenever new users just make bad edit requests because they don't know what they're doing? I'd also like to see some method to ensure that it's possible to make it so that restrictions automatically expire after a certain period of time so admins don't indef manual request edit.

That being said I'm not opposed to the general principle of having request edit not be the "default" option anymore. I hope I made that clear earlier when I proposed making the default for all articles to "post to the talk page" and instead make request edit a non-default button. I believe the primary issue with request edit here is that it's seemingly the only option for a user wanting to have a change made to a Wikipedia article, not that organized groups of people are using it to somehow attack Wikipedia i.e. it's an issue with our interface rather than with our users and that blaming the editors is BITEY. I also don't like the idea "They simply click the button, say what they want to say, and the comment gets handled by the regulars like any other talk page comment." because it implies that new editors operate from an inferior position (needing to be "handled") to "regulars". We're not "handling" new editors we're supposed to try to collaborate with them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 23:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the concept of "requests" being "handled", your disagreement is with the English language, not with my proposal. If you don't like the idea that many pages have a number of regulars who typically handle edit requests you should remove all pages from your watch list so as to not be a "regular" on those pages. The reality is that on pages like SQUID and Cockcroft–Walton generator most people have zero interest in the topic while a few of us are watching the page and making sure that it stays accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I like Guy's idea a lot. I agree that it isn't bitey. This also would partially solve a related problem, that of people patrolling requested edits coming into high-traffic pages they aren't familiar with and dropping a not-really-helpful canned response to those few edit requests that are actually good ones. Pinging EEng, with whom I've been discussing that at my talk. —valereee (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still getting edit requests on Talk:Minecraft which would have been handled just fine by the editors watching the page as ordinary talk page posts without summoning outside help with the edit request template: [25][26][27][28][29][30] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if that page is being sufficiently watched perhaps lowering the protection level as Ferret did a week ago is the better response. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's been one edit request since lowering the protection from ECP to Semi. Of course, IPs are caught in either case. If the question is, should we consider unprotecting entirely, my position would be "No." on this particular article. But I sympathize with Guy's position in this thread. My watchlist is regularly filled with empty requests or nonsense requests. Although I don't patrol edit requests explicitly, I do handle them within my watchlist scope. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the page is heavily watched, and the ER's are infrequent you could try SPP-->PCP as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pending Changes is useless, because it leaves the vandalism in the history and often will require twice as much cleanup in order to actually hide everything properly (specifically re-OSable additions). Primefac (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I suggested Talk:Minecraft as a first place to test this specifically because it doesn't get a huge volume of edit requests and most of them are good-faith. So I am told that Talk:Minecraft isn't a good place to test this specifically because it doesn't get a huge volume of edit requests. You want to test this on pages where pretty much every talk page post starts a giant fight? Fine. Do the test on Talk:Creationism and Talk:Ayurveda. Then we can hear complaints that there is still a lot of disruption, just not disruption in the form of edit requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see us test this somewhere. @Guy Macon, if we test at Minecraft, how/when will we be able to tell whether it's "working"? —valereee (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Isn't there somewhere in-between Minecraft and Creationism where it can be effectively tested? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ministry of AYUSH? Talk:Microsoft Windows? Talk:Siddha medicine? Talk:Juneteenth

?

As to whether is is working, I think the burden of proof is on anyone who says that an unconfirmed user who clicks on a link and writes some words will act differently based upon whether after hitting the publish button an entry will be added to User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable. If we need to we can make the text around the link identical in both cases. We could even continue to pre-fill-in the heading. That would be a bad idea, of course; anyone who is unable or unwilling to put a subject on their post is unlikely to write anything useful in the actual talk page comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm requesting the creation of an {{

Is it usual for such metadata to 1) not have a space after the word "version" and 2) include a url? If there are no controls over what is placed there should we really automatically create a redirect? I throw these questions out as food for thought, rather than necessarily a reason not to do so.

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

 Not done Nobody would search for that string, or enter it into the search box, so creating it as a redirect is useless. That it is in the metadata of some image is of negligible interest. Sandstein 21:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, no one would use that as a search term.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support creation. We allow file metadata redirects, do we not? So it seems to go against consensus to not create it as requested. Many file metadata redirects are long and completely unsearchable terms like this one. For example:

1. /opt/imagemagick-7.0.5/share/doc/ImageMagick-7//index.html
2. C150,D390
3. C70Z,C7000Z
4. C-1Z,D-150Z
5. Darktable 2.5.0+481~g35ee32992
6. DROIDX 66360001fff80000015d76040101d01f
7. HandBrake 1.3.3 2020061300
8. ImageMagick 6.6.9-7 2012-08-17 Q16 http://www.imagemagick.org
9. ImageMagick 6.9.2-7 Q16 x86 64 2015-12-02 http://www.imagemagick.org
10. FE360,X875,C570
11. MicroStation 8.11.7.443 by Bentley Systems, Incorporated
12. Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis
13. Leaf Aptus 22(LF7220 )/Hasselblad H1
14. Sinarback 54 M, Sinar 4x5" view camera
15. SAMSUNG ES15 / VLUU ES15 / SAMSUNG SL30
16. Pdftk 2.02 - www.pdftk.com
17. R4CB020 prgCXC1250031 GENERIC E 4.6
18. Xiph.Org libtheora 1.1 20090822 (Thusnelda)

etc. and more in

Thank you for explaining. I didn't realize that this type of redirect was not well known by administrators otherwise I would have offered more of an explanation. This type of redirect has been around since as early as 2005. As you say, the point is not that someone would search on Wikipedia for this. The point is that it exists as a link on the file page so this redirect fixes that broken link for anyone that clicks it there. And for a tool as common as Matplotlib, it's likely that this link exists on more file pages and will continue to get added to new files in the future. As you say, we can have a discussion about whether this type of redirect in general is worth keeping (although I struggle to find any reason why these helpful and harmless redirects should be removed), but until that discussion takes place denying my request because "no one would search for that string" makes no sense.

RandomCanadian, the reason I posted it here is because Wikipedia told me this was where I should post this request. When I tried to create the page it said "If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." If there is somewhere better to post this request, please let me know. --Yarnalgo _talk 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, but please delete all of these and use the solution already in place for the first file. At

Fram (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand why you see that box as a better solution, but can you explain to me why we can't have both? What harm does it do to have these redirects in place so that when someone does click that link they get taken to the correct page instead of a non-existent one? I hear you that that hidden link is unlikely to be clicked very often, but on the off-chance it does (I personally click these links all the time), why not have this redirect in place? These redirects are not getting in the way of anything and have a chance to help someone out, so why delete them? As Dylsss explained, they meet point 4 and 5 of

WP:R#KEEP so on that grounds alone they should not be deleted. What is your reasoning for wanting to delete all of these ~1200 redirects that have existed for years, are harmless, and that some people find helpful besides the fact that it's possible to put a template with a link in the body of the file page? Putting that better-formatted link is great, but the broken link still exists on the file page regardless and will continue to get automatically added to the pages of any files made with the same software (while the Matplotlib template will not). I really did not think this would be a point of contention when I made this request. This seems like a no-brainer to me to make these redirects, and I am still struggling to see why there is such opposition to something so harmless and potentially helpful. There doesn't seem to be any downside to me to make these redirects, and there is a potential upside. Please help me understand what I'm missing here. Thanks. --Yarnalgo _talk 17:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Because they are a never-ending series of redirects (1200 already? Yikes) from "somewhere" (impossible to see from enwiki, impossible to know if the source for the redirect even still exists or not) with very little use, which look like spam and pollute the genuine "what links here" human redirects. While it may look as if these redirects already existed in 2005, at that time they were things like

Fram (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You are failing to provide any reason that actually meets the

ffmpeg tool, which is why it redirects there. Maybe it should link to Vorbis or libavcodec instead, but that is really a separate discussion pertaining to that one redirect and not a reason to delete these redirects en masse. --Yarnalgo _talk 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Reason for deletion 8 (novel or very obscure), plus reasons 2 (e.g.the libvorbis one), arguably 4 (urls in redirects?). Reason to not delete them (4) is often ignored when an external site or tool creates "redlinks" automatically (like here, but this e.g. also happened when some tools (I think Listeria) created redlinks for "article name (Qnumber)" combinations, which some people then created as redirects to "article name". Such computer-generated redlinks are then not considered a good reason to have or keep these redirects. Which leaves us with reason 5, you find them useful. I don't believe this outweighs the reasons for deletion (or not creating them), you obviously disagree, fine.

Fram (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Reason 8 states "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful". We've already established that these redirects are useful due to the fact that they fix broken links on file pages so this doesn't apply. Reason 2 may apply to that one example, but again that may mean that one redirect needs some discussion but is not a reason to delete these redirects en masse. As for reason 4, we've already discussed at length the purpose of these redirects. They are clearly not "self-promotion or spam". On your next point, calling Commons an external site or tool is a little disingenuous. The file pages (and the broken links) exist on Wikipedia as well. This isn't creating redirects for some random external site that has broken links, it's creating redirects for Wikipedia's sister project that is heavily used within Wikipedia itself. There are two broken metadata links on file pages that are currently on the

Main Page, one click away from anyone visiting the front page of Wikipedia. There are also two metadata links there that have redirects made for them. Because we have those redirects in place, any readers clicking around from the Main Page will be brought to the correct articles about the software/hardware that created the images. That seems pretty useful to me. As you say, we disagree, but again you don't need to find it useful for it to be useful to others. --Yarnalgo _talk 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Creation of new metadata redirects and nondeletion of existing metadata redirects. These are absolutely useful and allegations of “spam” seem to suggest that the English Wikipedia has no obligation toward integration with Wikimedia Commons. Sister projects need to work together.  Mysterymanblue  07:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I didn't even know these kinds of redirects were a thing, but it's clear that while they're not terribly useful, they have some value, don't break any rules, and
  WP:CHEAP. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933#Creating blacklisted title for precedent. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I had first noticed last week that the ancestry information section for Louis I, Duke of Bourbon had been removed by an editor (User:Surtsicna) among the articles for his son and father's article pages. After reverts and dimissive behavior by that editor, repeatedly citing the "irrelevant" nature of the immediate ancestors of the first Duke of Bourbon, I brought in a third opinion for that which I linked to those several pages. Later that day I had found that around a hundred, with up to several hundred biography articles' sections of ancestry information had been removed by this individual within the past 10 months or so in a similar fashion, with explanations in nearly all of the details in the revision history for these edits that I find frankly confusing going into seemingly hostile towards the subject matter. I left a notice stopping the third opinion for that before it was given anyway, citing that many more pages were affected than thought, and that this would be reported instead. Frankly I had not seen this type of thing in the articles I have created and contributed to since I've come over to here from the French Wikipedia several years ago, and did not know what to do nor was I familiar with the specific terminology and jargon used on this website. If this was the first place that I should have come to, again, I admittedly was not aware of how to do deal with such an eventuality as I have not encountered anything of this sort on here before, and googled and searched within this website as well and could not find anywhere except the report page for edit wars and vandalism, so wrongly put it in the vandal project, as cited by that administrator's response. I had eventually found the neutrality notice board, and tried to argue towards the bias in these edits to the editor and make it more widely known. The efforts to do so and reach out to this individual have failed, and with continued resistance to stop the restoration of these dozens to hundreds of sections of ancestry information removed on biography pages by them with these confusing reasons continuing to cited, after googling a bit more have found this specific noticeboard that I had not had to go to before and was unaware of until this afternoon. This can all be explained in more detail at the posting on the neutrality noticeboard (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Hundreds of Ancestry Trees for Royal Articles Removed by Single Editor​), so I won't get into all of the details here. A list of several examples of the ancestry information sections on pages removed by this editor's edits, but not nearly all of them include (one would have to go back in this person's contribution list to even try to count all of them):

●

--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You first posted this on

third" (actually fourth) opinion you had requested. Then you went to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and was told by an administrator that there was no vandalism. Then you went to the administrator's talk page to complain some more and was told... off. Then you took it to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, going on about a bias that nobody else sees. All the while you have been refusing to accept or even acknowledge the months-long discussion involving a dozen editors at Template talk:Ahnentafel. And now you are here, apparently taking this all over Wikipedia. I do not even wonder what it is anymore when I see a notification. Surtsicna (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

To be fair, that discussion at the template talk page is irrelevant and reached no actual project wide consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not quite so fair. A dozen editors did not discuss for months just for all their effort to be called irrelevant. During that discussion, no consensus was reached to enshrine

WP:PROPORTION policies. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd say put the limit at great-grandparents. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should put the limit where reliable sources put it. Surtsicna (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a very important Wikipedia policy,

not a comprehensive directory of royalty and aristocracy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I will be the first one to remove the ancestry information sections if it is cited as "genealogy", although royal parentage up to great grand parentage has been understood as dynastic unions between nations and territories, and academically not looked at as personal genealogy (why they are added here). The neutrality policy is very important also, so for one person to go through arbitrarily saying that hundreds of these sections that have been up for over 10-20 plus years understood as such are suddenly irrelevant, not giving any explanation and removing them, while leaving others up, I would strongly argue is a very widespread violation of that policy. Could someone please explain to me how the parentage and great grand parentage of

Henry of Grosmont aren't? If so I am sorry for wasting everyones time.--JLavigne508 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I finally agree with the user who has removed these sections and kept challenging their restoration that they should go back until they are reliably sourced. That is actually quite far back. I do not think they are all needed for royal biographies of every ruler and every major figure going back into the Dark Ages, and a number of them should not include that section most definitely, but I do plan on restoring some of the more obvious comparable ones that were deleted in bios of major royal figures without being discussed first. I will take a significant amount of my time and effort to properly source them before I restore any if they were not already (which if a chart is not found within an acceptable literary source that could just be cited up top, then that means arduously sourcing each box for every individual separately and individually). I would appreciate at least the possibility of some help, so any suggestions would be appreciated. There are a number of these sections with a one year "citation needed" warning at the top, which is automatically updated and maintained by the anomie bot, if that is not sufficient for sourcing, then please make that known. I would appreciate an acknowledgement and understanding of some sort on here going forward, so that no more bickering and edit blocking keeps happening here like this for the mentioned articles, and have an agreement that if the validity or relevance of these sections are challenged for a royal biography, that from now on they will be done so on an individual basis and not just summarily dismissed and removed, as per the Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality, and that any willful attempts at circumventing that by any editors or IPs will be addressed. Likewise, if there are any objections to this, please make them known here.--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be rude to my Wikifriend Surtsicna. Thanks. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing each box for every individual separately would lead to

WP:PROPORTION policies. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Chart is not the policy here, the collapsible charts, whatever you want to call them is irrelevant, are up and have been up since the beginning of this website for many thousands of bio articles and are sourced just fine. Just because yourself and a few others do not like the way they look will not change that. I am actually not an advocate for ancestry sections to be included on these pages, I think they look fine without them, but I am an advocate for the fairness and neutrality of this website, and the dozens to possibly hundreds of these sections you have removed because you did not like the way they look has thrown that balance and fairness off. Please stop making up reasons like "an 18th century source is not relevant", or "chart not found in any biography", for blocking the restoration of these sections that were removed and have been up for good reason for 10-20+ years, because you personally do not like the way they look. Thank you.--JLavigne508 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Ahnentafeln are not "policy". You have been told numerous times, even by

do not want to hear what is said to you. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

As stated at the top of this post and by the response when this was filed in the vandal project, I was unable to find and therefore unaware of the appropriate place to bring it to, which is what that administrator said, also stating several times that they did not understand the nature of the matter and did not have an opinion concerning it either way, so you are mistaken in that regard. Since it was brought into the neutrality board and here, the majority of people have disagreed with yourself about this. The word "ahnentafeln" is not English, and the term "ancestry chart" would be more appropriate, and again that as well as semantics are irrelevant for the purposes here. What is relevant is the neutral nature of their placement on this website and it would be in the best interest of it as well as yourself if you would stop trying to interfere based upon a personal preference in that regard. Thank you.--JLavigne508 (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JLavigne508 Please don't misrepresent what I have said. (1) I did not say that I "did not understand the nature of the matter", nor anything remotely like it. I merely said that I had no opinion on whether articles should contain genealogy tables, which is far from being the same thing. (2) I said that once, so far as I am aware, not " several times". (3) You refer to me as saying that I did not have an opinion concerning "it" either way to refute what Surtsicna said about what I said about something else, not about the specific issue on which I had said I had no opinion. You quote out of context, in such a way that anybody reading what you say without prior knowledge of what I said would get a completely wrong impression as to what "it" (what I said I had no opinion on) was. It is difficult to avoid the impression that you are being disingenuous, when you take words that I use and quote them in such a grossly misleading way,especially when taken in conjunction with also putting words into my mouth that I never said at all, as explained above. At the very best you are having severe difficulties in understanding what is said to you, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to take so benign a view as that. JBW (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The extended ancestry charts (or ahnentafel, or whatever) that extend past the grandparents have very little value in helping understand the actual lives of the subject of an article. Great-grandparents are very unlikely to have an any influence on a person - certainly much less than siblings or aunts or cousins. People are not pedigreed animals (where such extended charts are more common in the literature) and I believe I demonstrated once that such pure-ancestry charts are not at all common (in fact almost never show up) in scholarly biographies of rulers nor in general works of history. When found for humans, they are almost exclusively found in genealogical publications. No chart showing great-great-grandparents is showing anything useful that couldn't be shown in a chart showing just the grandparents. Again, we have to consider what will help understand the subjects of the article - if we need to know how a line of descent for a title came, showing ALL the great-great-grandparents is not helping that - it's burying the line of descent in irrelevant details. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to keep doing this, either eliminate them all, or keep them up fairly, pick one.--JLavigne508 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your demand is neither reasonable nor appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not my demand, the number one policy of this website, which is neutrality. I will say for the last time on here, please stop removing and keep removed large numbers of sections from articles because you do not like how they look. Thank you.--JLavigne508 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told by an administrator that there is no neutrality issue here. And I do hope that was the last time. Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that administrator admitted he did not even know what this is referring to had no opinion either way. This is all plain to see on here. There was and apparently continues be a gross violation of neutrality here.--JLavigne508 (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody but you sees this "gross violation of neutrality". That should tell you something. JBW had one very clear opinion: that "this is nothing whatever to do with neutral point of view." Surtsicna (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JLavigne508 Once again, as I have explained in detail above, don't put words into my mouth. I certainly never said (let alone "admitted") that I "did not even know what this is referring to", and I said that I "had no opinion either way" on one specific issue, which is not the issue you are here claiming I said I had no opinion on; on the contrary, I believe I expressed a very clear opinion, as correctly described by Surtsicna. JBW (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone considered having an RFC on the disputed topic? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you! PackMecEng (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have had one, and we have policies which are quite clear about this. The result of the RfC was that Template:Ahnentafel is not exempt from those policies. Surtsicna (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the policy is to ban Template:Ahnentafel, it would have to be done fairly and without bias. Since all there is now are entire dynastic lines with these sections removed completely, with others left up, a large chunk of the history section of this website amounts to a very large degree of bias and violation of neutrality.--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the policy. If you cared to listen to what others tell you, you would know what the policy is. Surtsicna (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being rude and dismissive as you have done since you first reverted the restoration of one of these sections. If that truly is the case then I expect not to be harassed anymore by yourself while trying to bring back parity to this website by restoring the ancestry sections that were removed.--JLavigne508 (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: You mention that there was an RFC on this subject. Would you mind pointing me to it? PackMecEng (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Ahnentafel/Archive 1#Requests for comments (RfC). DrKay (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay, Thanks for the link! Looking it over though it does not appear to actually of been a RFC nor does it appear to of produced any kind of consensus that I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[32][33][34] Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs point 5, RfCs do not necessarily have to be closed with a closing statement. DrKay (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: I stand corrected on it being a real RFC! My mistake, thank you for pointing that out I will strike my comment above. I stand by my statement of not reaching any kind of consensus though. Yes a close is not required but by the same token it does not appear to of reached a consensus either. PackMecEng (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC showed no consensus to declare

WP:NOTGENEALOGY policies. Surtsicna (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I will apologize one more time to JBW, as I had originally, for mistakenly dragging you into this for putting this in the wrong place the first time. It is not my intention to misrepresent anything said by anyone. I regret you not being able to deal with the long list of actual vandalism being stuck with this wrongfully (the report pages do not have any links to any of the noticeboards here as far as I could find like I said at the top here). If this individual stops harassing people over the Template:Ahnentafel, including myself (which apparently includes my sanity "something must be off", my personal intelligence, my listening skills, and more), but this actually includes a very long list of people on here in recent months (this would have been known if anyone else had actually been paying attention to all of these articles), then I have absolutely nothing more to say in this matter.--JLavigne508 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JLavigne508 There is room for discussion of the article content issue involved, but this isn't the right place for it. This is, however, the right place to deal with conduct issues, and there is one glaring conduct issue which has become abundantly clear in this discussion. That issue is your disruptive persistence in plugging away at the same misrepresentations and misunderstandings, your absolute refusal to accept anything said to you that you don't like. Doing that is wasting a considerable amount of time for other editors, and achieving nothing of any use at all. Please drop the matter. If you don't, you will be blocked from editing to prevent you from wasting yet more time of other editors who could be spending that time on more useful tasks. JBW (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken the section should be titled; "Ancestry" and not; "Ancestors", and yes, the sections should be referenced, as all content should, to reliable sources. We still allow the removal of unsourced content and I have seen these templates removed and then replaced with tree charts. I was given some assistance by an admin on how to reference charts and have the references encapsulated within the template. The section of

WP:NOT under "Directories" listed as "#2 Genealogical entries ~Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic" is not as much detail as one would hope for guidance here but other guidelines apply. If an historic person's ancestry is relevant to that biography, reliable sources will cover it.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:N and others have been trying to help you understand the policies. That's all. I suggest you simply drop the subject for now and move on to editing another area of the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Please note this section has already moved to another page Template talk:Ahnentafel several days ago and this thread is no longer current.--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon with the pounding of the gavel, this report is hereby closed, with the verdict being no action taken. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I hope it's okay to put a comment here (delete it if it's not), but this is why LOBU (list of banned users) was a thing before it was deleted. Perhaps the arbitration committee should maintain on in their private wiki. It's worth considering. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 21:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In normal systems, data is usually associated with accounts and conveniently available, such as in a "Notes" field. But the English Wikipedia runs on undeveloped 2002 concepts, like "mailing lists" and "private wikis" to try to maintain structured data, and an SPI archive that has 60,210 non-redirect subpages and is not indexed.

  Not sure poor data collation was relevant in this case though; it didn't take me a minute to find the 2012 discussion relating to the user by clicking on their block log. The most recent log entry also says Nick changed block settings for Kiko4564 with an expiration time of indefinite ... Abuse of administrators and WMF staff continues on IRC + the name of a still-active admin to contact, and I'd argue that cop and lawyer impersonation (documented in the SPI archive linked from their userpage) tells you all you need to know. The public paper trial alone, for this user, seems reasonably well kept tbh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are topic banned (1) from making edits related to Iran and Turkic peoples; and (2a) from Turkey-related topics. He still editing on Turkey related topics, i noticed him here [[35]] but he attacked me [[36]] and still editing on Turkey related topics [[37]]Shadow4dark (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the topic ban closed 28 May 2021. This edit, pointed out by Shadow4dark, falls within the Turkey portion of the ban and after the warning on Cengizsogutlu's talk page. Cengizsogutlu hasn't been blocked yet for violating the topic ban, but was blocked for a month on a Turkey related article back in February. In the circumstances, I feel that a two week block for the first topic ban infraction would be appropriate given the previous block.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked this editor for two weeks for repeatedly violating the topic ban imposed by Daniel after community discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (nac) After being blocked he has made this incivil edit as well. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have revoked talk page access until the end of the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time now This topic ban proposal was archived without any sort of closure or descision made. Can we finally make a decision so that this can be archived once and for all? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original Closure

This topic ban proposal was prematurely archived without any closure. There seems to be a strong consensus to enact it, now also including outside editors. Can an (uninvolved) admin please formally enact the topic ban?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restoring it here. I agree that there seems like strong support for the sanction. Without considering quality of arguments: 10 support, 1 partial support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile

I am here to address

Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.

The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.

Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a

More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.

More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".

Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of

^advisories/_damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to

🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Fleur has continued to

WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [38] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [39]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. Noah^Talk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

While Fleur's most recent instance of attacking other editors on-wiki was in March, he has continued to do so regularly on a Wikipedia Discord server, as recently as just a few days ago.

🌀 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]