Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262

Category:Requested edits is badly backlogged (a request from 19 March is unanswered, for instance). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

We're backlogged everywhere. We need to start nominating people for RfA. We complain that RfA is broken and people hardly pass, but if we don't nominate folks then no one passed. We've only had 12 candidates pass this year, only 37 nominated. Find someone who patrols the autoconfirmed version of requested edits and nom them for adminship.--v/r - TP 23:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, few specialists seem to pass RfAs. There are general expectations voters have that require substantial experience in content creation, fighting vandalism, AfD discussions, plus be an active editor for 2-4 years. I don't see more editors passing RfAs until there is a realization that Wikipedia needs more admins and the goal is acceptable not outstanding. It seems like there was a big push in 2006 for more admins and I've come across editors with 3-6 months experience being elevated to admin status. I'm not suggesting returning to that standard but maybe more active editors need to realize that the current situation, with more admins retiring, is not sustainable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is that a bolt-on of autoconfirmed? I would be very happy to help out if given addn tools but no way am I ready for the mop yet! My block record is clean and I do serious gnoming and generally help out and comment.

talk

) 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fancy you show up Liz. When is your RfA? I do do noms. (edit conflict) Irondome, I'd give you a review/possible nom too if you guys want. Even if you fail, everyone fails once (I did).--v/r - TP 23:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't fishing for a nomination! Although I created my first account in 2007, I think I'd need a year with this account and the creation of several articles. Right now, I'm focused on categories and gnomish work. But thanks, that's flattering. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz would make it.

talk

) 23:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, I'm not in the business of catching fish, or flattering people. I'm in the business of getting more active admins in the places that need admins to be active. It's a practical question, we all need to find good candidates. Hell, we need to find marginal to acceptable candidates to even try even if they fail once or twice; not that you are marginal. I don't care if I like the candidate personally, I don't care if they have a political POV that differs than mine, or religious differences. I only care about people who are active, level headed, and are committed to areas needing admins. Do you want a nom? Irondome?--v/r - TP 00:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. It's not the right time for me but I'll let you know in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, if you have created articles with a previous account, couldn't you point that out? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's all on my user page. But I did most of my previous editing as an IP, two of which I've noted. But it was intermittent editing, not like the daily editing I do today. But, yes, I assume the previous accounts would be brought up for any editor in an RfA. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

TParis, encouraged by your comments I may have found another candidate (User talk:Dodger67#A fix for that title blacklist problem... —Anne Delong (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Part of the backlog has likely been caused by the serious weeding at AfC over the past year - Tens of thousands of deletion requests, hundred of history merges, etc. I'm sure that sucked up a huge amount of admin time, but should be easing off now. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I filed an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5 last week. User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry started an IP check which has been running for almost a week. He has hardly edited since so I made a request at his talk page a couple of days ago for him to finish the check so the case can progress but there hasn't been a response. Since I filed the case, the editor I filed against is already on to his second block and a lot more behavioral evidence has come to light in the meantime. The problem is I need the IP check either completed or canceled so the case can continue. I understand if no-one wants to get bogged down in an SPI, but if someone could just get the IP check wrapped up I would be much obliged. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• SPI is backed up, CU in particular. Since the editor in question is already blocked, it tends to get the lowest priority. Once a CU starts a check, I'm pretty sure that none of the admin or clerks can do much of anything, only another CU can conclude that portion of the investigation by checking or declining to check. There also exists the possibility that another CU has already noticed it, but thinks that since the editor is blocked for edit warring and was a sock, he will come back, so is just monitoring. Perhaps a CU will see this and revisit it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Quite honestly, the problem is that an answer was given, and then a lot of pressure was put on the checkuser because people didn't believe the answer. Standard practice is to block accounts based on their behaviour; if they are doing something blockable, they should be blocked for that behaviour. I've completed the check, the accounts are unrelated, and the SPI can close now. Risker (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heavy lifting, I will look at it for close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for completing the IP check guys. @Risker FWIW I didn't actually request or expect a second IP check since I wouldn't have expected the result to be different (IPs can change for any number of reasons i.e. posting from a place of work/college, coming home from college, changing your ISP etc) and I actually agree with you that there should be behavioral evidence against a suspect before they are blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Muon is making disturbing, unfounded and covert allegations. I request the administratory board to have a look on this issue. This is a serious problem. Some two are three men trying to take control of Public contents are totally unfair. I feel a strong need to give people a fair chance of reading a good and clean content. Also he tried to change the edits which were totally in accordance with wikipedia editing norms. I fully abide by wikipedia norms and regulations. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandasol (talk • contribs) 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Skandasol: To go from you giving this kind of praise to you reporting the user to this noticeboard in the space of eight minutes, Muon must have done something pretty catastrophic. Considering they didn't edit during that time, please can you tell us exactly what allegations Muon made and which edits were disruptive? WaggersTALK 10:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reversed

WP:TP for information about talk pages. On the last line of your comment, add a space then four tilde characters (" ~~~~") for your signature. Please add your comment again, with a signature. Johnuniq (talk

) 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My edit history is available. Please have a look and do notify me what those disturbing, unfounded and covert allegations were. I have not attacked anyone personally and will never do so. I have reverted the edit that I believed was objectionable. This was my revert. μTalk 13:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

He said the following 'You are adding sex related statements to an article about Hindu deity'. His statement indicates an action which i did not purport to do and at the same time it did hurt me lot. I kindly request the Administrators to take back his words. My point is the word with reference to the context, the word 'enticed' clearly expresses a state where a person gets sexually induced. Again the concept of Procreation is objectionable. We are talking about Mythology(it may or may not be true) the point of adding reality goes astray. Keeping this in mind i edited the content to an acceptable level. Also I ask the administrators to revert his edit. I feel the act and statement of him shows high-handedness. I feel hurt and treated unfairly. I sincerely hope I am done with an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandasol (talk • contribs) 15:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

neutral point of view in our articles. -- Atama頭

22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

By motion, the Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

The site ban of GoodDay (talk · contribs) has been suspended subject to the following terms:

For the period of one year after unblock, if GoodDay violates any user conduct policies at any time, any uninvolved administrator may restore the ban. Furthermore, if GoodDay is given any legitimate block by an administrator during the period, the ban will be restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

• User:DeltaQuadBot (looks for inappropriate new usernames) is dead again, since 15:10, 17 March 2014. See Special:Contributions/DeltaQuadBot. It should list its findings in Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please take a look at this article?

WP:UNDUE edits that have little to do with the article and arguing the minute details of Sharia law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.240 (talk

) 19:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

To claify the problem regarding the

WP:SYN sentence in the lede. The issue of present day alleged Turkish involvement—that actually relates to the article in question—and connections to past "genocides" is highly problematic. None of the sources provided state that Turkish involvement is the reason the Armenian genocide is being evoked. Not the Armenian presidential statement. Not the Armenian residents statements. Not Kim Kardashin's tweet. Not even the Armenian National Committee of America letter to Obama mentioned in the Washington Post article, which is the only source provided (other than a few anecdotal remarks by Kessab residents) that is actually concerned with present day Turkish involvement in the offensive. You need to understand that Turkish contemporary involvement in Latakia vis-à-vis the Armenian genocide is an extremely specific and controversial accusation which isn't stated in the sources. Yes, Turkish involvement in the offensive is alleged. Yes, the historical context of the Armenian genocide is evoked. But the two are never specifically linked to present day events in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.240 (talk

) 02:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it, I was not the one who added the part about alleged Turkish involvement, that was some other editor weeks ago. What I have been reverting this whole time is your unsourced OR about an Armenian lobby being the one who is making the comparison. Up until tonight you never voiced direct concerns specifically about the part on alleged Turkish involvement. You should have said that a week ago and I would have removed it if it wasn't in the sources, which I did tonight after you pointed that out for the first time. And if you are so bothered about the sourced part where rebels want to impose Shari law on the minorities why did you yourself add the source in the first place and now suddenly when the extreme jihadist views are mentioned you think of it as undue weight? In any case, the part about the Turks has been removed (per your wish), your part about an Armenian lobby is unsourced so it can not by any means go into the article, and the part about the sharia law I removed (per your wish, although it IS in the source) but the part about jihadi views in addition to other more tolerant rebels stays since its properly sourced. Hope the wording is finally satisfactory to you. EkoGraf (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence still exists in that it isn't fleshed out and isn't properly explained. The edit regarding the

WP:OR at all. Every representative mentioned in the LA Times article penning the official letter to Obama is a member of the Armenian caucus except for David Valadao, who is very much a prominent advocate of Armenian issues and has been desciribed as an "ally" of the Armenian Assembly of America. If the term Armenian Lobby bothers you so much the Armenian National Committee of America can be used as they are spearheading the Armenian attention surrounding Kassab. Also the jihad quotes you picked out (and used in the most scandalous way possible) are problematic due to opposition PR disagreements not being a major factor of the fighting, and the quoted Non Profit worker not at all being specific (is he referring to ISIS or al Nusru or some other faction? He doesn't say), or even explicitly talking about Latakia (rather than the Syrian Opposition in general).
Also, the small issue of personal attacks. There is no need to accuse me of wanting to add clarifying material to a wikipedia article because it the issue "hurts" me, as you did here. Then you changed this phrasing as if no one would notice here

.

Who is being selective now, not all of the congressmen are members of the Armenian caucus, and most surely the Armenian president, the military analyst, Kasab residents themselves or Kim Kardashian are also not part of the caucus. So neutral wording would have been, as it is, some. and used in the most scandalous way possible You mean it was scandalous because I quoted almost word-for-word what the source says? It's your personal issue if you don't like what the source says because Wikipedia is edited based on sources not our own POV. In any case, for sake of compromise, I will attribute the scandalous part of the source to the person who pointed it out and put it under quotation marks. EkoGraf (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are dumping all the comparisons of genocide in one quote farming sentence with no attribution. And inserting the incredibly specific views of one Middle East expert when talking about the Syrian opposition (unrelated to the article) in general is the definition of

WP:UNDUE. Serious tone issues also. You have deleted the statement by the president of Armenia yet included this obscure academic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.33 (talk

) 07:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The statement of the Armenian president is in the foreign reaction section. You would notice this if you bothered to read the whole article. And the comparisons are not to the genocide as you claim all the time, but to the exodus during the genocide. And the obscure academic belongs to a well-know think tank. His assesment has been attributed and quoted properly per Wiki procedure. You should have maybe read the source more carefully before bringing it and inserting it in the article yourself, if you don't like the part about mixed rebel messages that much. EkoGraf (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about this at

Liz, I have learnt from past interactions that this editor EkoGraf has no legitimate interest in forming a consensus. You can see from their summaries on the article in question and from the argumentative responses here (as well as the personal attack linked above) that this user has not modified their behavior or sought to assume good faith in the slightest. All they seem intrested in is inserting an endless series of

WP:UNDUE

qoute EkoGraf is now attempting to stuff into the lede—that doesn't specially mention any factions, or Latakia, is talking about the Syrian Opposition in the broadest sense, and is not even talking about online progranda which is the subject of the sentence/paragraph—then this issue could be resolved and I can (happily!) go about other things.

You need to sign your comments, using four tildes , ~~~~, so it is clear who is commenting here. It's impossible to follow a conversation without knowing who is speaking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, FYI it was me the IP. 94.197.121.71 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

EkoGraf has no legitimate interest in forming a consensus Aha, yeah right, my numerous attempts at changing the wording for consensus's sake in comparison to your full reverts, which can be seen in the edit summary's, is clear indication I have no interest in forming a consensus. And the quote you keep talking about constantly that you want removed is talking about the rebels different ways of treating the minorities, which is the topic of the paragraph. And for the last time, that previous wording that you find extreme was put there by some other editor weeks ago, not me. EkoGraf (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You reinserted that exact wording about the "continuation of the Armenian genocide" (after a 70 year hiatus?) several times. The problem with the "jihad" quote is that it isn't specific and it is broadly speaking about the conflict as a whole (I.e. context was an issue). However, as long as the involvement of Shi'ite militias and Assad regime internet disruption is mentioned in the same paragraph, then it it will be

WP:BALANCE and I will consider this matter closed. 94.197.120.188 (talk

) 15:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It won't be in the same paragraph because it is not on the same subject. The source talks about the involvement of Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militiamen and even Iranian military advisers in the sense that they were there to bolster the Syrian military in a military sense. There is no talk about them being involved in any sectarian violence or even targeting the civilian population let alone the minorities, as you wrote in the article (totally unsourced). As for the internet thing, I'm not seeing a purpose for it to be in the article since it was going on even before the offensive and was not even a result of the offensive or even linked to it. But OK, I will let it stay in, but not in the same paragraph, because again it has nothing to do with the persecution of the minorities (subject of the paragraph). And I'm still waiting for an explanation of your removal of sourced information that the offensive has been stalled and has petered out. EkoGraf (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The source mentions the targeting of Sunni neighborhoods. But that is not a concern really. However, the source makes clear that they are identified by sectarian insignia. And the subject of the paragraph is progadana and its relation to minorities. Have added a new source to balance the previous quote. Also the "petered out" language is not needed and not a vital part of the source. How about just presenting the facts.94.197.120.188 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I support the action of editor EkoGraf because they are logical and are absolutely justified so I fully support his actions and I also participate in the editing of this article 2014 Latakia offensive. But some anonymous editors try cause harm to this article. But the editor of EkoGraf just trying to eliminate the consequences of such actions and lead article in order. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the

WP:PERSONAL User:Hanibal911. Appreciate it buddy. 94.197.120.188 (talk

) 16:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also the "petered out" language is not needed and not a vital part of the source. How about just presenting the facts. That is a fact and a vital fact. A fact that clearly shows the offensive has ended/fizzled out. So do not remove sourced information. And contrary to your claim the source makes no mention that Hezbollah, Iraqis and Iranians targeted those areas, as you originaly wrote and obviously continue to claim. Per the source it is the regular security forces who are targeting those areas while hunting rebels, not cracking down on minorities. And their insignias have nothing to do with sectarian violence towards minorities, but rather to signify what religion the militiamen belong to and further to the point to distinguish them from the regular military units. EkoGraf (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do they need insignia to indicate their religion? It likely has everything to do with sectarian violence, but it is easy to misread a source and yes it does say the army targeted Sunnis. Regardless, this insignia ponit is important and should be mentioned. The "petered out" claim is fine and not something to worry about. It would greatly help wrap this thing up if you assumed

WP:good faith? 94.197.120.49 (talk

) 02:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It likely has everything to do with sectarian violence In other words, its your personal opinion that it has to do with sectarian violence, and its not what is said in the source. yes it does say the army targeted Sunnis It actually says they targeted Sunni areas in pursuit of rebels, in other words, they weren't targeting Sunni's specifically. And I'm not understanding why you want it to read Iraqi militia "bearing Shi'ite insignia" instead of simply Shiite Iraqi militia. I would think my rewording and rewriting of the text at every occasion in pursuit of compromise and to satisfy you has shown enough good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry EkoGraf, but milita who happen to be Shi'ite are a very different thing from milita bearing "Shi'ite insignia" as the source states. And furthermore, milita bearing Shi'ite insignia ≠ Hezbollah—and you stating they are is original research. If you are going to be anal about the exact verbatim wording of references making broad claims about the offensive as a whole, and quoting the exact opinions of academics regarding ill defined "jihadi" factions, then including what the source says in this case is a no brainer. There is no other neutral way but to include this in the article. 94.197.120.49 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I NEVER said militia bearing Shiite insignia equals Hezbollah, that part you made up and accusing me without any proof of OR in this instance could be considered a personal attack. Secondly, milita who happen to be Shi'ite are a very different thing from milita bearing "Shi'ite insignia"? You serious? You going to propose maybe they were Christians but so happened to be wearing Shiite insignias? Doesn't matter, in regards to that sentence, the case is closed. So I would hope that you stop edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Only in your mind is making referenced and constructive edits a form of "editing warring". You are free to disagree with interpretation, or weight, or any other criteria, but it is not edit warring or vandalism as you have accused. I hope you can move on from this and become a more neutral and inclusive editor. If only you had paid as much attention to sources as you seem to be doing now in the first place, this (unfortunately necessary) step could have been avoided. I'm glad I brought light to this issue and it has been recorded. 94.197.121.141 (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I could also make some remarks in regards to your conduct but I'm going to stop at this point and take the high road. The case is closed. EkoGraf (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Is 172.56.10.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Kumioko? We had some of his disruption in gun-related articles, and I think this is a continuation thereof. And if it's not him, it's some other troll attempting to disrupt a couple of discussions; dropping a warning with some chit-chat on User talk:Lightbreather. Anyway, if there's an expert of some sort--whether a CU or a Kumioko expert--please have a look. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Check the edit filter log. The "banned user" filter had been triggered multiple times... Connormah (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So, that's a yes? Please block, if so--I already filled my quota today. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

And this has nothing to do with Candleabracadabra, for sure? See this. Very similar edits, here-> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly. I am apologizing if I am wrong but it is strikingly similar edits, behaviour, style and voice. And remarkably similar misspellings, see this one of the IP, from the:

23:30, 19 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+372)‎ . .Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly ‎ (Please respect All edotors. Thanks) misspellings, .

As far as I know there are not many editors who spell like that ( except me, of course). ^{[sorry to but in]} Hafspajen (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No Haffy, your English is fine, and it's not Candle, as the filter log suggests, though the latter has taken the IP's case to heart on their talk page. That IP, of course, could have expected to be called out on their own English when they were trying to improve "non sentences". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Now, I say that that IP it is User:Candleabracadabra. Same style, similar edits, behaviour, voice. Drmies, don't forget that if it is the way I say, (and it would be worth checking), Candl. can't use his/hers account right now, because you blocked that for some hours, so s/he must go IP. If I am wrong I will apologize to Candle, promise. But I don't think I am wrong. I really think that the "banned user" and the User:Candleabracadabra is same person. Same topics too, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly same talkpages (yours, Drmies), same style, same ... everything. Hafspajen (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• OK, who created that article, Denise Donnelly ? User:Candleabracadabra.

Who goes and votes and turns everything upside down on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly ? Banned IP.

• OK, who turns everything upside down on User talk: Drmies ? User:Candleabracadabra. See also User talk: Drmies#Additional question on behavioural problem, same stuff.

Who goes and turns everything upside down on User talk: Drmies ? Banned IP.

• OK, who has been blocked for harassment, peronal attaks and uncivility by Drmies ? User:Candleabracadabra.
• OK, who has been blocked for harassment, peronal attaks and uncivility Banned IP. (this is I suppose, don't think it was copyvio - issue).

Who goes and turns everything upside down on User talk: Drmies ? Banned IP.

OK, so, considering same edit style, same kind of expressions and so on... Hafspajen (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Who says things that sounds like this style: This is evil censorship and bullying. I am right and they are wrong. You cannot allow lies and slander to appear on Wikipedia articles! This is censorship. This article is about a very important person, clearly 'x' (where x nominated the article for deletion) has never heard of them, doesn't like me and is pursuing a vendetta!, This is pure vandalism – nobody can read the article without these sad and pathetic busybodies graffitiing their self-importance all over the place!

Both. Hafspajen (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Above citations are from the Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram - not what these editors actually said, but it is in the same style, if you got me.

• Now let's see a citation User:Candleabracadabra: So you want to rein in the incivility? Go for it Drmies. But don't get mad at me for telling the truth. When you guys create a mess and involve yourself in it and muck it up, and you get stuck doing mopping I don't break a sweat. Cry me a river. I don't create articles in bad faith EVER and I don't edit in bad faith EVER and I try to keep a sense of humor about all the attacks I face, but I don't like it. So if I hurt your feelings, good. You deserve it. Show your fellow lowly editors a little respect in the future and don't act like such arrogant wp:dicks.

• Now let's see a citation Banned user: have made several other edits that have nothing to do with this. Quit trying to win by attempted mischaracterizations. It is uncivil. Single purpose accounts only cover one subject and besides defending against your ludicris accusation I have made only one comment about this. Please read WP:SPA for clarification. Thanks and please find a better avenue than insulting editors intentions and mischarterizing their contributions.

Hafspajen (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly think this is a very good case for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I would probably fill in if I only knew how. Hafspajen (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• As Tarc has also noticed. And Viriditas clearly helds this user for disruptive too. Hafspajen (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I've strongly suspected that Candleabracadabra is CoM for awhile, but hadn't really intended to make a big deal of that here. The 172.56 IP was definitely an identity-hiding established user, but I didn't see any connection between that IP user and Candle when I was tussling with him in the AFD. Tarc (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

<redacted - banned editor> Kumioko 138.162.8.59 (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know for sure if it was you, but it was certainly someone who's been around the block a few times. That is all. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This user User:Tutelary is idiotically showing up her nature. She's deleting a page showing fake sites. Please look up this user & take a strict action against her PrateekTamilian (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide some links, or diffs if possible. All I see are edits removing messes you've made, including introducing copyright infringements, which (let me remind you) make you liable to be sued or prosecuted in real-world courts. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This is probably the latest

Ravensfire (talk

) 17:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely a sock. I've blocked them. I always appreciate TJK being obvious and helping us find their latest socks. -- Atama頭 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The last four (as of this moment) edits on Talk:Conchita Wurst need to be hidden. An attempt to hide the comment yesterday failed to remove it all, making it possible for the same IP to add it back again today through a simple revert. Thomas.W ^talk 16:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Future Perfect. Thanks.Thomas.W ^talk 16:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin kindly move

 Done by User:DMacks . --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User also moved/multimoved/moved-and-moved-back several other articles...looking to see if other cleanups needed... DMacks (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up a few more, think it's all done now. I also notified User:Kisskisscheta, whose actions we're discussing, about this discussion here. DMacks (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not inform him/her, because it was just a request for help. Not really a report or something. S/he did not do any page moves after s/he was given general warnings. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User: Alesxzr88, who cites irrelevant sources in articles of history (books of non-historian writers), referred to me as "fanatic" You can see here. Could someone please make him stop treating me like that?--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Complaints about incidents like this are normally posted to

WP:ANI, not here. However, since you're here, let me add that there is no rule against citing sources written by non-historians. We require reliable sources. We do not require sources written by only members of one academic field. WhatamIdoing (talk

)

I should add that "fanatic" isn't even on the list of

words to watch, and it can even sometimes be a good thing, if in support of policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

14:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I come here to ask for opinions (sorry if it's not the proper noticeboard) about the sources used in ethnic groups in articles of various countries (mainly Mexico) because it will be easier to make the changes if i have the opinion of more experienced editors and administrators. My question is wheter official sources regarding ethnic groups (Mexican government officially recognizes only two national ethnic groups: "Mexicans" and "Amerindian tribes") should be favored over third party sources, many Latin American countries don't have official racial census, so often the size of their ethnic groups is open to massive speculation and variation depending of the source used, the CIA world factbook, Encyclopaedia Britanica, and various surveys done in Latin America all report different results for each country. I believe that for that reason is better to favor official sources, like in the article for Sweden, on it the ethnic group section in the infobox specifies that "no official statistics exist", or the article for the United States, which omits the section from the main infobox, and if needed mention the third party sources in the section for demograhics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aergas (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a question that is better asked at the Ref desk

WP:RSN Blackmane (talk

) 13:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the reliability of the sites that do say these numbers is not what is on question, I just want to know if official sources should be preffered over third parties. Aergas (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvind_Iyer has been listed in the Articles for Discussion.However,A consensus seems to have been reached.How can I get an Administrators attention to remove the Article listed for deletion Box that appears on the main page?thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntug11 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was relisted on May 18th for up to another 7 days. As such, it hits the "to be closed" list on the 25th the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hate to disagree with m'learned colleague, but since

"A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days", I've gone ahead and closed this, since consensus seems fairly clear. Yunshui ^雲_水

11:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There are open discussions that are six weeks old, and nobody has commented on in over a month. Somebody needs to get in there and close the outstanding discussions

A sockmaster (BB88/Ich Pilot/et. al.) primarily active on Commons (see commons:Category:Sockpuppets_of_Ich_Pilot) has moved on to vandalizing my userpage [8] and creating accounts with variants of my username (see user:Elcobbola4, for example, with vulgar user and talk page). Could I please have my user and talk pages protected (talk archives would be nice too) and, of course, the vandal account(s) should be blocked/reverted? En.wiki checkusers may contact me if additional information is needed to possibly help locate sleepers. Эlcobbola _talk 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Elcobbola: I've been trying to clean up his accounts globally since he's actively vandalizing on about four projects right now. I've set up a page on the CU wiki for this case, called B88, if you wanted to add some of the relevant info there. All of my info comes from the loginwiki, which is restricted in the data it gives. In the mean time I'll watch for more socks and could add your username to the global titleblacklist if you'd like, to stop his direct harassment. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ajraddatz:, that would be appreciated. I'll follow up on the CU wiki. Эlcobbola _talk 16:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to post earlier Done. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: - why didn't you say something? (just kidding, I promise) . Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

See

Your request has been granted. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Pitke reported about it earlier and that IP got blocked but now that user has came back from IP block 85.76.x.x..

Better explanation I wrote earlier: here --Texku (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we're having very good admins who are not even interested to read the whole AN... fu*k you..

Also: Category:Wikipedia_files_with_a_different_name_on_Wikimedia_Commons There is a HUGE back log of images that are tagged as {{

• If there are any old versions in the history of the image, they should be moved to Commons as well. There is a bot specifically for this task: toollabs:magog/oldver.php.
• Please make sure to relink any files which are on Commons under a different name.
• Please make sure that the image has been transferred to Commons.
• Please make sure that the Commons image shows proper attribution (i.e., it's not a copyvio for failure to follow attribution requirements).
• Please make sure that the Commons image is not a copyright violation.

Please and thank you in advance! Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Now its over 4500 images! HALP! TLSuda (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: I sent a note to Fastily on Commons about marking the images for deletion here so that they don't create such a backlog. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I only recently noticed that Fastily was doing work locally again. Sometimes he's too good at his work...creates more work for others... TLSuda (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's usually the one thing he's very good at, eliminating work for the rest of us. Anyway, if he marks files with his username, I can use Twinkle (in conjunction with my script to check for multiple errors, multiple uploads in the history, etc. ) to delete hundreds at a time. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: You're right, that is what he is usually good at, but since he left the project (understandably) he can't help where he did before. :( Also, teach me your wise ways of cleaning up in large quantities appropriately, please? TLSuda (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: I have a script that I run ad hoc whenever I want to delete NowCommons images. I used to have it run daily on the Toolserver, but no one was using it, so I didn't bother to port it to Labs. Did you want me to set it to run one or more times per day? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be extremely useful! You're obviously much more experienced at this than I am, so any help that you can give me, that I can use in turn to help the project would be great. TLSuda (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's now available at toollabs:magog/commons_images.htm. It will update twice daily. Originally, I only wrote the script for personal use, so I was very lazy about a lot of attributes (e.g., the overflow). Keep this in mind if something is bugging you. Let me know if you have any other questions. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

We could always nominate more admins (through RfA) for this task. (Full disclosure: I got my bits this way.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This is very true. I got mine for

WP:NFCR. Gonna look around a bit. Cheers, TLSuda (talk

) 20:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how so many potential admins said in their RfA that they want to work in contentious areas like XfD. Meanwhile, we have noncontroversial tasks like these that nobody wants to do. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

By resolution of the committee, our

Participate in this review

Why is this only of interest to admins? Howunusual (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not, which is why this notice has also been posted on the Village Pump, the ArbCom announcements noticeboard, and at least 10 other pages. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Question: How many annual reviews of procedures are there going to be? Shoudn't the committee be focusing on ways to make cases run smoother and feedback to the community appear in more reasonable timeframes rather than muck around with the procedures again? Hasteur (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wha?

05:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, why is Hasteur deleting my comments from AN? And doing so with no communication? And doing so deceptively, in the same edit as he adds his own comment? My comment was a one-liner, so it's no big deal, but I find the presumption heavy-handed and slightly rude. Howunusual (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds very much like what happens occasionally on a high-volume page like this when two editors edit conflict. Could that be what happened, as opposed to Hasteur deliberately deleting your comment? Did you ask him? BMK (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

yep. he deleted that too. it's the manner more than the substance that is the problem. Howunusual (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I nominated the article

I also asked in a {{help me}} request on my profile, located here where User:Acalycine was gracious to help me out, but I think that it's a bit more complicated and wish to tread with caution.

Why I decided to ask here instead is because of the lack of consistency in administrator response. 4 different administrators, 2 said I could do it, and 2 said that I couldn't. Any advising or commentary would be greatly appreciated by administrators, as I do not wish to be blocked for possible

• My singular opinion is that it is fine as long as you notify everyone, and you do so in a painfully neutral way. "There is an AFD that you might be interested in as you participated in a previous AFD on the same subject (link). (sig)" As long as you don't inject opinion in the notification and tell everyone, I can't see how that violates canvassing policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's fine but I wouldn't bother -- the previous Afd was five years ago so many of the editors may not even be active. Less work and you don't have to worry about whether its an okay notification or not. NE Ent 23:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Very good point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but since the current discussion is dealing with some of the main points raised in the old discussion, I think it's necessary to notify them. I am only trying to find the most uncontroversial way to do it. Tutelary (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I'd make the notification as boring as possible. "You previously commented in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boxxy. This is a courtesy notification of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boxxy_(2nd_nomination)." NE Ent 00:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be fine? Even though I'd be notifier maybe 30-60 editors? (just browsed through the old afd). As long as it's something like that, entirely neutral, and I notify everyone, it would be OK? Tutelary (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Would notification such as this still be neutral if the first AFD had been affected by canvassing? Peter James (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:CAN doesn't make any mention of that when I look at it. Tutelary (talk

) 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That forces the community to second guess the motives of the person who then does notifications later. As a rule, I would avoid renotifying after the first event was noted for canvassing, for if it went to ANI, it is enough in the grey area that there is no telling how it would be perceived. ie: It depends. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So you're advising me not to notify them? What about editors like Mr.Z-man who in the old afd were strongly opinionated? Wouldn't they qualify under the Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article criteria of

WP:CAN

?

I am going to start sending the notifications to every editor who participated in the old afd, in approximately 4 hours. These 4 hours will be used for admins who immediately see a problem with the situation that I've described to tell me to not go through with it. However, given the two responses that I've seen here, it is OK to notify all users of the old discussion about the new discussion, as long as it's done in a neutral, non selective manner. Tutelary (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Consider using

Template:AfD-notice for notifications. Since it's a template nobody can accuse you of using biased wording in your notifications. And it saves you the trouble of coming up with something yourself. You might also consider only notifying people who've edited in the past couple of years, or avoid notifying blocked editors or anyone with a "retired" template. -- Atama頭

17:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User has been unblocked. NE Ent 10:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Another editor and I agree that a review would be useful for the block of

I want to make administrators notice that the MIT copyright tag at

Hi Admin, Please Update the WIkipedia Page Prime Minister of India. The New Prime Minister of India took charge on 26 May 2014 at 6.00PM IST. The Page is currently fully protected. Please Remove the Protection and Update the same

It seems to have been done. Is there something that was missed? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Iamriyaas (talk · contribs · logs) began working on a draft on Template talk:Talk header, erroneously believing that was the place to begin a draft.

Can an admin perform a simple cut-and-paste move