Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 92 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 70 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 68 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 68 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 63 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were notifications made to the talk pages of the affected articles and MOS:LAYOUT? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Closed (for now). I missed this comment above by voorts while closing, WeatherWriter, could you clarify if the talk pages were notified? I'm not sure what is usually done if the RFC is not advertised broadly elsewhere. Soni (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Courtesy pings: Voorts and Soni). The two most recent pages affected (Tornadoes of 2024 and Tornadoes of 2023) were talk page notified. The discussion started over 2 months ago, so if I recall correctly, 2023/2024 were the only articles actually changed at that point in time. An IP-user changed several articles (2011-2022) after the discussion was started. I may have that timeline wrong, but either way, the 2023 article and 2024 article have way more views than any other article, with 2024 actually having over 100k views in the last 30 days. Notifying those, even if 2010-2022 had already been changed would have still caught the same editors as 2023/2024 notifications along with WP:Weather talk page, which was also notified. Even a check on Talk:Tornadoes of 2024 showed it was viewed over 7,000 times (not the article, the talk page). I think it was broadly notified. Plus, it was an RFC, which notified non-tornado editors as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the two talk page notifications is good for me. Soni (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, MOSLAYOUT was not notified. I finally found the original discussion in the WikiProject Weather archives (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 3#Need for a standard that will make "Tornadoes in year" pages less U.S.-centric). There wasn't a real consensus at the time to change any article except the Tornadoes of 2024 article. 2023's article was changed for a "here is what a completed article" looks like vs the 2024 article, which is obviously still in construction due to 2024 being the current year. Months later (it looks like 8 days before this discussion started) the IP user notified the WP:Weather talk page about planning to change previous year layouts (pre-2023 ones) (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 4#Tornadoes of XXXX - Article format of 2022 and earlier). So my timeline was a little wrong, but even looking at the IP-users notification, editors started not liking the format which was used on 2023/2024's article. To me, pre-2022 didn't even have a consensus to be changed, which is why all the 1946-2010 articles weren't changed and this discussion was started. Hopefully that clears up the timeline. That let me dust off the old memory as well (lol). So the two articles with actual consensus to change were notified, as well as the place where they new layout format was discussed/gained consensus in the first place. MOSLAYOUT was not notified for that discussion nor this one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. That seems like sufficient notification. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry#RfC on "Selected excerpts" section

(Initiated 49 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

(Initiated 44 days ago on 28 May 2024)

Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 42 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#RfC: Indian PM Counting

(Initiated 41 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

(Initiated 40 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

(Initiated 36 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?

(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_22#Template:Edit_semi-protected

(Initiated 50 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

(Initiated 46 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk: 1997 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) into 1997 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 140 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 45 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 40 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is pv-magazine.com reliable?

(Initiated 10 days ago on 1 July 2024) A discussion about taking a source off the spam blacklist. Probably needs a formal close for it to be actionable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

• TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Algebra over a monad
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cotensor product
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again
• "Vandalism" reverts
• Where I dis-invite Takuya from my user talk
• "warning" me for "vandalism"
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_15#Draft: Tensor product of representations
• Draft:Toric degeneration
• Draft:Specialization (algebraic geometry)

I've tried very patiently to work with this editor trying to convince them to clean up their old, unedited, esoteric, and frankly non-viable drafts. The contents read as copy paste definitions from Mathematics textbooks (though I cannot find the text in CopyVio search) that have sat for far too long not doing anything. I (in misguided wisdom) elected to exercise the WP:ATD option of Redirecting, and Taku has proceduraly objected on the grounds of "That's not exactly what this is". Previous discussions have suggested moving the pages to Taku's Userspace so that they can work on them, Redirecting the pages to sections of a larger article so that effort can be focused in one location to potentially get a WP:SPINOUT article, or numerous other alternatives to deletion. It takes a full on MFD to compel Taku let go of the page so I suspect some form of WP:OWN or Creation credit is the goal. Furthermore on July 27th, I formally dis-invited Taku from my talk page setting in place the remedies for WP:HARASS.

Now that Taku has elected to throw the "You're vandalising Wikipedia" by my redirecting Draft space "content" to the closest approximations and reverting citing vandalism I ask for the following:

1. That Taku be prohibited from reverting any redirection of Draft space content to a main space topic without first securing an affirmative consensus on an appropriate talk page.
2. That Taku be chastised for improperly using vandalism in the above reverts
3. That Taku should apologize to me for droping that warning on my page in line with the improper usage of "vandalism"
4. That Taku should be prohibited (i.e. ban) from creating any new Draft space pages until there are no draft page creations of theirs that are more than 6 months unedited and that are not redirects
5. That Taku be subject to these issues indefinitely with the option of appealing after 6 months (on 6 month re-appeal) when they show that they have remedied all pages under the above mentioned ban.
6. That Taku be blocked for coming back to my talk page after I had banned them.

Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What I gather from your description of the situation is that you have chosen to boldly unilaterally redirect drafts, which TakuyaMurata created, to articles. They then restore the content by reverting your redirection. That seems acceptable, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; you are free to raise the matter on the talk page of the drafts. You want them to gain consensus to revert your changes, when you have not established consensus for them yourself. That is a double standard. That aside, their description of your changes as vandalism is incorrect. We can correct that notion here; a block is not necessary for that, as they seem to have believed your edits were vandalism, which made posting to your talk page appropriate per WP:NOBAN. Though redirecting drafts is an accepted practice, I am not sure it is documented anywhere, the matter is arcane nonetheless. I believe this just concerns drafts TakuyaMurata created, if so, I would not oppose userfying them to their userspace. I oppose all six of your requests as undue based on what has been presented thus far, except #2 to a point, we should "inform" them rather than admonish them. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godsy: Taku has explicitly rejected on multiple occasions moving these pages into draftspace userspace. So that option is out. Taku makes procedural objections of "It's not really that" or other tendentious arguments. In short, If Taku wanted to actually do something about these drafts (or merge their contents to mainspace, then he could in the copious amount of time that he's spending. Heck, I'd even give him a 3 month moratorium on sweeping up the drafts if he promised that at the end of that moratorium any drafts that he created that haven't been edited in 9 months are fair game for any editor to come in and apply an appropriate disposition (Moving to mainspace, Redirecting, Merge-Redirecting, CSD-Author) to get them off the Stale Non-AFC Drafts report. If the report is clean it removes some of the arguments for expanding CSD:G13 to include all Draftspace creations. If the page is redirected to a relatively close mainspace article, attention gets focused to mainspace (which is google searchable and provides benefit to wikipedia) and potentially we get a new article when there's enough content to viably have a WP:SPINOUT Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hasteur: Sure you can apply what you believe is an "appropriate disposition", but that does not mean your choice is the most appropriate action. Drafts currently do not have an expiration date. Stale Non-AFC Drafts is not something that needs to be cleared. I largely concur with Michael Hardy below. This is all I have to say. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't speak to the specific merits, but I've seen any number of Taku's drafts turn up at DRV after a well-meaning editor tagged what looked like (per Hasteur) an unviable abandoned draft and Taku strongly objected. It's not a healthy dynamic. Mackensen (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know what usages and concerns exist in the Draft namespace. Possibly that is why I don't know why the existence of these drafts would cause any problems. Could someone explain why it's a problem? Barring that, I don't see that these complaints against this user amount to anything. If there's really some reason to regard the existence of these drafts as a problem, might moving them to the User namespace solve it? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've come across this issue mainly via DRV listings. It seems TakuyaMurata has created a swathe of tiny pages in draftspace about obscure mathematical and allied concepts, containing little more than an external link, a restatement of the title, or a few words. He has then resisted all attempts whatsoever to improve the situation, objecting as vociferously to any deletions as to any suggestion that he might, you know, want to expand the drafts he has rather than spewing out yet more of them.
  There is no benefit to the encyclopedia from having tiny non-searchable substubs in draft space. None. Taku needs to accept this and redirect the copious time he seems to have to argue about old substubs towards more constructive activities like researching and expanding some of them. Otherwise, they should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Michael Hardy I've offered to move the stubs to his userspace (specifically to a userpage he already has listing about 50 of the about 200) but he refused that. These pages are a Draft space management hassle representing a growing percentage of the 200 of the remaining 5500 abandoned non-AfC Draft pages. Frankly I can't figure out why he guards them so carefully, given he could just expand them or move the info onto one page or redirect or whatever. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: To respond, I for one don't get the need to delete the legitimate drafts just because they are old. The figure 200 is misleading since most of them are redirects. I agree the draftspace has a lot of problematic pages. I'm not objecting to delete them. Am I correct to think your argument is it would be easier if there are no legtimate drafts in the draftspace so we can delete old pages indiscriminately? That logic does make at least some sense (although i think there is a better way.) -- Taku (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only redirects after the community consensus compelled to give up your walled garden plots. Our argument is that you've created so many sub-stub pages in draft space that it's causing more problems both for patrollers who are looking for problematic pages and for those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace. Your reams of words to dilute and obstruct any meaningful progress on the topics (you'll argue to the end of the universe your right to keep the pages) instead of actually working on them to get them to mainspace gives little doubt as to your purpose here. Hasteur (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For me, Draft:Faithfully flat descent doesn't strike to me as a sub-stub. How is that page a problem for "those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace". What is the real or hypothetical mechanism having draft pages prevents the editors from working on the mainspace? Hence, I think "patrollers who are looking for problematic pages" seems to be the heart of the matter; having non-problematic pages makes the patrolling harder. Obviously the answer is not to delete/redirect the non-problematic pages? Are you seriously seriously proposing we ease the search for problematic pages by removing non-problematic pages? -- Taku (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To respond "gives little doubt as to your purpose here.", actually I have fairly solid reputation in editing math-related topics in the mainspace. I agree if a user edits only the draftspace and no of his/her drafts have promoted to the mainspace, then we may suspect on the user's motivation. I'm not that case here. -- Taku (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How many total math-related drafts created by Taku are there? How many of his drafts are now mainspace articles? If this is a specific issue about Taku's use of draft space, analysis of editing history should give clear evidence as to whether he has an unreasonable number of drafts. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I expect Hasteur or Legacypac to have some data here; I'm not expecting TakuyaMurata to produce data to defend himself. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Power~enwiki: According to XTools, TakuyaMurata created 113 drafts. Of these, 42 have been deleted, so we have 71 current drafts. [1] This does not include redirects (which would include those moved to mainspace or redirected based on consensus at an MfD). There are a good 106 of those, with 42 deleted (many via G7). [2]. I think 71 drafts being retained in draftspace, many unedited for years, is clearly excessive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I agree something needs to be done here, but don't know exactly what yet. I think User:BU Rob13's proposal below is a good start, but it may not be sufficient to resolve this issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not opposed to further restrictions; I just think my idea is a good start to at least prevent the problem from getting worse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief glance, my guess is that there are 20 or so drafts that can be turned into mainspace articles, and 50 or so that need to be deleted or redirected to a more general topic. Draft:Graded Hopf algebra and Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem are two obvious examples that should be combined into a more general article. Diffs by Taku like [3] are extremely concerning; Taku does not own the articles he creates in draft-space, and he should not expect them to stay there indefinitely ([4]). Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also this proposition where after 22 days Taku unilaterally decided to pull back a page in mainspace that other editors had contributed to to that clearly violates the purpose of Draft space, the collaberative editing environment, and is the most blatant violation of WP:OWN that I can imagine. @Power~enwiki, BU Rob13, Legacypac, Stifle, Michael Hardy, Jcc, Godsy, Mackensen, BD2412, and Thincat:: Can we move forward with something that acutally improves wikipedia instead of the repeated hills we have to needlessly debate over and over on? Hasteur (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also presenting the case of Taku's disruption of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for which they try to override an administrator's Move protection on pages promoted to main space that, while not 100% perfect, are viable. Notice how Taku does not contact RHaworth when requesting the reversal. Each time a new content or conduct venue is introduced in an attempt to fix these complaints, Taku seizes on it as the next life raft to save their walled gardens. ~~

Proposal: Limited restriction on use of draftspace

Proposal: Limited restrictions/topic ban

Result of DRV

Note that WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations was under review in parallel with this discucssion. The original MfD close of redirect was overturned earlier today. It seems pretty obvious to me that if an action was overturned upon review, asking that somebody be sanctioned for protesting that action is unwarrented. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A proper DRV process follows WP:Deletion review/Purpose.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hardly a typical DRV conducted during an ANi where editors with a point to make took over. It's fine the page with be deleted again in 6 months after it goes stale again. I urge to keep voters to focus on improving these pages so there is no abandoned pages to worry about. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To say the obvious, you don't need to be worried about abandoned drafts. There is no evidence that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned. What is the case is that among the abandoned drafts, there are a lot of problematic drafts; an editor starts a draft on a non-notable topic and left the project. But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved. -- Taku (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved" which is precisely what Legacypac is doing, submitting drafts he sees as having potential back to AfC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Draftspace cleanup regarding the behavior of Legacypac. -- Taku (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftspace cleanup

Proposed topic ban for Legacypac

Another disruption

See User talk:TakuyaMurata. We need some kind of an admin intervention to stop their disruption. For example, my drafts are not abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the community consensus on low-quality drafts that have been stale for 6 months are abandoned. The solution to avoid having stale unworked drafts deleted is to a)work on improving them, b)keep them in your userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The citation please. Also, here is the better solution c) do nothing to drafts that have some potential and do not have some obvious problems like copyright bio or being about non-notable topics. This actually saves everyone's time (and in fact is the preferred solution.) -- Taku (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC asks to expand G13 to non-AfC drafts, which I even supported. It is unrelated to the inclusion criterion for the draftspace. There is still no community consensus that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned (only that there are many problematic drafts among abandoned drafts) and drafts started by me are not even abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And do you agree c) is the better solution? -- Taku (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you cant understand that that RFC means any draft unworked for 6 months is likely to be speedy-deleted I cant help you. There is nothing restricting you from making new drafts, only that if you do not improve them and abandon them they will be deleted sooner rather than later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TakuyaMurata:--Please read WP:CSD#G13 which has been explicitly modified post-RFC.And avoid a I don't hear it behaviour.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to distinguish between how to delete and what to delete. The expansion of G13 simply gives more convenient ways to delete old pages. The RfC specifically did not ask whether if we want to delete old pages. The distinction is subtle but is real and significant; perhaps this needs to be explicitly noted. -- Taku (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another instance of Legacypac (obviously the page is not a test page). I don't understand how behavior like this can go unpunished. They have the great jobs of deleting problematic pages in the draftspace. That doesn't give him to go above the rules. -- Taku (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That page has NO CONTENT which is a standard reason to CSD G2 Test. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read G2 again. It applies to a page with an editor testing editing functionality. Do you seriously claim I was testing th editing functionality? -- Taku (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I try to help save your little stub by moving it to your userspace. What gives you the right to call my move "vandalism"? Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase the removal of legitimate content is vandalism. It's that simple. If you suspect the topic is not notable for instance, the right place to discuss it at MfD. -- Taku (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A yet another instance of applying an incorrect CSD criterion: you don't get what you want? You need to get over it! -- Taku (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time Out!

I've been watching this for a while (and participating a little too). One thing that's obvious to me is that neither side is 100% wrong, and neither side is 100% right. And, equally, nether side is ever going to convince the other to change their opinion. At this point, people are just venting. As Mackensen said, It's not a healthy dynamic. This is bad for the project. We need to get some closure here, and that's not going to happen in the current forum. I recommend we take this to some neutral third party, have both sides make their case, and everybody agree that whatever comes out of that they will comply with the decision. I'm not sure if WP:ARB or WP:M is the better process, but likely one of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, but this has been going on for over a week actively and simmering for over a month. 3rd Opinions, RFCs, MFDs, RMs, and many other forua of evaluating community consensus is clear: the creations are not acceptable. I am attempting to use every community method of resolving conduct and content disputes prior to going before the most disruptive form of dispute resolution so that the enablers can be disproven when asked "Did you try alternative form of dispute resolution". Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous MfD discussions contradicts your claim. -- Taku (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One Admin has removed G13 tags on five Taku substubs (some with zero content) so that is something. Note I'm just tagging as I find them in the list not targeting math pages specifically. . Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sense this is time-out but I'm about to take an intercontinental flight so I will not have Internet accesses for quite a long time. I'm just hoping the plane Wikipedia exists when I'm back on the earth. The matter is actually very simple: one side is trying to destroy Wikipedia and I'm merely trying to delay it as much as possible. My English is quite limited and that might be a reason I didn't describe the situation. -- Taku (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not need you. Wikipedia will still exist once your back on earth. We are not trying to destroy Wikipedia (despite your numerous personal attacks to the contrary). We are trying to clean up a portion of Wikipedia-adjecent space for which you have been reminded and nagged multiple times. That you can't be bothered to deal with issues in over a year leaves little imagination that you don't see any purpose in working on them. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wikipedia needs editors like me who supply content but anyway yes in your wikigame I'm dispensable. To respond, the cleanup does not have a policy-wise support if it has supports from some users. So, people like me would see clean-up as a disstruction; see above, I'm not alone in this view. -- Taku (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia does not NEED you. Wikipedia doesn't need me, and for great effect, Wikipedia doesn't need Jimbo Wales. No editor is indespensible. If you think that content creation, or potential content creation, will excuse you from behaviorial norms, you are in for a very rude awakening as the community at large and ArbCom have (at various times) banned and blocked editors who were a net negative to the community. Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a compromise

Keeping in mind that A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, let me suggest a possible way forward. The goal of one camp is to get these articles out of draft space. The goal of the other camp is to not have any particular schedule imposed on completing them, nor moving them to user space. What if we created WP:WikiProject Mathematics/Drafts/ and moved them to be subpages of that? It would get them out of sight of the people who want to clean up draft space. It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them. And, they would be subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided were appropriate (which might well be that they never expire). Would this work? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely. Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• +1.Happily!With the provisos (1) and (3) of Hasteur.Otherwise reject!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Cute and creative. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Anything that would stop this non-constructive bickering has my support.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept with provisos: 1. Taku is not allowed to move things back to Draft namespace after they have been sent to the Mathematics draft bullpen. 2. Only pages that are not ready for mainspace get sent to this bullpen. 3. The Mathematics project endeavors to work on these pages and after some timeframe of not being able to nurture them to the point that they can be stand alone, they be nominated for deletion. The way the proposal reads simply shifts the pile of bits from one location to annother without any stick at the far end to elicit the improvement of mainspace by the content. This has already been done previously when WP:Abandoned Drafts was closed down and absorbed by Drafts. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied", and therefore the sides of the conflict should not have the veto right; and in particular, the provisos above need not be accepted; they tend to shift the point from the middle to one end. Rather, "subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Your proposal only creates yet another walled garden for Taku to be disruptive in. My provisos are actually in line with generally accepted processes. We have a tool already available in CSD:G13 to deal with Taku's pages, but I would prefer not to have to use that lever to get improvement. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also would not the best compromise be one in which both parties are satisfied? I do not agree that a single wikiproject gets to decide that they can keep embryonic pages that "may one day" be expanded. Wikiproject space is not indexed so pages there do not help further the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:5P1). Taku gets what he wants by getting to keep the pages (for some duration), Legacypac and I get what we want by ensuring that the creations are actually improving Wikipedia instead of being perpetual used bits, and Wikipedia as a whole gets what it wants in content that an average reader can use. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, you are not less insistent than Taku. Maybe even more. Well, naturally, you look the right side in your own eyes. No wonder. I guess, Taku does, as well (but is now on a flight). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What is the advantage of moving the drafts to a new Wikiproject draft space, as opposed to moving them into Taku's userspace, which seems to me by far the simplest and most appropriate solution. Articles can be moved from userspace into articlspace as easily as they can from draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to find a solution which is acceptable to everybody. Apparently, moving them to userspace has already been rejected by one party, so I'm exploring other options. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recall also the answer given at the start: "It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them." Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is WP:NOTWEBHOST policy or not? There are many textbooks with esoteric details that could be used to generate hundreds of pre-stub drafts. Encouraging their indefinite storage undermines NOTWEBHOST because the community has no practical way to say it is ok to store pointless notes on mathematics, but not on, say, K-pop. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. But "policies the wikiproject decided" could be such a practical way. WP Math can decide what is pointless in math. Do you expect that another wikiproject will decide to store pointless notes on K-pop? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And on the other hand, if indeed WP:NOTWEBHOST should restricts the use of the draftspace, then the restriction should be formulated clearly in draftspace-related policies. For now it is not, and the position of Hasteur exceeds even the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that some interpretation of WP:NOTWEBHOST contradicts some interpretation of WP:NODEADLINE. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the WP:PORN project be the arbiter of whether sub-drafts of pornography articles are retained indefinitely? What if they wanted to upload a hundred sub-stubs each based on the name and photograph of a non-notable porn star? Relying on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not a reasonable way to run Wikipedia. It is important to uphold the principle of WP:NOTWEBHOST and discourage the indefinite storage of things some contributors like. Per not bureaucracy, this noticeboard is not bound by the details that are or are not covered in the text at WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If so, yes, this noticeboard can make a precedent decision against Taku. In this case it is desirable to complement draftspace-related policies accordingly. Alternatively, this noticeboard can accept the proposed compromise. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But now I see there a modification of RoySmith's idea by Johnuniq: do keep them on the project space, but combined into a single page. Really? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The application of WP:NOTWEBHOST rests on vacuous grounds, since the most page views of these drafts are caused by the janitors and their employed bots, so no essential web hosting takes place at all. Purgy (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see WP:NOTWEBHOST applying at all. The content we're talking about is clearly intended to be used for writing future wikipedia articles. The point of contention is not the intended use of the material, but the speed at which those articles get written.

Even if "not webhost" is indeed not an apt name for that policy, the problem behind the policy is real: in order to be a healthy organism, Wikipedia needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system. This is the point of Johnuniq (as far as I understand this). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsirel: of 04:47, 27 August 2017: That's a good one. I perceive that as a personal attack. In no way did I deal with that defunct sub-project. I'm applying WP:Drafts which is policy, instead of a cherry-picked project that was absorbed into the Draft namespace. It's very simple. The drafts are abandoned because Taku hasn't done anything about them in over two years after having attention brought to an appropriate WikiProject (for which they participated in) (May 2016, June 2017). Taku contributed precisely zero bytes to improve them, however will spend thousands of bytes arguing that they should be able to keep them. Hasteur (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own a production factory called draftspace.  Yet you want the creative-content production of draftspace to meet your production standards.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A personal attack? Just the (true) statement that your position exceeds even the guidelines of something? I did not know it is defunct, I did not know you apply something else. But even if I were knowing that, would it be a personal attack? As for me, this is your nervous overreaction. (Now blame me for the word "nervous" too...) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Better late than never...) "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." (policy) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsirel: I know the type of these editors. They are here to play a game; the ultimate goal of it is the destruction and getting the users blocked. They want you to get upset and make mistakes to get you banned. I'm a target since I have kept evading their attacks; so I became the last boss of the sort. I guess I'm not completely innocent; a part of me must enjoy counter-attacking their attacks (It can be quite more fun than writing terse math articles). This is just an online game a lot of Wikipedia users play nowadays. I know the game is a distraction and that's why I agreed with the proposed compromise. -- Taku (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Taku: You would be best advised to stop commenting on the motivations and characters of the opposing editors and start dealing with the actual issues involved, because this has been going on for quite a while now, and I can sense that some admins might be close to dealing out some NPA blocks, if only to shut it down. Boris, at least, made an effort to find a compromise, albeit one that didn't fly, but it's you, Taku, who is at the center of this, and therefore it's you who is going to have to give way in some fashion or another, because your failure to do so, your digging your feet in with continued rejections of all proposals has, in my estimation, become disruptive to the smooth operation of the encyclopedia. That being the case, it's no longer going to matter who is "right" and who is "wrong", someone is heading for a block, and the prime candidate would appear to be you. You're out here practically alone, with a number of editors aligned against you, which is not a great position to hold in a noticeboard discussion. Continue holding out and don't compromise if you want to take the risk that no admin is going to block you, or start to actually talk to the other editors and find some acceptable common ground -- the choice is yours, and yours alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I'm on the path for the block, reading from the above and below. Anyway, for the record, I have already agreed with the Roy Smith's proposed compromise that we put the draftpages at the subpage of the wikiproject math. It seems it is the other side that it never accepts anything other than total capitulation. -- Taku (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you my view of the situation which, despite the comment of an editor below that it was "perfectly biased", was, in fact, a neutral and unbiased take on the matter. Only time now will tell if it was correct, but certainly if Taku continues his escalation to personal attacks, it would seem to be more likely than not. Good luck with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• support as written (not with addendums). Arg, this whole thing is silly. Both sides are, IMO, out of line. There is no need for these articles to sit in draft space for months and months. But there is also no reason for anyone to care if they do (yes, I've heard the reasons on both sides and yes I still think both are wrongheaded). This solves the problems both claim exist (draft space being to "messy" and giving the drafts a home outside of user space where others are likely to find and help). So let's run with it. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of all content in a single page

I downloaded the wikitext (minus irrelevant stub templates etc.) from all current Draft pages created by TakuyaMurata, and appended it to User:TakuyaMurata/DraftsUser:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage which already existed (skip the initial list of links to drafts to see what I added). Drafts which are currently redirects were not included. TakuyaMurata of course is welcome to revert my edit if wanted, in which case the content can be seen at permalink. If nothing else, the single page allows easy browsing of the content. I should have used a level-one heading for each copy, but everything else is probably ok. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now headings are level-one. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(in an airport with a patchy connection) I object to the use of a single draft page. See my sandbox page, which I use for my own private drafting use. The draft pages I started are supposed to belong to the community; that is, why I object to put them into my user-page. I can live with the proposal to place draft pages in the wikiproject math page; this way, they are still not tied to me and can be edited by the others. I have a lot to say on the proper use of the draftspace, but I will not repeat the here. As noted above, WP:NOTWEBHOST is not applicable since it's about the non-encyclopedic content. Are in the agreement? -- Taku (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To heck with Taku this is absurd. [7] see below:

Propose 1 week block

Removal of Personal attack

TakuyaMurata has been warned by many editors including recently by Beyond My Ken above at 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to stop making statements regarding the motivations of editors who are attempting to secure compliance with standard operating practices of Wikipedia. As such Taku made a bald faced personal attack on those who are trying to clean up draftspace on the Mathematics wikiproject page. I have reverted it citing the warning. I request that an Administrator give a final warning to TakuyaMurata for failure to adhere to the Civility policy and "No Personal Attacks" policy as the attacks and inuendo poison the consensus building arguments and fracture the community into an "Us vs Them" situation. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In his own words why he is doing this, and another attack. [9] Legacypac (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also name TimothyRias as complicit in twice restoring Taku's personal attack on the above page. What is worse? Removing a personal attack or disruptively restoring the attack repeatedly? Hasteur (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: 1). You simply should not be removing comments in any conflict in which you are directly involved. If you feel that a some comment is a personal attack against yourself, go through through the proper channels, and do not remove it yourself. TR 14:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy absolutely supports removing personal attacks against you. User:TimothyRias needs to be trouted for edit warring to restore disruptive nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and think about why people might get the idea that you are trolling. Maybe take a wikation?TR 17:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose to the need of a final warning. I consider the valuation expressed in Taku's reverted comment as obvious, and I myself share with others the opinon that the sanitizing engineers act above reasonable levels. The reverted comment contained to my measures neither insults, nor threats, nor innuendo, nor any general attack beyond tellingly describing specific behaviour. As regards the cited comment ("warning") by Beyond My Ken, this is in my perception a perfectly biased, non-neutral view of the facts, totally neglecting any possibility of a compromise, fully in line with Hasteur. Purgy (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for administrator involvement

This thread has been going on for about 2 weeks now, with no sign of it being settled between the disputants in the near future. Could an uninvolved admin please weigh in on it, in whatever fashion is deemed appropriate, in order to put it out of its misery? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But don't we have Roy Smith's compromise? I'm not sure what admin actions are needed (block? Why?). Regarding personal attacks, I should note that my motivations have also been questioned time to time; e.g., starting a DVR is viewed a disruption rather than checking of the procedures are followed correctly. -- Taku (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise which has been accepted by one side in the dispute, but not by (all those in) the other is not a viable compromise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken is correct (actually, two of the three primary players here have accepted it, but not all three). If we don't have buy-in from everybody, it's not going to fly. The next thing I would suggest is to ask three uninvolved admins to write a joint closing statement. That's often a good way to get closure. Whatever they decide, everybody has to live with. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this request here -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh. Rats. OK, I edit conflicted with people (including RoySmith) saying my suggestion isn't feasible. I'll post it here anyway.

  You want an uninvolved admin's opinion? OK. This has been personalized too much to lead to a suitable solution right now. So after reading this whole thing, I plan on was thinking of doing the following, if there aren't good reasons not to in the next day:

  1. Enact RoySmith's compromise, but as a temporary measure. For one thing, Legacypac and Taku have both agreed to it, and they are the main drivers (I know Hasteur hasn't). Leave the drafts there for a month, to allow the dust to settle. They could certainly be worked on while there, but this wouldn't necessarily be a long term solution, and it certainly wouldn't be setting a precedent for what to do with similar pages.
  2. Clemency for the many too-personal comments made by one side against the other. A strong suggestion to avoid people from the other side where possible, and avoid talking about the other side's motivations to anyone, for the one month period, but not a total interaction ban or anything.
  3. After a month (or sooner if everyone feels chill earlier), one or more of the following:
     1. A thread at WT:MATH about whether there is a benefit to hosting these sub-stub drafts in WP space, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations.
     2. A calm discussion... somewhere (WT:DRAFT? WP:VPPOLICY?) about the benefit/cost ratio of keeping extraordinarily short pages in draft space, when a good faith editor objects to deletion, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations. I have not yet seen a fully persuasive rationale for keeping them or for deleting them.
     3. A calm discussion somewhere else.
  4. As a result of this/these calm discussion(s), with no deadlines, either delete the drafts from WP space, move them back to draft space, move them to userspace, or leave them where they are.

  In other words, postpone the decision, giving people a chance to cool off, and stop edit warring / namecalling / block shopping / being angry. AN/ANI is about the worst place to try to solve a complicated problem. Let's follow RoySmith's advice and compromise, and try this again in a more productive place than here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a complicated problem. Taku wants to host his unlikely-to-ever-be-worked-on-once-created stubs in draftspace, the editors who have been attempting to clean up draftspace would rather he actually work on them and/or submit them to AFC - you know, what draftspace is actually for. And have successfully managed to change the CSD criteria so unless he (or anyone else) does work on drafts, they will be deleted as abandoned. Since the solution to the problem of having unworked/abandoned stubs of little value sitting in draftspace is to not have them in draftspace, the easiest solution is just to move them all to Taku's sandbox where he can continue to not work on them to his heart's content and everyone else who really doesnt care about them can safely ignore them like all the other random stuff thats in sandboxes. Granted Taku wont be happy, but the point of dispute resolution is to resolve the dispute, not move it around the place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: With respect. The compromise has already been broken by TauyaMurata in first having the pages in Taku's namespace and then moving them to annother user's draft space. If Taku wanted to work on these, they should be in Taku's userspace. Moving these to Taku's workspace has been resisted tooth and nail by Taku. Multiple offers have been extended to Taku to show how they can get Legacypac and Myself to go away for 6 months. The change to the CSD rule was enacted by community consensus with Taku also providing feedback, so I find your claim that we changed the rule offensive. Finally I intend to hold your words up in 6 months when I predict that there will be not a single edit to any of the topics because Taku has repeatedly made the same noises without a single line of substantial improvement. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• this is pretty simple now and can be closed by an Admin, and here is a suggested closing statement "

"We accept Taku's agreement to move his stubs to MathProject. Most have already been gathered into one page and any missed can be added by any editor. All Taku stubs so consolidated shall be deleted with Taku forbidden from objecting/DRVs or requesting REFUNDS on the consolidated pages. Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." Feel free to adjust the closing stmt or suggest improvements. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Several things are wrong with the statement. In RoySmith's original formulation, there was no suggestion to consolidate draft pages into one page (thus the statement is significant departure from the original). For another, many of the drafts started by me are not really stubs; e.g., Draft:residual intersection. "Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." too vague; also not in the original formulation. My understanding on RoySmith's proposal is it says that we use subpages of the wikiproject math as opposed to the draftspace. This is acceptable to me because it simply represents the change of the locations of the drafts (and not to the substance of them). It is my understanding that the substance of the drafts are not problems but the location is; somehow it is wrong to store drafts in the draftspace :) -- Taku (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... 70 or so little stubs? Since you oppose encouragement to develop the topics for mainspace... did you want to mandate development or forbid it altogether or just discourage development? Those are the other options right? Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taku, the consolidation is not at all a hostile act against you. Its reason was explained by Johnunique, and reformulated by me as "in order to be a healthy organism, Wikipedia needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system." (above) Class hatred between these two systems is destructive (as always). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know but the consolidation fundamentally changes the nature of the drafts; it ties the drafts to me. The reason I use the draftspace as opposed to my user-page is to make suggestions that the drafts belong to the community not me. The closing statement I have in mind is

Because of the reviewing complications, for mathematics-related drafts, use subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics instead of the draft namespace.

• It is important that the statement does not refer to one particular user.
• Equally important, the statement should not refer to any editing behavior.

-- Taku (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"ties the drafts to me"? Yes, if the page will be called "Taku's drafts"; no, if it will be called "Our drafts", or "Algebraic geometry drafts", etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misssed thr point: why do we want to consolidate drafts into one page? Obviously, it's more convenient to edit Draft:residual intersection as a standalone page rather than a section in one giant single draft page. Without consolidation, I image there will be a list of draft pages sorted by subjects so it will be easier to find interested editors to work on them. -- Taku (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, for us mathematicians it is better not to consolidate. But for admins that must resist bad-intended advocacy groups, it is safer to consolidate. I guess so; but I am not one of them, and not authorized to represent them. If you are able to resist the consolidation, do. Otherwise, accept. Such is the life, and it becomes sucher and sucher. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Taku: If the drafts "belong to the community and not [you]", then why are you exhibiting such powerful WP:OWNERSHIP over them? You fight tooth and nail to exert your will about how they should be handled. That doesn't show that you believe they "belong to the community", that shows that you act as if they belong to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I'm trying to fight against the attempt to impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used, the view that does not have the community support and that is inconsistent with the policies like WP:DEADLINE. Obviously, say, Legacypac's view is not always the same thing as the community's view. In fact, many so-called problematic drafts survive MfD, which implies there is a solid support for my use of the draftspace. Some editors might be verbose; doesn't mean their opinions are the majority's. I admit there does seem a tension between whether the draftspace must be reserved for the short-term use only or should be allowed for the long-term use. I have suggested we run an RfC to find the community's opinion on this and that was considered a disruption... If I just want to own them, I would just use my user-page (in fact, I use my sandbox for drafts I want to own.) -- Taku (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With no respect (because you've burned all my available AGF) you are wrong. The RFC which expanded G13 (for which you participated in extensively) clearly indicates that drafts that are unedited for over 6 months (like the ones we've been debating for the entire period) should be speedy deleted. Period, End of Line, No debate. Want to change that? Launch a new RFC making your case. Until then the community consensus provides for taking a critical view to pages that are unedited for over 6 months (like yours) because they do not further Wikipedia's purpose WP:5P1. Hasteur (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used" I refer you to the previous linked RFC which is very clear that draftspace is not for indefinite draft storage. Please find another tree to bark at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to the example of Draft:Residual intersection being flung around like chum to muddy the watters. Looking at the history we discover the page was created at 00:00 26 May 2017‎ (UTC) which by even the first revision makes this page less than 6 months ago so thereby is still concievably being worked on. Furthermore the most recent revision is from 08:18, 18 July 2017‎ (UTC) which again makes this page far too young to consider G13. Yet another line from Taku's Playbook for Delay and Disruption: Pull the debate to a topic that has a better case of getting cherry-picked support so that the generic debate can end in a "No Consensus" close. Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taku's accusation that I'm verbose but my opinions don't reflect consensus is one of the funniest things I've seen this week! Look in a mirror Taku! It's more than a little odd that Taku is complaining about G13 expansion after he voted FOR it. Anyway, he was fighting anyone touching HIS drafts (that apparently belong to the community today) well over a year ago. There are correct terms for people that will say anything, even contradicting themselves, to stir trouble. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a little confusion as to what the expansion of G13 means: it is about how to delete the stuff and not about what to. It was about streamlining the deletion procession; the question was formulated as such. If we were to permanently delete any page that is unedited for 6 months, we need to disallow, for instance, the refund of G13-deleted pages. There is still no consensus that there need a refund-proof deletion of old drafts. In fact, MfD, DVR, and WikiProject math if you look at anywhere else, you find this rogue "clean-up of the draftspace" does not have the strong community support. Fighting against rogue operations should not be considered as a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again no respect. You seem to repeatedly and willfully mis-construe the RFC to the point that I question your competency to understand and form coherent arguments in English as you have enumerated multiple times that it is not your primary language. G13 is the current law of the land, and nothing prohibits you from requesting a REFUND on those pages, however when they come eligible for G13 again (which I predict will happen) they will be deleted again for lack of editing. On a subsequent REFUND I expect the admin will see the history and see that it had been requested before and zero progress was made. REFUND is a low effort restoration, but there is an effort. An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests. Furthermore this argument that it's a rogue operation is patently wrong, willfully deceptive, and very short of a personal attack. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rogue operations" it's not my opinion but has been expressed broadly. There has been a wide skepticism whether it is necessary to clean-up old but legitimate drafts (there are a lot of worthless drafts and I'm not talking about them; the G13 expansion mainly concerns the latter type). "An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests." This is news to me; can you provide me a link to this instruction? -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TakuyaMurata: Please properly indent your messages. The standard on Wikipedia is to add one tab (represented by a colon) for each response, to make a pyramidal structure. You tend to go in and out and in and out, which is more difficult to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To those closing, here is another evidence so-called "consensus" only exists in the fantasy land: Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve. The reference to a hypothetical non-existent consensus got to be stopped. -- Taku (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet annother case of willfull "I didn't hear that" by Takuya. This real and present disruption has got to be stopped. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you again referring to the G13-expansion RfC? Again it was about streamlining the deletion process; nothing more. The question was not about the proper use of the draftspace. See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Is_this_really_what_people_supported_in_the_G13_RfC.3F for the related discussion. -- Taku (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated attempts to claim victory out of resounding defeat surpasses all the markers of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Look forward to round two in 6 months when we get the opportunity to argue this again. I challenge you Taku to prove me wrong by focusing for at least net 100k bytes on improving the text of these pages. If not then my previous assertion (that you're only interested in the topics because they're your creations and therefore an impermissible form of WP:OWN) stands and is reinforced. Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, could you let this go? It's clearly gotten very personal for you. We have a compromise that only you seem to object to. Can't we just do that and move along? Hobit (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without some form of guarantee that we won't be back here in 6~12 months re-litigating this debate and that Taku will be further emboldened at the fact that this discussion was closed as anything but a sanction to them, I think the harm to Wikipedia is still a clear and present danger. Hasteur (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the Taku nonsense about G13 is a smoke screen. He has requested and received refunds on each deleted page and another 5 or so were untagged for him. The refund request includes the words something like "because I intend to work on this". In 6 months we shall see if Taku is true to his word or not. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think the REFUND takes the editors' minds into account; in fact, there is no things like continuous-editing requirement for REFUND (there shouldn't be). -- Taku (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:REFUND. I found something interesting though. The normal G13 REFUND wording says "I, usename, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it."

However [10] and [11] Taku did not use that for most of his REFUND requests, which may include knowingly deleting the wording. Does this indicate he requested the REFUNDS without intending to work on them? Were these refunds WP:POINT behavior? Taku - please answer yes or no - do you intend to work on all these drafts? Legacypac (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the template message is misleading and incorrect; for one thing, the drafts weren't created through AfC. For another, we shouldn't use intentionality as a test of whether we restore a page or not, since that can be subject to dispute and REFUND isn't an alternative venue for MfD or DVR. (To answer the question, I intend to work on any page in Wikipedia.) -- Taku (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... No you do not intend to work on your notes in Draft space. That is the only way to interpret that evasive answer. The requests for a REFUND was misleading and WP:POINTy. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When/where did I say I don't intend to work on them? I'm questioning whether it is a good idea to ask such a question. Also, the instruction page is dated (e.g., only talks about AfC) and is not applicable to non-AfC drafts. -- Taku (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps TakuyaMurata is either confused to the point of competence questioning or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but the procedure for requesting a refund of a page deleted by G13 clearly states If your draft article has been deleted for this reason, and you wish to retrieve it because you intend to continue working on it: (emphasis mine). The majority and spirit of the line has been in since February 9th of 2014. Taku has read the page as that is the only way they could have known the template to use. This behavior only reinforces my hypothesis that we'll be back in 6 months to nominate these again because Taku has not spent one byte improving the pages they requested REFUND on. Hasteur (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move them all to Taku's userspace. At this point, it really doesn't matter what Taku wants in my opinion, because what he wants violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Moving the things to his userpsace will at least get rid of the draftspace problem. It would be nice if an admin could close this endless discussion and make the obvious and easiest call, so that we could all go back to focusing on, you know, actually building an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of NOTWEBHOST does this violate? The point of draft space to to have drafts. These are drafts aren't they? Hobit (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, moving the pages to the user-space doesn't solve the issue since the policy applies to the userspaces. For the record, I would much prefer to work on the encyclopedic content; I'm merely responding to the other side's disruption; i.e., an attempt to remove legitimate perfectly-harmless drafts. -- Taku (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I understand, the items are not legitimate drafts. Nor is draftspace for anything at all that is "perfectly harmless". To paraphrase NOTWEBHOST, Wikipedia draftspace is not your personal website or drawing board or playground. The ridiculous amount of time and contention that is being devoted to this right now, and the refusal to accept a reasonable and harmless solution, is an indication in my mind that there are serious CIR and NOTHERE elements at play here. I'm almost wishing that this entire thread would have been brought to ANI rather than AN, because there is a wider audience there and less tolerance for endless back-and-forth nonsense without resolution. Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree; as far as I understand, they are legitimate (see Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve, this is not just my only personalm view). (Also, if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, the pages need to be deleted, not moved.) I do agree this dispute is about the proper use of the draftspace. So I have repeated suggested that we run an RfC to find out the community's view the proper use of the draftspace. From MfD, DVR and other talk pages, my understanding is that my use of the draftspace is legitimate. -- Taku (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From board to board to board shopping for decisions he likes and ignoring or seeking to overturn decisions he does not like. Untold drama instead of either building good content. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, pretty please, before judging on math content, keep in mind your pertinent professional incompetence and, before beweeping the untold drama, consider its abundancy caused by you janitors in steadfastly refusing to agree to a suggested compromise. Purgy (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Purgy: I don't think that English is your primary language, so probably you're not aware that "incompetence" is not the neutral word it may appear to be, because of its connotations, which include being stupid or inept. If your point is that Legacypac and Hasteur are not professional mathematicians (which, of course, they don't have to be to count to "6 months" and look at the history of a draft to see if it's been worked on in that time), it would have been more polite to say something like "your lack of professional qualifications in mathematics." (And, so you know for the future, "Pretty, pretty please" is a fairly condescending thing to say.)

But, be that as it may, I don't see where either of them are making judgments on the value of the mathematical content of the drafts in question. It appears to me that the point being made is that the drafts have been sitting in draft space without being worked on for a substantial period of time, and therefore should be moved elsewhere. That's not a judgment on the content of the drafts, it's a judgment on where they are, how long they've been there, and what's not happened to them in that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly right about English not being my mother tongue, and I do not even live in a pertinent country, so thanks for your hints to a more adequate use of pretty please and incompetence, even when decorated with the adjective "professional" and the one in italics above. But mostly I want to emphasize that my comment did not address anyone's capability to count or look, but the statement by Legacypac "Untold drama instead of either building good content.", which I perceived, in this here context, to be targeting missing or defect "math content". Sadly, because of this repeated misinterpretations I cannot revise my estimation of you being "perfectly biased", favouring the "janitors of draft" and turning down "Taku, the vandal of draft". Maybe, this all is caused by me being inept to understand English in a native way. So sorry. Purgy (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, or maybe I am "perfectly biased" and just don't know it, but it now appears to me that the only participant in this particular colloquy who is "perfectly biased" is you. "Janitors of draft", indeed. "Notorious user Hasteur"? Those are not the comments of an unbiased observer, whatever their proficiency with English. I extended you AGF, but you've sucked it all up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs an advanced math degree to assess a page with no meaningful content - including ones with not a word of content. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration?

It looks like arbitration is the next step. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regret I feel obliged to report that this, rightfully sighed at, remark is canvassed by notorious user Hasteur, who did not hesitate to bias a presumed arbiter with headlining the problems as solely caused by Taku-cruft, without even mentioning his denial of any compromise short of his fullblown targets, and of course not admitting own stubbornness. Purgy (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? Hasteur hasn't edited User talk:Stifle since 17 August, and (as best as I can tell) hasn't posted on the talk page of any arbitrator for more than a month. Since the hinting above doesn't seem to have penetrated, I'm going to put this more bluntly: WP:No personal attacks applies to you just as much as it does to anyone else, and if you continue insulting other editors or making accusations without evidence, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that response, though had I decided to presue advanced forms of DR, I would have named Purgy as a useful idiot addition to the case. For the time being I feel that the case is pretty well put now that 2 administrators have strongly reminded TakuyaMurata that "started a deletion review purely as process for process' sake" is disruptive and can be a blockable offense. Takuya's drafts are either below the threshold or are being debated. I have very little doubt that in 6 months we will be back here, having this same debate, with exactly the same cast of disputants, with some of the same enablers of the action. At that point I suspect there will be a 1 week AN thread before I or someone else will transition this to ArbCom so that the underlying conduct dispute can be resolved short of the Appeal to Jimmy. I do not expect this to come to ANI beause it does not need immediate (<48 hrs) resolution as it is not an existential threat to Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially related pages

There is a discussion on the purpose of the draftspace at User talk:A2soup/Don't use draftspace. Since the issue is really about the policies about the use of the draftspace (as opposed to editors' behaviors), the page might be relevant. In particular, I haven given my take on the draftspace (as well as on AfC).

See also Draft:Geometric Mixed-Motives for an example of a math draft started by someone other than me. In time, a draft like that will be deleted. I'm objecting to practice like that. Objections to destructions like that should not be disruptions. -- Taku (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the Geometric Mixed-Motives you are as woefully wrong as possible. If you took the time (instead of looking for cherry-picked examples to hang your banner on) you'd see that the anonymous user had the AFC "draftmode" banner in the content from the very first instant. Approximately 1 minute later, the same anonymous user requested an AFC review meaning they are giving it to the community to judge it's worthyness. It was reviewed by what appears to be an editor in good standing and was declined. The anonymous user knew exactly what they were getting into when they submitted the content. Unless you're making a very poor quality argument about others your example is so wrong that you appear to be setting yourself up as the patron saint of hopeless math draft pages. As was said untold times before, the way to keep this draft off the deletion pile is for the page to be improved and brought up to an acceptable quality. Hasteur (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that User talk:A2soup/Don't use draftspace is useful - to keep themselves occupied. It will get MfD'd sooner or later. There is nothing more to do with Taku until 6 month rolls around and his drafts get CSD'd again for inactivity. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a related subject: A "ban reduction" is essentially voiding the old ban and implementing a new one, so any "ban reduction" needs to be closed by an admin, per policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm testing with TOR (I will soon be traveling more) and noticed that I could NOT edit Wikipedia. My understanding is that the Sysop bit automatically has IPBE on the English Wikipedia, yet it wouldn't let me post. I'm quite sure I have the admin bit. I've manually added IPBE to my sysop account (this one), and now I'm currently adding this section using TOR. Did they remove IPBE from the basic sysop tool kit? Is this a bug I need to report? Not something I'm using to messing with, so throwing out here to my fellow admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: From WP:IPBE: "Administrators and bots are always exempt from such blocks (with the exception of Tor blocks)." Apparently you need actual IPBE as an admin to get around Tor blocks and Tor blocks only. Weird. In any event, I'd recommend using an alternative account without sysop if you're testing Tor. Tor has had many vulnerabilities over the years, and it's probably not worth the risk of using your admin account. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a bad idea. My two alts (Pharmboy and Farmer Brown) both have IPBE anyway, but I usually reserve those for lesser devices where I don't trust the interface and reaction time to use the admin acct, and use this account for my laptop. I need to read up on TOR a bit more, not something I've used much. Proxies of one kind or another are impossible to avoid on the road. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How that policy wording came about. What you are actually using is the 'torunblocked' bit, which has never been in the sysop package. The IPBE group contains both the ipblock-exempt right (which sysops have) and torunblocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need to add that to the sysop package. I can't see how that would be controversial. Not sure how to get that done, I don't even think a consensus is needed, as it is implied that sysop should be able to do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It'll need an RfC via WP:VPR. If there's consensus then we can ask a dev to flip the switch. -FASTILY 23:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I oppose adding "torunblocked" to the sysop package, but only because I think we should take away the rest of the automatic IPBE right from admins too. Under our current policy, normal humans who want to use IPBE must convince an admin they have a "demonstrated need", and "Proxies of one kind or another are impossible to avoid on the road" has traditionally not cut it. You have to actually demonstrate you're blocked, and then it gets taken away as soon as you're not blocked anymore. Even for well established editors. Not sure why that all goes out the window when someone gets the admin bit. This is not a dig at Dennis (and I should probably apologize for pseudo-hijacking his thread), but it is a dig at the situation. Almost no one besides an admin who wanted to use Tor just because they were travelling would be given this right. I'm not sure admins realize how annoying that distinction is to non-admins. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd second Floq here, with the caveat that a general relaxation of the issuing of IPBE to non-admins would serve the same effect (such that any reasonable editor can get IPBE if they want it, regardless). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, WK, I'm actually kind of disrupting WP to make a point (don't tell anyone). I'd prefer to relax the IPBE criteria for everyone too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are other reasons to use IP exempt than just to be on travelling. Some of our editors (like me) live in areas of this world where it is utterly annoying to be on an account without such exemptions. I agree, it is not WP that is the problem here where I live, it is the outside websites that do get spammed but also used as references where I cannot get to, or where I do not want to go without hiding my real IP. Do you western-worlders understand how annoying the internet becomes when I would constantly have to turn on and off my VPN? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Beetstra: But that's my whole point. I'm saying that you shouldn't get special treatment because you're an admin, when a non-admin in your same position would have to either constantly turn on and off their VPN, or ask an admin for IPBE (who may need to consult a checkuser first), justifying in detail why they need it. I'm not saying take IPBE away from you; I'm saying don't give it to admins whether they need it or not, but then make long-term experienced non-admins justify their need for it to some admin, who can just say no. Either you should have to justify your need for it too, or everyone who's been here a certain length of time and demonstrated their good faith editing should be able to get it without begging. I prefer the second option, but the first option is better than what we do now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Floquenbeam: But by far most editors don't need the torexempt, and neither do they need ipblockexempt. I know that this borders on bad faith, but I want editors who have blocked socks to have autoblocks on their main account (and actually, that should be the case for admins as well). I need torexempt because of other reasons, not because I am an admin (and I requested that globally). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC) (now that did not make sense, correct ping: @Floquenbeam: --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Well, there was an RFC back in February to change the policy, so I've changed the Wikipedia:IP block exemption page to match the RFC close. NE Ent 19:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Kappa Alpha Order has been extended-confirmed protected by Plastikspork. This page hadn't been semied for a while. I think the action was intended to prevent a recurrence of the edits by an auto-confirmed editor on 15th of August. A warning would appear to be more appropriate, and, if problems persisted, a block.

Perhaps I have missed something, so I thought I thought I would bring it up here.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this with Plastikspork before coming here? His talk page should be your first port of call. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged him in the post above. His user page says he is semi retired. Despite this, I probably would have gone to the protecting admin's talk page first for other forms of protection. But I thought the point of logging each instance of ECP at AN was so that it can be discussed at AN. Yaris678 (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one has offered an opinion here or at User talk:Plastikspork#Kappa Alpha Order so I have changed the protection to semi. Yaris678 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaris asked my advice on this since I closed the RfC that led to the implementation of ECP and I'm inclined to agree with his assessment. Many people in the RfC expressed reservations or supported ECP with the caveat that it be used sparingly and in this case semi and possibly other measures look like they would adequately control the disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection is currently active at Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals for an edit war over the use of "illegal alien" vs. "undocumented migrant" or variations thereof. Since there has been no resolution of this dispute by parties including Home Lander, Volunteer Marek and Snooganssnoogans, and the relevant substantial discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22 has not been closed, I have extended full protection by another three days.

While there have been previous discussions on this issue, the current edit war started at the end of July (!).

There is clearly a desire by some editors to continue editing this article directly. I propose the following:

• If no admin closure is made of the above-listed discussion before the full protection runs out, any further revert should result in an immediate temporary block as a first resort
• If an admin closure is made of the above-listed discussion and a consensus found, any further revert against that new consensus should result in an immediate temporary block as a first resort

The third possibility (discussion closed but no consensus) has no clear resolution in my mind. Policy would probably suggest further full protection if the edit war continues - an unsatisfactory outcome.

PS: Just saw since starting to draft this last night that talk page discussion has flared up again. IMO, Volunteer Marek continues to display a broad spectrum of antagonistic behaviours as well as arguments for ownership (both evidenced at just this one diff, but there's plenty more).

The IP addresses involved in the dispute with Marek that he alleges to be the same person, map to Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Ontario, fwiw.

So in conclusion, I think Marek’s behaviour needs further advice. I suspect he will not listen to me as a short while ago I endorsed Atsme’s suggestion that he reign it in. Perhaps nothing but another block will help. Certainly, I think that closing that discussion would improve the situation w.r.t. perhaps establishing a consensus that could then be enforced on a more specific basis. I'd like to see this not needing permanent admin attention.

Samsara 10:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek continues to display a broad spectrum of antagonistic behaviours as well as arguments for ownership - oh, nonsense. I literally have made something like 6 edits to the article, most if not all of them have been reverts of disruptive IP. Then I participated in talk, which I guess what makes Samsara think this is "ownership" of an article. Wtf do they want me to do? Not discuss on talk? Not edit the article? This is some strange notion of "ownership".

More generally, what Samsara doesn't tell you is that this is several long standing editors reverting a WP:SPA IP editor, who's using several addresses (yes, from "Ohio and Michigan"... on the two sides of a narrow border. Also all the edits made by the various IPs are *exactly* the same) (the IP's editor's knowledge of Wikipedia policy and obscure drama board pages also strongly suggests this is a sock most likely of a banned user).

In July, as a result of this another admin semi-protected the page. This was the appropriate response here. However, this time around Samsara decided to fully protect the page, and has attacked the long time editors on the talk page, thus enabling the disruptive IP [12]). For example, when another user User:Chris Howard pointed out to Samsara that full protection wasn't necessary and that this was a case of just one IP causing trouble, Samsara responded by making personal attacks against them [13] [14].

A similar situation arose earlier on a different article [15], where again, Samsara fully protected an article where the problem was just disruptive IP editing. And likewise, when they were politely asked why they chose full not semi, they responded with the same type of obnoxious "my way or the highway" assholery as with their personal attacks on Chris Howard (and myself, but nevermind) on the DACA article.

Also, I have no idea why Samsara is restoring vandalism by an IP in that edit. What gives? Do they just not bother looking at the actual edits before storming in with the revert and/or protect button?

I don't know what's going on here. At the very least this is "conduct unbecoming". An admin simply should not act in such a - unprovoked - disrespectful manner towards editors who've been here a long time. When someone asks you why you took an admin action replying with some version of "screw you, I'm an admin, I do what I want!!!" is not helpful and understandably pisses off people who don't like being treated like dirt. There is a strange pattern to Samsara's actions where this full protection always happens to protect the POV edits of some disruptive IP, edits which probably would otherwise have no chance of surviving in the article for too long. But who knows, more likely they're just very sloppy with their tools.

I'm not asking for a desysop or a block of anything of the sort, but someone does need to tell Samsara to step back, stop waving their admin pistol in people's faces (this "another block" bullshit should stop too) and show a modicum of respect for regular editors. Volunteer Marek  13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also, the whole "you dare to challenge my decision??? Here, I'll extend full protection out of spite for a few more days!!!!" is just childish and immature on Samsara's part. Again, I'm not the only - or even the first one - to have raised questions about whether full protection was necessary. That was another user. Here Samsara appears to be just purposefully acting like a jerk. Volunteer Marek  14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Neither edit (1 2) you allege are PA's actually are, the first isn't even by Samsara. Perhaps you wish to restate that? Kleuske (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Volunteer Marek refers to as personal attacks is intended to refer to this edit, alleging I was "just arguing for the sake of it". in my reply I therefore pointed out that there was no need for WP:PA, meaning that the person in question should not go down that route. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to see a PA in that, It may not be the nicest comment, but that does not make it a PA. Kleuske (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page should probably be tagged for WP:ARBAPDS. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Samsara's request, for the reason the protection level is suboptimal for the article. As far as I can see, the protection level is too high (it is full, whereas semi would have sufficed for preventing all edit wars of July and August) and too short (mere two weeks, whereas the edit warring flares up whenever the protection is removed). An edit war between IP's and new editors on one side and confirmed IP's on the other side could normally be resolved by mere semi-protection, allowing a reasonable discussion on the relevant talk page. I therefore strongly suggest reduction to semi-protection, but indefinite until the apparently contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented") is solved. Concerning the contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented"), this article is the entirely wrong place for the argumentation; there is a clear statement about this in the relevant article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration&oldid=798290297#Terminology). Therefore, that issue should be solved separately (whether that involves a request for third party opinion, an arbitration, or any other means, and whatever the outcome of that may be) but in such a way that the DACA article is not blocked from being edited for the mere reason of a dispute on the "illegal"/"undocumented" terminology, which is not even the center point of attention of this article. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking edits to the article is ridiculous. The arguments over terminology occur on every page related to immigration. The only difference with this page is that there seems to be a particularly large number of IP accounts who repeatedly do the same terminology edits. Seems to me that the problem with this particular would be fixed by simply increasing the protection level. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: please clarify: increasing from what to what? It is currently full-protected. As I see it, the problem with these terminology edits would be fixed by setting the protection level to, specifically, semi - and keeping it there for as long as necessary. Is that also what you mean? --Chris Howard (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I'm not familiar with WP terminology. I was advocating for semi-protection, not a complete block on everyone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, that's clear now. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Samsura should review the WP:Close policy:
  • The Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22 was closed -- the consensus was clearly against the proposal and it was closed by an archive bot. A formal close is not necessary: Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious.
  • An editorial discussion such as this decidedly does not require an admin close Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins.
• I'm not endorsing VM's approach to this, I'm just not addressing it because such a discussion would be unlikely to be productive.

So let's thank Samsura for a) taking the time to be active on WP:RPP, and b) raising the issue here instead of continuing the escalation on the talk page, reduce the protection to semi, and hope Samsura and VM can figure out how to coexist with less drama.

• Oh, the root problem is there actually isn't any current WP:NPOV term for human beings in the US not in strict compliance with current immigration law as passed by the US Congress, who may or may not be subject to enforcement action based on the current administration policy. So let's not blame fellow Wikipedians for a mess that US politicians have made. NE Ent 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? What's wrong with "undocumented alien" or "undocumented immigrant"? What's POV about those? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some contexts where "illegal alien" is the appropriate term (like referring to a specific law which uses that term). But the whole point - and this IS the point, which the IP, Samsara and GoldenRing just refuse to hear - is that for sure on this particular article "illegal alien" is NOT appropriate. The people in question, under DACA are NOT here "illegally". They entered "illegally" (more precisely they were brought in illegally by their parents). But they have - or did as of yesterday - permission to be in the country. Even work in the country. They are (were) in no sense "illegal". This is why the IPs edits were in fact disruptive. Volunteer Marek  06:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, no one in the DACA program are "undocumented." They are by definition "documented" quite extensively as they register as illegal aliens seeking to defer deportation, attend school and work in the U.S. There is really no debate about their legal status. This is a different status and description from other immigrants that have not been adjudicated or registered. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to clarify a bit of information about DACA and the legalities of immigration/residency by non-citizens. The innocent children who were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents were temporarily "protected" under an executive order which was based purely in morality, not law. Immigration legislation is not one of the enumerated powers of the executive branch which is why it is being repealed. If we are going to be "technically speaking", then let's be consistent. Editors are supposed to provide RS factual information in a dispassionate tone. With the latter in mind, when/if a person or child is in the US illegally, meaning they were neither born in the US nor became a naturalized citizen, and have never been issued a permit for legal entry, be it residency or a work permit, they are here illegally and undocumented. Simple facts...dispassionate tone...NPOV...no censorship. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note here, without judgement, that an earlier version of the article used both terms, with one in parentheses. Samsara 19:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I have followed an edit request to replace a single instance of "illegal student" with simply "student". I do not expect anybody making a serious case for "illegal student" being a helpful phrase or one used in relevant sources, i.e. the change should be uncontroversial. Samsara 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broadening locus

Just received a complaint about removal of sourced info by Marek at DREAM Act, an article which should equally fall under WP:ARBAPDS. I've indicated this fact on the talk page. Samsara 00:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing information with sources is not prohibited by policy. Especially when a 'criticism' section of an article about an act that seeks to legitimise immigrant children is sourced almost entirely to an advocacy group who wants to reduce immigration. Please go read WP:RS and WP:UNDUE because at this point I am having serious doubts about your competency. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Competency at what? Noting the complaint or placing the notice? Samsara 00:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your judgment frankly. You have full protected an article which was being edited by registered users trying to prevent edit-warring by at best, 1 or 2 IP's from a small geographical area. You have made personal attacks against Marek and not substantiated them with anything resembling evidence - asking for an administrator who isn't enabling IP POV-warriors is perfectly reasonable when your actions are... enabling IP POV-warriors. You slapped ARBAPDS on an article which was not undergoing an edit war after Marek made a good removal of badly sourced info - in what clearly looks like a retaliatory slap for Marek daring to disagree with you. ARBAPDS has some of the most draconian editing restrictions, which you have now made a target for every IP POV-pusher who wants to edit war on it. The combination of 'consensus required' and '1rr' means functionally that random drive-by IP's can prevent improvements of the sort Marek made. Lastly you have brought attention to your inept handling of this by bringing it to one of the most watched boards. I don't know what your problem with Marek is, but you have come across here with showing no clue as to why you have managed to irritate numerous editors at the original article, and responded by attempting to shift the blame to others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Competency about you being an administrator obviously. Possibly an editor too. If you honestly think that a single edit which removes sketchy content is worthy of fully-protecting-an-article/blocking-someone/running-to-the-admin-drama-board, then yeah, that raises questions about competency. Volunteer Marek  03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues here, Marek, one of which is your conduct on talk pages. I'm also not sure what "single edit" refers to, since on DREAM Act, you've already made seven. Samsara 04:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is you making personal attacks, generally being rude and misusing (and possibly abusing) your admin tools. As pointed by several editors now - myself, Snooganssnoogans, Chris Howard, NE Ent, and Only in death. I think it's time for you to drop this and walk away. (The "single edit" refers to the one that the disruptive IP went to your page to admin-shop and complained about, and which you then happily obliged by bringing it up here. Let me ask again - why are you enabling disruptive IPs by always protecting their versions of the articles? Why are you restoring IP vandalism? That's just strange for an admin) Volunteer Marek  04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat confused about the complaints here. AFAICT, there has been no protection of the article, or any other administrative actions relating to the DREAM Act article other than placing it under DS. Samsara is surely correct that the article falls largely under ARBAPDS. So regardless of the merits of the edits, I don't see any reason to make a big deal over the reasonable placing of DS on the article. This will affect everyone who edits, both those adding the info and removing it, as it should. Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be placed under discretionary sanctions. That's not the issue here though. Volunteer Marek  14:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You "received a complaint" from an anonymous IP POV warrior whose entire edit history consists of anti-immigrant POV-pushing. Interesting that they race to your talk page to report the serious offense of removing self-published anti-immigrant polemics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly agree that Volunteer Marek's behaviour on article talk pages is a serious issue. They take their battlefield behaviour everywhere they go. Note here on another article's talk page, where they describe everyone who disagrees with them in an RfC as not giving a shit Wikipedia policies and being NOTHERE: [16]. At another point on the same page they accuse me of making blatant falsehoods by misrepresenting a cited discussion, then misrepresents that conversation, and accuses me of being ‘friends’ with one of the participants of that discussion from 4 years ago: [17]. The whole talk page is littered with their accusations of dishonesty, such as here, where they tell James J. Lambden to stop being a 'lying pickle': [18]. Their behaviour, including a complete refusal to compromise or come to a consensus, in the AP2 area has unquestionably made collaboration in this area extremely difficult. This battlefield attitude is so entrenched, I'd suggest an AP2 TBAN of some reasonable length (6 months?) as a minimum preventative measure.

So the opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warriors with a grudge have finally showed up. Cjhard, you're not even active on that article. You're here only to attack others and try to leverage what is a spurious complaint by someone who might get boomerang'd into "advantage for my side" by suggesting baseless sanctions. You might wanna watch for WP:BOOMERANG yourself. Volunteer Marek  04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the behaviour I'm referring to. Please don't accuse me of being a WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior without any evidence of me exhibiting battleground behaviours. Please don't tell me to watch out for a WP:BOOMERANG without any evidence of my wrongdoing. Cjhard (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few brief comments about this:

• APDS applies to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, whether a notice has been applied to the talk page or not. As such, any uninvolved administrator can impose any sanction authorised under standard DS (so long as awareness requirements have been met). Articles in this topic space can't be individual "placed under DS." They are automatically under DS.
• That being the case, unless someone wants to present evidence that Samsara is involved per the terms of WP:INVOLVED (ie involved beyond taking administrative actions) then they are perfectly within their rights to protect pages. If someone wants to dispute the protection, after discussion with the admin involved, AE should be the first port of call and then ARCA is thataway.
• An hour spent reading the history of this gives me some concerns about VM's editing. This series of edits removed entirely the section discussing criticism of the DREAM Act, on the grounds that it was unsourced sourced to SPS. This looks like POV-pushing; it seriously unbalances the article and it defies belief that RS could not be found discussing this. Mixed up in that series of edits is this which I just can't understand; the edit summary is "Can't say that in Wikipedia voice" but the edit actually removed a statement attributed to the Centre for Immigration Studies, sourced to a statement by the Centre for Immigration Studies. It looks like any excuse to remove content he doesn't like.
• The argument over protection at Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals essentially amounts to, "Semi-protect because almost all the people we disagree with would be barred from editing." If the non-autoconfirmed/IP editors were warring against consensus then fine; when the dispute is about a term that was discussed at NPOV/N without consensus, it just looks like gaming the rules to win an editorial dispute.
• VM's criticism of Samsara doesn't really stand up to much; if this is the best you can do to allege a PA, it's time to take some time out. VM describes this as "enabling the disruptive IP" - the only way I can construe it that way is if you necessarily regard use of the term "illegal alien"/"illegal immigrant" as disruptive.
• ADMINACCT is a thing, but it's not an excuse to sling as much mud at admins as you can to see what sticks. Descriptions above of Samsara "enabling IP vandalism" can again only be understood as such if any use of the term "illegal alien" is considered vandalism - and, again, in light of the NPOV/N discussion linked above, it can't be.
• Above, VM eventually just descends to personal attacks.
• In light of the above, I'm imposing a three-month topic ban for VM from all edits and articles related to immigration in the United States, under AP2 DS. Violations should be reported to WP:AE. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm halfway through reading this--if this counts as a "personal attack" we might as well all pack it in. Same here--seriously? Tom Robbins said years ago that a story that starts with a beet ends with the devil. A thread that starts with an editor who only does shit like this, an edit whose repetitions confirm that they are not here to improve our beautiful project, is likely to end with unjust censure if not nipped in the bud. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No way are those personal attacks linked to two lines above. Imho, etc. — fortunavelut luna 09:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the 'criticism' section from DREAM act was with the edit summary 'actually this whole thing is SPS - find a secondary sources which covers this stuff' not 'unsourced' as you have claimed. Given you actually posted the edit summary, I assume you just didn't look at it, rather than being unable to read. Given that the criticism section was almost entirely sourced to an advocacy website whose purpose is to spread FUD about immigration, CIS here is *not* an independent reliable source by absolutely any standard, its an entirely reasonable content removal. Lastly the sanctions placed on the DREAM act were not merely a 'notification' that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, they include the 1rr and consensus required sanctions that is massive overkill for an article that was not undergoing any sort of edit-war and seems entirely designed to enable IP POV-pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. It doesn't materially change the point. GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point that Marek removed dubiously sourced anti-immigration advocacy from an article related to immigration? Correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#From_AN---> No, not from ANI, on ANI. It is not a personal attack to question someone's competence after numerous examples were given by User:Only in death at 08:29 this AM, thus evidencing the claims before VM actually made them. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 11:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I am not actually saying that the remarks are in themselves accurate, merely that they do not qualify as personal atttacks. I will say that Samsara has always been nothing but straight up with me. It's bloody painful sitting on this fence  :) — fortunavelut luna 11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sanction placed by GoldenRing. There seems to be very little and seriously debatable evidence to base this sanction on. Criticism of an admin and their actions is hardly a reason to place AP2 sanctions (and as said above, forcefully stated criticism hardly rises to the personal attack level that warrants sanctions). The removal of the section is certainly defendable, and the one "problematic" edit in that series seems to me that we can hardly claim "massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty" when the 1986 amnesty article doesn't even indicate such massive fraud. Without a clear pattern of unambigiously problematic edits in the AP2 area, a topic ban is not warranted. Fram (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Could you please cite the exact line under which you believe you have authority to remove the sanction? I do not see any text in the policy section you cited when posting on VM's talk page, so I am wondering what you believe grants you that authority. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." (emphasis mine), second line of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions. Fram (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, that highlighted wording is obviously about "placing a revert restriction", not about "reverting a restriction". Removing a restriction requires an active consesnsus of uninvolved admins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fut.Perf.'s interpretation here, though one might reasonably in good faith misinterpret that the section about placing restrictions might have some content about removing them, given the not-great wording of that line. (Reference OID's link below.) Fram, you might consider reviewing WP:AC/DS#sanctions.modify and withdrawing your attempt at removing the restriction. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what the words of the relevant policies say, but if a discussion/consensus is required then I support Fram's removal of what I see as an unjustified sanction (for the reasons Fram gives). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically as it was placed as an Arbitration enforcement sanction, it should not be removed without agreement of a)the originating admin, b)consensus at a relevant noticeboard, c)arbcom. See here. Of course I think the sanction is completely bogus to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately it's a colon not a comma. — fortunavelut luna 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks Only. I guess it's down to consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely support Fram's actions. WP:IAR applies.GR alone knows what led him to the topic, place a completely bogus sanction and stand out as the most incompetent editor in the entire thread.And, of course, the skins need to be thickened a bit.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies to all, I have reverted my action, as I indeed misread the policy. I have informed Volunteer Marek of my mistake, and of the fact that this means that the sanction is still valid.

@GoldenRing:: seeing the opposition to this sanction expressed by multiple editors now, would you be willing to lift the sanction yourself and start a discussion to see if there is consensus for this (or another) sanction? Fram (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the admins commenting, GoldenRing's analysis convinces me as having a fairly complete understanding of the situation. His having spent an hour looking into the case strikes me as likely true. Samsara 14:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is rather strange that his "fairly complet understanding" has led to a fairly wrong result. I have not commented on how long he has spent studying the situation, nor do I see its relevance (it clearly wasn't a 30-second look into it, beyond that a commpetition of who looked at this the longest seems not very fruitful). Anyway, I'll rephrase; "seeing the opposition to this sanction expressed by multiple uninvolved editors now...". Better? Fram (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: - I'm sorry but questioning an administrator's competence - and I am NOT the only person to have done this (User:Chris Howard raised a similar point and User:Only in death was the first one to do so) is NOT a personal attack. It is no more of a personal attack than Samsara basely accusing me of article "ownership" simply because I reverted an IP. It is no more of a personal attack, less even, then an admin (Samsara) being rude and obnoxious to another editor (not me, another one) simply because they questioned their judgement [19] regarding full protection. Yes, Samsara is within their rights to impose full protection on a page. They are NOT within their rights to demand that someone be blocked simply because they question that decision. Volunteer Marek  13:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The desire for ownership imo is evident in your characterising your opposition as a bunch of throw away accounts and IP addresses, which is the diff I provided (repeated here for convenience). And I have no problem with you criticising me. I do have a problem with you attacking newcomers in a scathing manner that can in no way be justified by having a different opinion, and have told you so before. So you do know what my objection is, you just apparently do not like it and will not take a helpful suggestion on board. Samsara 14:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not "ownership" not even close. When you have a WP:SPA IP editor who only repeatedly makes the same revert over and over and over and over again, and provokes pointless edit wars, that's exactly what they are (I assume you're not actually objecting to me characterising IP addresses as "IP addresses", since that would be, you know, silly on your part). This happens all the time. Editors using IP addresses or newly created accounts start edit wars on controversial articles. They revert as much as they want, because if they get blocked, it's no skin off their back. Just get another account. But established, long time users can't do that. So basically named and respected users are sort of screwed when dealing with these kinds of "IP addresses". The only thing we can do pretty much is ask for semi-protection (of course this whole stupid problem wouldn't even exist if we had flagged revisions/pending changes but that's a rant for another time and place). Which we did. But you decided to fully protect the IPs edits, and then came running here when that action was challenged by several editors. Thus, yes, you were enabling these IP editors. Volunteer Marek  14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, where are we with this? In the meantime I have blocked the IP whose ridiculous POV-pushing edits, complete with edit warring and making bad-faith reports, started all this. I agree that the sanction was hasty, that the criticism by Marek at the admin's address were not personal insults, that this is overblown and should be corrected. I appreciate Fram's intervention: we need to get this right. Seriously, you don't need to have heard half the shit I've been told by established editors in order to see that a. Marek's comments were serious charges but not personal attacks; b. this started with a BS report acted on improperly and too quickly; c. we need to do much, much better in staving off disruption from many, many sides--including POV warring IPs, sock accounts, and others. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  What he said. This is one of the worst cases of over-reaction I've seen for a while (this board is supposed to be for defusing conflict, not escalating it, people), and possibly the worst admin misjudgment I've seen recently - admins should be employing mops, sympathetic ears and soothing words - not boots and clubs. I see a strongly-emerging consensus among uninvolved parties that the sanction was wrong, and it needs to be reversed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support overturning VM's sanction. NE Ent
• @Drmies: I've just read through a longish stretch of that IP's contributions and I'm wondering for which of them you have blocked? Their TP contributions look civil and well-reasoned. Their reversion of vandalism is rarish but well-founded. They exceeded 3RR once but it was over a month ago and well stale for action now. They have edit-warred without breaking 3RR several times, always over the "undocumented" vs "illegal" question. But if that is the grounds for the sanction, then it begs the question: why is not a similar sanction on those with whom he edit-warred appropriate? As far as I can tell, VM is doing so claiming consensus against "illegal" when it's been repeatedly pointed out to him that no such consensus exists, while the IP is correctly describing consensus (or lack of it). The only other difference is that the IP is an IP; last I checked, that wasn't a blockable offence. GoldenRing (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• GoldenRing, this IP has been at this since November of last year; besides this article improvement and this one, that's all they have been doing here. There is no single opponent of theirs in that edit history with that history of reverting, so that's easy. Such a focus is an obsession, and if you look at their talk page posts (5 until recently, against dozens of article reverts), it's obvious that they're not arguing anything about Wikipedia policies or reliable sources. Here is another example of forumposting on a talk page, with that lame argument that popped up in their edit summaries: it's "like calling a shoplifter a "undocumented shopper". After all, they only lack a receipt." No, the shoplifter stole something--but either way, they should be talking about sources. Then there's the "PC trolls" warning in the edit summaries, and finally that nice piece of red meat they threw out here, which got VM topic-banned, which I hope you will reconsider. No, this is the kind of troll that should have been blocked long before we got here. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for the sanction was not the personal attacks. The substance of this dispute is that some editors object to the terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant." VM labels everyone who uses it a vandaldisruptive (eg in this discussion among many other places), despite the fact that a recent discussion at NPOV/N on whether the term is usable on wikipedia reached no consensus; there was a majority in favour of its use, with support split fairly evenly between those who thought it should be the default term for those unlawfully in a country and those who think it is appropriate sometimes. So when you read "disruptive IP vandal" in this (and related) discussions, you need to bear in mind that it is code for "non-autoconfirmed or IP editor who dared to use 'illegal alien' or 'illegal immigrant', apparently in line with consensus, and who objected to VM reverting them."

Mix this in with the attempts to game protection levels to win a dispute and outright falsehoods in edit summaries (both evidenced in my statement above) I think this topic would benefit from VM's absence for three months. If VM wants to appeal this, he can do so at AE, AN or ARCA.

I'm a bit surprised by the focus in comments above on VM's statements about Samsara's adminship; in the same diff, he also questioned his competence as an editor. In the second PA diff, he called another editor an "opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior with a grudge" with nothing whatsoever to support it, because that editor dared to comment on this thread. VM complaining about weak claims of PAs rings pretty hollow when he himself accused Samsara of a PA because he asked someone, "Now, do you actually have an edit to make, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?" If that's his standard of personal attack, it's a line he himself has stepped a long way over. GoldenRing (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor in question has now been blocked for repeated disruptive editing — precisely what VolunteerMarek said it was doing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it likely that the IP reciprocally had the same opinion of VM, given that they edit-warred directly with each other at Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Samsara 13:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What 'outright falsehood in edit summaries'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are growing problems with POV-pushing IP editors on a number of politically-related articles, as more and more people discover that in the name of assuming good faith, we put up with far more disruption from anonymous IPs than we ever would from registered users, which is precisely backward. It is not "gaming protection levels" to argue that more and more of these articles should be under long-term semi-protection or pending changes. It is common sense that will only become more common. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! This is getting ridiculous.

" VM labels everyone who uses it a vandal" - completely and utterly false. Show some diffs or strike the accusation GoldenRing. Here, here is the talk page. Do a ctrl-F search for "vandal". It occurs ONCE. And that is not by me. It is a statement - "We're working on getting protection lowered. It still needs some protection from IP vandals" - by User:Muboshgu. So that's YET ANOTHER user who thinks that full protection of that article is ridiculous and that Samsara dropped the ball big time. Regardless, I am not calling ANYONE "vandal". Here is the article history with my edit summaries. Do a ctril-F search for "vandal". You'll find some. BY OTHER EDITORS - not me - REVERTING IPs and red-linked accounts. So stop making shit up GoldenRing. Or maybe you want to go and block User:El C, User:Serols, User:Dan Koehl, User:Muboshgu or even the good ol' ClueBot, since they actually DID call IPs "vandals". I didn't. Stop making shit up to excuse your own mess. Take some personal responsibility, admit you screwed this up and rescind the sanctions as numerous users and admins have advised you.

Oh, and guess what? The only person who used the term "IP vandal" in this discussion is... YOU.

But let me keep going.

Your characterization of the discussion at NPOV/N is also false, as I've pointed out repeatedly on talk to the IP. That discussion was regarding whether the term "illegal alien" should be BANNED from Wikipedia. And yeah, it shouldn't. But that "not banned" is not the same as "should always be used". That in fact is what the dispute is about - which terms is appropriate for THAT ONE article. It's a legitimate content dispute. Whatever "code" you're seeing is in your own head. But I shouldn't be sanctioned for the stuff that goes on your head.

Re: last paragraph. YOU. JUST. SAID that "The main reason for the sanction was not the personal attacks". And in fact there were no personal attacks. Yes, I questioned Samsara's competency. So did NUMEROUS other users. Because they acted incompetently. Seriously, does anyone think that fully protecting that article ESPECIALLY NOW was a good idea? All over some edit warring by an IP against multiple users? What the hell? Where are you getting this stuff from?

"Outright falsehoods in edit summaries" - put up or shut up. Show me the diffs. As an admin you should know better than to make WP:ASPERSIONS without providing evidence. Which edit summary had an "outright falsehood" in it? Remember, "outright" means that it's not a matter of interpretation, it's not a mistake, it's me supposedly and purposefully lying. So... show me the diffs buddy or strike the attack.

And "gaming protection levels"??? Buddy, at least four other users SAID THE SAME DAMN THING as I did. Are we all "gaming protection levels"? Are you going to ban them from the topic? What the hell are you doing?

 Volunteer Marek  21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. I've struck 'vandal' since the term you used was indeed 'disruptive'. I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference.

The falsehood in an edit summary was evidenced above but I'll give it again; in this edit you claimed you were removing content because "can't say that in wikipedia voice" when in fact you were removing a statement clearly in the voice of another organisation.

AFAICT, your argument for semi-protection is that it would allow you to edit those articles while usefully excluding a group of editors with whom you disagree on content. Yes, that looks like trying to game protection levels to win a content dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" your argument for semi-protection is that it would allow you to edit those articles while usefully excluding a group of editors with whom you disagree on content. Yes, that looks like trying to game protection levels to win a content dispute." - Arrghghg! FOUR other users said the exact same damn thing! Since then additional users have chimed in to point out that fully protecting the article was dumb! Stop making excuses for your own mistake.

And this: [20]? AS ALREADY POINTED OUT TO YOU BY OTHERS yes it sure as hell says "massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty" in Wikipedia voice. Even if not, that is not an edit you sanction somebody for ffs. And that is categorically NOT a "falsehood". You can disagree whether or not that text should be in there, that's fine. But stop fucking calling me a liar. I don't give a crap if you're an admin or not, you just don't do that. And the more you do it, the worse and worse you make yourself look.

Stop making excuses for your own mistake. Volunteer Marek  21:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Are we looking at the same diff? The diff I'm looking at removes part of a sentence that runs, "The nativist-leaning Center for Immigration Studies has raised concerns that..., that..., that it would result in massive fraud similar to the 1986 amnesty, that... and that..." How is that not a statement in the voice of the Center for Immigration Studies? If it's an honest mistake, fine, say so. GoldenRing (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for fuck's sake, I don't even have that much of the problem with the term "illegal alien". I certainly don't regard anyone who uses it as a "vandal". GoldenRing pulled that out their ass. I just happen to think that AT THAT ONE PARTICULAR ARTICLE it's not appropriate (which is perfectly valid position given discussion at NPOV/N). I'd appreciate it if people stopped telling me what I do or do not believe. Volunteer Marek  21:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TL; DR, but I was pinged. I am not fully aware of the editing history of DACA. I just looked into the history right before the article was protected and saw IP edits being reverted, and may have assumed too much about the cause of the full protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's only a question whether it's appropriate at that one particular article, then why were you edit-warring over it on multiple articles? If it's not a question of vandalism/disruption, then what makes you think you have a right to an opinion on it while the IP does not? If it's not a question of vandalism/disruption but rather a question of editorial judgement of what's appropriate for the article, why is protection in response to edit-warring "enabling IP disruption" and not an entirely appropriate response? GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing your story. Stop making up new bullshit excuses for your own mistake. Provide diffs for your accusations. I don't know about you but personally, I really don't appreciate being called a liar and being accused of things I didn't do. Diffs. Diffs. Diffs. Volunteer Marek  21:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And just because I'm feeling defensive (being falsely called a liar tends to do that), if you want to bring up the DREAM Act article as an example where I removed "illegal" (one revert, not "edit warring") then I just got to point out that... the two articles are freakin' closely related! Jeezus pandas. Volunteer Marek  21:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing - how many admins and users have now told you that your sanction was inappropriate? Perhaps you should pay attention and not let the admin-ego get in the way. Volunteer Marek  21:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the sanction placed on VM - I have to join others who find it unjustified. I do think VM should tone it down a little sometimes on talk pages (although given the rampant disruption on many pages dealing with controversial topics, I understand his frustration). But the rapid hammer on him was not good, not good at all. I think it's especially weird that criticism of an admin (deemed as unjustified) was explicitly cited as justification for a topic ban (!). If that was sanctionable, there would be dozens and dozens of editors who would be sanctioned. Frankly, the best thing to do now would be for GR to withdraw the sanction, and for VM to agree to dial it back a little bit in terms of heated disputes. Then everyone can move on with grace. Neutrality^talk 23:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edit-conflicted with Neutrality but was pretty much about to say a similar thing; I think the bright line for topic bans in such areas needs to be (and generally is) set higher than the behaviour observed here. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Neutrality. Well said. And then I hope this topic could be closed and the admin(s) could address the issue of whether to now lower the protection level to semi (or extended confirmed) which has been raised on WP:RFRPL. --Chris Howard (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to chime in to agree with Neutrality, Black Kite and Chris Howard. This was a poorly considered "sanction" and should be undone. I thank Fram for his efforts here. I also share the serious concerns expressed here about Samsara's actions in this matter. -- Begoon 23:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inappropriate topic ban. GoldenRing, if you're going to insist it's taken to AE to get lifted, so be it, but with this amount of opposition here, including so many admins, you are making yourself look bad by not simply undoing it right now and saving the red tape. Bishonen | talk 07:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen: Recently Hidden Tempo was given an indefinite block under Discretionary Sanctions for a 3RR violation. You endorsed that block but offered to convert it into an indefinite AP2 topic ban. It is difficult to see how an indefinite and broad topic ban is appropriate in one case but a narrow and finite topic ban is out of bounds in the other. Both editors were accused of tendentious editing and battleground behavior and disruption in both cases is confined to politics. Is the 3RR violation the difference? Neutrality (also objecting here) found the indefinite block "within discretion." This seems inconsistent. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Lambden, you are mistaken about the discretionary sanctions; MastCell's block of Hidden Tempo wasn't per ds, and if I should convert it to an indefinite topic ban from American politics, that wouldn't be per discretionary sanctions either. In the normal course of events, there are only two ways a topic ban can be placed: either by a single admin per discretionary sanctions, or per community discussion on AN or ANI. However, there's a third, rarer way, inasmuch as an admin can negotiate anything they want in return for an unblock — a topic ban or any other sanction they believe would work. The only condition is that the blocked user agrees to the changed sanction. I don't suppose the discretionary sanctions thing was the main aspect of your question, but I still felt I needed to clarify it. For the rest, MastCell blocked Hidden Tempo "for repeated disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing and edit-warring, despite numerous previous sanctions for similar behavior", and the immediate occasion for the block was this ANI discussion. I understand you're making a comparison (a misleading one IMO), but I don't think this thread is the best place for going into detail about Hidden Tempo's block. (There's already a lot of discussion on HT's talkpage.) I'll just answer your question the way you put it: no, the 3RR violation isn't the difference. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Samsara's edit

(and I would still like an explanation for this edit. Especially given the big hullaboo that Samsara is making about me reverting an IP. If it was a mistake, then that's fine, but then one should think about stones and glass houses.)  Volunteer Marek  14:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can diffuse that for you. Look at the time stamp of the next edit and ask yourself how likely it is that I could have made the correction myself before the other party got to it. If you want to make the case that the banners were helpful, I'm interested to hear how many will agree with you. Samsara 14:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They would have been helpful if you had just changed "article" to "section". But whatever. So if I understand it correctly you restored misspellings into the article because you wanted to make other changes and didn't look at it closely. Fair enough. Volunteer Marek  14:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review (by uninvolved editors) of the topic ban of Volunteer Marek

Democratic Backsliding. Some of these have already been deleted, like 2017 purges in the United States and Beta uprising. There's still a few created since then that need to go. Most importantly the user should be warned about using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX and the policies of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH should be explained to them. And they need to stop. Volunteer Marek  23:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Gotta notify folks when they're being discussed here. I'll leave a message with the editor regarding their conduct with article creation. You should feel free to report the behavior to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents should this crop up again. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Alt-left–Alt-right conflict as an obvious self-coinage. This user appears to be trying to create terminology according to their own notions. I'll leave a message. Acroterion (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had my concerns about this account when I first saw it. GAB^gab 20:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question (User:123Steller/common.js (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) is categorized into several article categories (eg. Category:Austria-Hungary).

Is there a better place to report these types pages?

Could a bot be tasked with removing article categories automatically or perhaps user scripts could be banned from being categorized outside of Category:Wikipedia scripts? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears 123Steller has copied the entire content of the Austria-Hungary article into their .js page for some unknown reason (perhaps they thought it was a sandbox). I'll drop a line on their talk page to ask them to remove it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted that page. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding Magioladitis has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit which only introduces a cosmetic change (that is, where there is no substantive change made in the same edit). However, Magioladitis may make (without a substantive change in the same edit) or bundle (for example, as part of "general fixes") cosmetic changes from his bot account if the bot request for approval specifically allows this. This sanction supersedes remedy 7.1 of the original case.
2. Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from initiating or participating in any discussion concerning WP:COSMETICBOT, including discussions concerning its impact. Magioladitis may ask specific questions, at the bot noticeboard or bot request for approval, to clarify whether bot tasks he wishes to undertake, or is currently undertaking, are permitted under remedy 1.1 of this case. Once a question has been answered, and discussion closed, by an uninvolved BAG member or administrator, Magioladitis is not permitted to raise the same question again, except in a clarification request if required. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in June 2017.
3. Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia. This prohibition does not apply to bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks. For clarity, he may discuss AWB and similar tools (notwithstanding his other sanctions), but may not make edits using them (or a derivative) on the English Wikipedia. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in July 2017.
4. Magioladitis is reminded that accounts making automated edits (bots) must be approved by the bot approvals group before being used. He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account.
5. For consistent poor judgement and failure to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, Magioladitis is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2 closed

When on the Garnet page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnet) and going down to "Garnet structural group" you will see near the bottom of the second table a blue link for Schorlomite. However when this link is clicked you are forcefully redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnet#Less_common_species with no way of staying on the Schorlomite page. This would generally not be an issue if the Schorlomite page was empty or had no valuable information, however for the split second that the page shows up before redirecting to the Garnet page you can clearly see it is full of information that due to the forced redirect is impossible to see or obtain. I apologize if there is a better talk page or way to discuss this issue, I'm still learning the ropes of wikipedia and this seemed to be the most suitable way to get in contact with someone who might be able to remedy the issue.

VivianN Z (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no history or info at Schorlomite just the redirect code. You are seeing the target page pull up before it takes you to the target section. Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I see too. The Schorlomite redirect just directs to a different part of the same Garnet article, and that's all it's ever done - there's never been a specific Schorlomite article in that page's history. What I see is a brief glimpse of the Garnet article from the top, before it scrolls down to the redirect target section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, OP, when you are redirected to a page you can go to the redirect page by clicking the link at the top of the article you are redirected to which says "(redirected from $page)". In this case, the redirect page for schorlomite is at [21]; you can verify the lack of content and edit history yourself. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, as a semi-involved user, I have already noted that there have been three edits made by that user that already have raised my eyebrows, for example this one to which the user (I assume mistakenly; taking their report on their talk page with a pinch of salt) tagged ANI for speedy deletion, one point the user was criticised on before the initial block, ref. WP:CIR. I note this was picked up by the (assumed) unblocking admin. The second being this one where he placed some additional content without sourcing. I reverted the edit, as what they added was incorrect, a ref further down the article stating that no trains were displaced in the procurement of new stock. I also have noted a third edit here, which is the user deleting someone else's comments off a user page. No matter how incomprehensible a user's comments may be, my personal opinion is if they are on the user's talk page, I leave them there, regardless of context. If I was the one who was interacting with the user, I would have added another note re verification and sourcing. I, overall would've opposed the unblock if I had known they had requested unblock, partially because of my previous dealings with the user. I also note that the suggestion from fellow user Jackmcbarn of taking a year off has not been followed, it has only been 8 months. Nightfury 12:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nightfury, those edits are troubling, and I left a note about two of them. But looking at their other contributions, I don't see any more that indicate we made a mistake here, so for now we'll let this ride. Mind you, I only determined a (quick) consensus here--feel free to ping the other admins who supported this. :) Drmies (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved Antonio Ibáñez de Alba, a newly created article, to its current title to fix the capitalization. While checking "What links here" to see if the article needed to be tagged as an orphan, I noticed there was a previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Ibáñez de Alba that closed as delete. Would an admin be so kind to check the current article to see if it's a recreation of the deleted article? Thank you! –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlyingAce, the text of the new version is almost identical (minus some placement) to the original. The refs in the "Other researches" section seem to be new, so if they push it over the GNG/BIO issues at the AFD I'd say it's worth keeping. On text alone, though, I'd G4 it. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into it, Primefac. The article has been moved to draftspace in the meantime, so I guess that sorts it for now. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I AfD'd Dutch Yazidis recently and there have been several similar pages at AfD. After seeing yet another one of these (Liechtensteinian Surinamese) show up on NPP, I think it's time it got wider attention.

What is the standard of notability for these articles? Power~enwiki (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming they are of the list variety, WP:LISTPEOPLE. So if for example Dutch Yazidis had contained a number of notable (read: have their own WP article) Dutch Yazidis, then its a valid list article. (It didn't, so its not) Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the article is clearly a spoof of Dutch Surinamese. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax. Largoplazo (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. I'm sorry--only yesterday I got criticized for not acting soon enough on a racist comment, but y'all are letting this go by without a vandal report or a quick call to an administrator? The Liechtensteinian thing is pure trolling (there are Dutch Surinamese because of a history of slavery and colonialism--this obviously never happened for Liechtenstein), but surely someone noticed this racist edit and this also totally racist edit. I'm a bit disappointed in the editors who reverted without sounding an alarm. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen2 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log)

Allen2 was originally blocked on 3 November 2014 for competency issues (WP:CIR). After several failed talk page and UTRS appeals they have asked to take advantage of the WP:Standard offer terms now that 6 months have elapsed since their last block modification on 17 February 2017. In their unblock request posted at UTRS they said:

"I fundamentally wish to be unblocked on Wikipedia with a very clear reason. I read and agree with the Standard Offer that I refrained from Wikipedia for 6 months since my talk page has been revoked and exhausted again along with my email access (but I did not email users by that time while I'm still blocked before my email access is blocked), and I will promise not to continue my behavior like the last time before I'm blocked in the first place for competency issues. I know, understand, and will be confident and competent about what Wikipedia is now and I will comply with all the rules and policies of Wikipedia when I edit again. Furthermore, you could considerably give me another chance, a second chance on Wikipedia if you believe so, because when I'm successfully unblocked then I will be welcome to make useful contributions and help fix this problem on the encyclopedia. Thank you and sincerely, ~Allen (Allen2)"

I am presently taking no position on this request. I have restored Allen2's talk page for the sole purpose of allowing them to respond to questions on this application. Just Chilling (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I remember this guy...it's already been 3 years, wow. This unblock request is not substantially different from the half dozen or so currently on their talk page dating back to 2015, all of which have been declined for the same reasons, most recently early this year. I'm no admin, but I don't think that any of the concerns with this user have really been dealt with. ansh666 22:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone please post any previous discussion which resulted in the OP being blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - There is still alot of CIR issues here and whilst I'm all for second chances I think come a few weeks or months time they'd shoot themselves in the foot and will end up reblocked again, Unrelated but I also have an issue with the quotation marks around every thing they post - It does read as they're being sarcastic and unfortunately if they do the quotation thing on talkpages they're probably going to piss off quite alot of people, Anyway as per the CIR issues the block should remain with TPA being revoked. –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partially struck as not really relevant here. –Davey2010^Talk 03:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]