Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive297) (bot |
→That whole thing about edit summaries: *WP:RevDel says "Revision deletion should only be used in accordance with the criteria for redaction." RD3 is defined as "allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links." Edit summaries that pertain to Wikipedia clearly do not qualify for this criteria. It's like deleting a page as CSD A7 because you know it'd never pass AfD. Let's not stretch deletion criteria because our actions cannot be reviewed by unprivileged users.--~~~~ |
||
| Line 283: | Line 283: | ||
*{{ec}} This is purely disruptive in my book (for disclosure sake I was the one that started the VPP thread to get it removed). The edit summary box is for, well, a ''summary''. It is not the place to copy and paste your entire edit. If I wanted to know your entire edit I would look at the diff. All the extended edit summaries are doing is destroying page histories and watchlists. "+" would be better than an entire copy/paste like that. I'm all for calling these purely disruptive and treating them like all other purely disruptive things. RD3'ing them. --[[User:Majora|Majora]] ([[User talk:Majora|talk]]) 02:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
*{{ec}} This is purely disruptive in my book (for disclosure sake I was the one that started the VPP thread to get it removed). The edit summary box is for, well, a ''summary''. It is not the place to copy and paste your entire edit. If I wanted to know your entire edit I would look at the diff. All the extended edit summaries are doing is destroying page histories and watchlists. "+" would be better than an entire copy/paste like that. I'm all for calling these purely disruptive and treating them like all other purely disruptive things. RD3'ing them. --[[User:Majora|Majora]] ([[User talk:Majora|talk]]) 02:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
*People should stop pasting the contents of their changes into the edit summary field. It irks me out. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 02:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
*People should stop pasting the contents of their changes into the edit summary field. It irks me out. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 02:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
*[[WP:RevDel]] says "Revision deletion should only be used in accordance with the criteria for redaction." RD3 is defined as "allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links." Edit summaries that pertain to Wikipedia clearly do not qualify for this criteria. It's like deleting a page as CSD A7 because you know it'd never pass AfD. Let's not stretch deletion criteria because our actions cannot be reviewed by unprivileged users.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 02:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 02:42, 2 March 2018
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
 | 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.
|
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. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
(Initiated 17 days ago on 3 June 2025) The subsection "Indef proposal" has been open for 13 days, and there have been no new comments there in the last five days. Would be nice if that subthread is closed now by an uninvolved admin. Kind regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 12 days ago on 8 June 2025) Can an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus of Proposal 2 regarding the topic ban and close this part of the discussion, please? Thank you! Some1 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Consider closing the entire Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Persistent, long-term battleground behavior from multiple editors at capitalization RMs, as the discussion and evidence that sprawled into the later threads have context for assessing the TBAN proposal. —Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 93 days ago on 19 March 2025) RFC on a ARBPIA related organisation -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note for closer: Several accounts in this discussion were affected by recent ArbCom actions (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Off-wiki_misconduct_in_Palestine–Israel_topic_area_II) and not all comments by blocked editors have been marked as such. I strongly recommend installing a script to mark blocked users before diving into this. Toadspike [Talk] 13:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed with @Toadspike Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- This was now archived and de-archived, and is still in need of closure. There might be a reasonable argument for waiting for the outcome of the current motion as well, but I’m not sure what the best course of action is. FortunateSons (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just to note the motion was closed without being adopted, and has been archived -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Which motion? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- The one linked directly above your comment (archived), closed with no action. :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- What does this mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- There was a ton of engagement with this RfC, surely it has enough for a formal closure with recommendations. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- ActivelyDisinterested is just pointing out that a motion which would've (topic-)banned some editors who contributed to the RfC was closed without banning the aforementioned editors. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- There was a ton of engagement with this RfC, surely it has enough for a formal closure with recommendations. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- What does this mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- The one linked directly above your comment (archived), closed with no action. :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Archived again, please restore to the noticeboard if you close the discussion. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Really needs a formal close soon and an update for the RfC list. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't seen a close take this long in a while. Anything we can do? Iljhgtn (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Really needs a formal close soon and an update for the RfC list. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 89 days ago on 22 March 2025) RFC expired, please close. 2600:387:15:5313:0:0:0:A (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 76 days ago on 4 April 2025) Last top-level comment was over a week ago. RFC tag has expired. Needs uninvolved editor to close this. Ladtrack (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- It has now been over two months since the RfC was initiated and a month since the last top-level comment. The RfC has been archived. When closed, it will need to be restored to the talkpage. Ladtrack (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 76 days ago on 5 April 2025) - Requesting review and closure of an RfC. Open since 5 April. Located at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels#RfC on book review aggregators. The discussion is lengthy, so the assistance of an uninvolved editor or admin who is experienced in evaluating consensus based on the strength of the arguments in alignment with policy would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Οἶδα (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 75 days ago on 5 April 2025) No comments for more than 10 days, so I think this discussion has ended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 75 days ago on 5 April 2025) RFC discussion has slowed down for almost two weeks. Needs uninvoled editor to close this. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 71 days ago on 9 April 2025) RfC that followed a WP:ELN-discussion that followed a talk page discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 63 days ago on 17 April 2025) – Last comment on 5 May 2025 (12 days ago) & RfC tag expired; also a related & broader non-RfC discussion was just started (15 May) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Should we mention publisher's statements in the lead paragraph?. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 61 days ago on 20 April 2025) – Last comment from 27 April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe vom Titan (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 25 April 2025) - RfC was opened about a month ago and has stabilized. While the consensus of the RfC seems obvious, a closure with a definitive statement by a neutral editor would be useful. The labeling question pertains to a large number of articles with Catalan subjects. This and other similar RfCs and discussions will be used as a precedent for such articles. Bdushaw (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 25 April 2025) Expired RfC that could use a close from an uninvolved editor to progress to next steps. 05:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 55 days ago on 25 April 2025) No new comments in the last two weeks -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Now archived. If you close please restore to the noticeboard when you do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 April 2025) Expired RfC with no comments in over a month and fairly light involvement to start with. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 48 days ago on 3 May 2025) - There was a robust discussion but the last !vote was four days ago, and only two !votes in the last ten days. Seems like a fairly straightforward/easy close. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 days ago on 14 May 2025) This RfC's participation is petering out as we near the month-long mark, and it's probably time for a closure by someone or a small group of someones. Thank you! Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 19 May 2025) First of a three part RfC; RfC tag just expired and last !vote was on 1 June 2025. Probably should be closed by an experienced editor since the RfC was brought up in a discussion on a larger pattern of editing conflict over at ANI. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 May 2025) Second of a three part RfC; bulk of the discussion occurred in May but there were 2 !votes in June (last one on 11 June 2025). (Repeating comment from above) Probably should be closed by an experienced editor since the RfC was brought up in a discussion on a larger pattern of editing conflict over at ANI. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 May 2025) Third of a three part RfC; last !vote was on 31 May 2025. (Repeating comment from above) Probably should be closed by an experienced editor since the RfC was brought up in a discussion on a larger pattern of editing conflict over at ANI. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 25 May 2025) This is going to require a close from an experienced editor. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 31 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 10 | 22 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 10 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 37 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 24 |
(Initiated 24 days ago on 27 May 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 17 days ago on 2 June 2025) – Please review or relist this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Merge proposals
(Initiated 249 days ago on 14 October 2024) The Daily Wire and associated pages are part of a contentious topic area, but this has been discussed for half a year now and the debate should be closed. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 17:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 143 days ago on 27 January 2025) Discussion has been open since the end of January and has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 01:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 133 days ago on 6 February 2025) Two users, who may be sockpuppets, were for the proposal, while three (including me) were against and have formed a consensus that the articles cover two different teams, and should be kept separate. No further discussion has taken place in two weeks, so I think this has run its course. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
It has now been six weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
It has now been eleven weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 10:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 10 May 2025) These pages are attracting a lot of active chaotic editing, so if someone uninvolved could close this merger request soon, that would help. This is distinct from the ... standoff merger request that is now closed. Boud (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading
Requested moves
(Initiated 77 days ago on 3 April 2025) Has been open for more than two months; last comment was a month ago. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 17 May 2025) Lengthy discussion mainly between three editors. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 00:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 days ago on 18 May 2025) Further discussion is unlikely to change the outcome.Legend of 14 (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 30 days ago on 21 May 2025) Lengthy and often heated discussion has largely died down. Obviously, this is a sensitive topic that has attracted much attention, so an experienced closer with a firm grasp of policy who can take the potential fallout is desirable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Doing... I've written a closing rationale. Given the potential contentiousness of the issue, I'd prefer a committee close. If anyone wants to be co-closer, please contact me. Even a committee of two or a closing endorser is fine. Chetsford (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 29 days ago on 22 May 2025) Very complex RM which has seen a number of different proposals and involved a "speedy move". Have not seen new additions to the discussion in a few days now. I was the user who opened this RM (I changed my username a few weeks after discussion began). OokiiNeko 猫 talk 01:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 17 days ago on 3 June 2025) A rough consensus seems to have emerged here, but it could use a close with a quick summary for ease of future reference and for allowing the result to be actioned. Sdkb talk 17:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WP:DUCK vandalism
207.148.2.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be a sock of Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk · contribs), given repeated false addition of the name "Richard Madenfort" to articles. I also suspect some WP:TEND is in effect, given their edit summaries of "Because the music union doesn't know who to pay?". The "Richard Madenfort" vandalism has gone back for several years; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Richard_Madenfort,_Rick_Marty_adding_himself_to_many_music_articles_by_way_of_socks_and_IPs. There is no concrete proof that Richard Madenfort played on any of these songs. Lee Brice (album) is one of the targeted articles, and according to Allmusic, no one named Richard Madenfort played on the album. Given the evidence here, is there a way that we can add "Richard Madenfort" to the edit filter? Because this has been an ongoing vandalism for so long, and the person's constant use of IP ranges makes blocking ineffectual. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- One of the sources you claim isn't reliable is the music union responsible for paying who played on the album.
- Which is also why guys like Kevin swine Grantt are listed as Mark Grantt. You can't pay fake names, just legal names. 207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- @207.246.125.88: then why does literally no other source on the entire Internet use the name "Richard Madenfort" or any variant thereof? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Allmusic sucks. Beyond that, I couldn't tell you. But you seem to be deflecting the issue - you are removing sourced content because you don't want to admit you are wrong. Why is he being paid royalties for songs he didn't play on?
- Who is more reliabe - a free site that everyone knows is full of errors, or a site that lists actual payroll but doesn't get indexed by google? 207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Also, https://lyrics007.com/artist/lee-brice/TlRRd05qRXo= does not look like a wiki. Yet, there it is on page one of my search results.207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- A music union website is most definitely not a reliable source. You would do well to actually read WP:RS to see how we define it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Also, https://lyrics007.com/artist/lee-brice/TlRRd05qRXo= does not look like a wiki. Yet, there it is on page one of my search results.207.246.125.88 (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, I am not going to bother to read a page that says allmusic is a better source than afm-sag-aftra for determining who worked on an album.
- So you're telling me that he can delete information found on the album booklet on one album, and the actual work logs of a second... while using one word edit summaries ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=That_Don%27t_Sound_Like_You&diff=next&oldid=800787550 ), and that is acceptable.
- But a payroll site isn't acceptable? 207.246.125.88 (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have no personal comment on whether or not any of these sources as an RS, and this isn't the place for such a discussion anyway. However if you're not willing to try and understand what an RS is and why we require them I don't know that wikipedia the place for you. I.E. It seems either WP:Competence or WP:NOTHERE would apply. BTW, for article titles the WP:Common name is generally preferred regardless of whether it's a stage name (or 'fake' name). It can get a little more complicated when referring to the person in other articles but in simple cases where the reference directly relates to what the their common name is known for, generally we will use it as well. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Some guy removes an entire personnel section with one a one word edit summary, "no". Then removes another entire personnel section with a one word edit summary, "no". He removes 3 personnel sections with "no". And then, when someone looks, you see its all sourced. But they aren't just sourced, they are sourced from a non-wiki site - the SAG-AFTRA site.
- I have no personal comment on whether or not any of these sources as an RS, and this isn't the place for such a discussion anyway. However if you're not willing to try and understand what an RS is and why we require them I don't know that wikipedia the place for you. I.E. It seems either WP:Competence or WP:NOTHERE would apply. BTW, for article titles the WP:Common name is generally preferred regardless of whether it's a stage name (or 'fake' name). It can get a little more complicated when referring to the person in other articles but in simple cases where the reference directly relates to what the their common name is known for, generally we will use it as well. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's not until you look at his editing history do you see that a longer edit summary exists. How are users of one article to know what his intentions are with those one word entries? Does everyone need to hunt his edit history to understand, or does the burden fall on him to provide those edit summaries? And why would anyone not accept sag-aftra as a reliable source?
- Basically, entire personnel lists get removed because allmusic(which is full of errors) doesn't list him. And I am the one being given a "only warning" for reverting someone's section blanking of sourced content. All because of some 11 year old report... because it is impossible for someone to get a job in 11 years.
- Maybe you're right. Maybe this isn't the place for me. Aren't encyclopedias to be fact-based? Yet, the very people responsible for paying workers is not considered acceptable, but one word section blanking is.
- And nobody is answering the question - why is he being paid for an album if he didn't work on it? 207.148.4.114 (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I just punched his name into google (I usually do not use google). The knowledge graph seems to think he was the bass player for Alice cooper. Does this mean Google is also in on the "hoax"? Not that it matters, because I have already been given my 'warning' and am going to lose editing privileges. 207.148.4.114 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- So, instead of waiting around all day for a response; Pretend for a minute that TenPoundHammer wasn't your buddy. And you saw him "section blanking" sourced content using a one-word edit summary, "no". What would you have done? Then he does it again and again. What would you have done to someone who was not your buddy?
- And then you also see him section blanking sourced content but used a longer edit summary, "clearly unreliable sources, presence of "richard madenfort" indicates that at least some of this was faked", but how does one fake that content from that source? And, as previously asked, why would that source get it wrong? Clearly someone has a personal bias against this person, but the entire personnel list on these articles are being removed. I mean, how many personnel sections cite no source at all, but here you have them being removed for being sourced?
- And then, when this inappropriate removal of content was reverted: I have been called a sock for adding content (I view adding content and reverting content as separate issues). How would you react if I called him underwear for removing the content in the first place? And I was given a "final warning" with the threat of losing the ability to edit. How does any of this make sense? I am in trouble for reverting someone's inappropriate section blanking. And, again, as previously mentioned, a copy of the liner notes and a site responsible for paying workers is considered unreliable? 207.148.4.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no comment on the sources, but as for the IP's behavior...rangeblock, anyone? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
To 207.148.4.114: If someone reverts you you open a discussion on the article talk page. It's that simple. See WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. While edit summaries are useful, you should not be using them as a substitute for discussion. And we don't rule on WP:Content disputes here at ANI, so there is zero point explaining why you were right in the content dispute and the other editor was wrong.
Also per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it rarely helps support your case complaining about what other articles do. As I said above, WP:Verifiability and WP:RS are very basic parts of wikipedia. If you aren't willing to follow them, if you aren't even willing to get a basic understanding of what they mean by a quick read, you probably don't belong here. Yes encyclopaedias including wikipedia are facts based, but we have found the best way to ensure we have facts is to rely on reliable sources to support these facts, not trust what some random person says is a fact. (Also we don't have to include all facts. As I said earlier, the fact someone's legal name may be ABC doesn't mean ABC is what we will say in the article if they normally go by XYZ.)
Frankly I have no idea why you think TPH is anyone's buddy. AFAIK they have never been particularly popular at the ANs definitely I have never had the greatest impression of them. But that's neither here nor there, most of us at least try to put aside our personal feelings about an editor and look at the locus of the dispute.
When one editor appears to be suggesting that they don't have to worry about sourcing, that editor is never going to come across well. (And the Google thing is particularly stupid. Google just takes their info from various places including wikipedia itself. They don't have to be 'in' on any hoax. The 'hoax' just has to have been wide enough that Google accidentally learnt it. And all this is besides the point since many of us have no idea whether there is a hoax because as I said, we don't rule on content disputes. All we know is that you need proper sourcing.)
Again, use the article talk page. Please don't complain that someone else didn't initiate discussion. You do it. And make sure you understand the basics like what a reliable source is, why we often avoid primary sources, and the need for anything which may be disputed to be supported by a reliable source. Because if you don't and think we should just trust you because you say something is a fact, you are liable to find complete opposition to your proposal when you initiate discussion.
But he didn't revert my edits. I reverted his! Which, of course, is why he then reverted my edits gave me a warning and brought me here.
He has no business removing information sourced from the album cover. If you guys think SAG-AFTRA isn't a reliable source for information, fine. But an album cover?
So at least get it right - I reverted him. 144.202.66.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening
Moved from WP:ANIJohn from Idegon closed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Pre-nominals and post-nominals just when a better mix of editors began appearing. At User talk:John from Idegon#Pre-nominals and post-nominals I have responded to his given reasons for closing the discussion, received his response, and notified him of this request for administrator assistance to reopen the discussion. Jzsj (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- For background, please read Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for moving this Swarm. I'm unable to respond in detail earlier than midday Tuesday (holiday weekend), but suffice it to say, I stand by my closing rationale. If an administrator wants to revert it, of course I have no objection on procedural grounds as I am WP:INVOLVED. In retrospect, it would have been better to have requested Kudpung or Tedder to shut it down for the procedural issues (misplaced and CANVAS) I cited. Please be aware that when I return Tuesday, I will be seeking WP:BOOMERANG. This foolishness has gone on quite long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think the best solution is to relist the discussion at WT:MOS or WP:VPP. The discussion was taking place at WT:WPSCH/AG, but involved changes to MOS:POSTNOM. No matter what consensus emerged from the discussion, per WP:CONLIMITED, the editors at WP:WPSCHOOLS
cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)- There is no justification at MOS for confusing these with honorifics. It's the broad interpretation of the "etc." at Schools Project that introduces confusion and may seem to justify the removal of these religious pre- and post- nominals. Jzsj (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think the best solution is to relist the discussion at WT:MOS or WP:VPP. The discussion was taking place at WT:WPSCH/AG, but involved changes to MOS:POSTNOM. No matter what consensus emerged from the discussion, per WP:CONLIMITED, the editors at WP:WPSCHOOLS
- Thanks for moving this Swarm. I'm unable to respond in detail earlier than midday Tuesday (holiday weekend), but suffice it to say, I stand by my closing rationale. If an administrator wants to revert it, of course I have no objection on procedural grounds as I am WP:INVOLVED. In retrospect, it would have been better to have requested Kudpung or Tedder to shut it down for the procedural issues (misplaced and CANVAS) I cited. Please be aware that when I return Tuesday, I will be seeking WP:BOOMERANG. This foolishness has gone on quite long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no quibble with what is said at WT:MOS. I repeat here what I placed at User talk:John from Idegon#Challenge to your closure of discussion on religious pre- and post-nominals:
- I disagree with both of your reasons given for closure. As to 1), as stated in my comments in that discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Infobox contents has gone beyond anything mentioned at MOS. As to 2), I'll let an administrator decide whether placing a neutral alert at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism to widen the input is canvassing. Please reopen this discussion or I will challenge the closure. @John from Idegon: Jzsj (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- My contention is that the ambiguity of the Schools Project guideline on pre- and post-nominals ("CEO, Dr, BA, BSc, MA, PhD, etc.") allows editors to remove religious ones like "Fr.", "Sr.", Br.", "SJ", "SNDdeN", "OSB", though these are used in hundreds of school article infoboxes. An example of editors' removing these is at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Pre-nominal and post-nominal... a discussion which someone hid there, suggesting that it be brought up in a larger forum. Then when I brought it up at Schools Project Talk it was closed, for two reasons neither of which is valid. Please reopen the discussion there. This is about removing the ambiguity in the Schools Project Guideline which I am saying needs to be removed (the "etc."). Jzsj (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- And this is what all the editors working on NDCRHS have been dealing with for the last 6 weeks. I'm pretty tired of the Father's WP:ASPERSIONS being directed a Wikiproject that I happen to be a coordinator of (pretty much, as I'm sure you all know, a meaningless title). There are 5 editor's completely opposing him at that article and one mostly opposing him. Only 3 of those editors are members of WP:WPSCH. He's clearly made the Wikiproject the demon in this, and using that to justify his tendentious editing and discussion. I'm at a loss for how to process here. 3O is obviously not an option. I cannot see how mediation could be helpful. The only options left are a bit nuclear. I'll be back in a couple hours with diffs, and I'm asking minimally for a topic ban on the particular school article. I just am at a loss here. The last thing I want to be doing is dragging a priest into "Wikicourt", but more reasonable options are not presenting themselves.
- This is the link to the canvassing post I referenced in the disputed close (also note the one immediately above it). The Father has already linked the discussion at the article talk which generated his discussion at WT:WPSCH. Please note that no one even suggested they were opposing his position based on school article guidelines and indeed it was suggested, just as I suggested in my contested closing at WPSCH, that he take it up at MOS. A read of the talk page (if you can do so and keep your sanity) will clearly illustrate my, and all the other, editors there, cause of frustration with Jzsj. If y'all wanna take a crack at reading that mishmash good luck. I'll be bringing diffs showing clearly the OP's COI here. It's really questionable whether he can edit any article regarding Catholicism neutrally, and I'll have diffs for that too. Y'all gotta do something. Block him block me but I'm tired of spending an hour a day beating my head against the wall over an article about a tiny little school that is low importance to every project watching it and that averages less than 10 page views a month. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please note that there are seven simple proposals at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History on which a few have been constantly obstructing my efforts. Others have supported my efforts but have been shouted down. Please check my seven proposals recounted near the end of this History section, and my compromise proposal for some of these issues near the end. Also, please read my explanation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Pre-nominals and post-nominals in contrast to what John presents here. Jzsj (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was in charge of English at one time for a group of 47 Catholic high schools in an archdiocese and also lectured linguistics in a Major Seminary. Without any relevance to my own religeous leanings (if indeed I have any), I have the highest respect for the Society of Jesus and it puts me on the fence when having to discuss our guidelines with one of their members. I would appeal to Jzsj to understand the difference between being 'shouted down' and a community consensus in which he is misiterpreting - in good faith - the way we work on Wikipedia. And as John so often says, the project coordinators at WP:WPSCH are only janitors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't refer to myself as a priest and I don't see it as relevant to this discussion. Note that the whole discussion at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History became alarming to me when early in the first section religious pre- and post-nominals were referred to as "alphabet soup" and likened to "crap", though they are used in hundreds of school infoboxes. My use of "shout down" here is an accurate description of the difference between my keeping my cool through all this while some others have made all sorts of threats.
- If you are going to keep the "etc." at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#infobox contents, which goes beyond the Wikipedia official guidelines, then I suggest that you mention there that religious pre- and post-nominals are not honorifics. @Kudpung: Jzsj (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't refer to myself as a priest and I don't see it as relevant to this discussion. Note that the whole discussion at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History became alarming to me when early in the first section religious pre- and post-nominals were referred to as "alphabet soup" and likened to "crap", though they are used in hundreds of school infoboxes. My use of "shout down" here is an accurate description of the difference between my keeping my cool through all this while some others have made all sorts of threats.
We really need to get some guidelines clearly established in this area! When in an infobox I linked the "Fr." and "SJ" in Fr. Joseph Parkes, SJ, my links were removed, though I thought I was introducing an improvement − at here. The editor has no talk page so I could not ask about it. Can anyone explain? (The refs were the usual WP:CREDENTIAL & WP:POSTNOM which leave questions like ours unanswered.) Jzsj (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Does anyone object to opening a new RFC at WP:PROPS and continuing this discussion? I doubt there is a community consensus to change WP:POSTNOM, but, as jzsj points out, the current wording does not directly address religious orders. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- WT:MOS or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies would seem more appropriate. 32.218.46.19 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Since Jzsj’s proposal concerns non-biography articles, I feel WT:MOS is more appropriate than WT:MOSBIO. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- MOS:BIO states "While this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people." (emphasis mine) In any case, this is really a style issue; WT:MOS would be fine. 32.218.34.240 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Since Jzsj’s proposal concerns non-biography articles, I feel WT:MOS is more appropriate than WT:MOSBIO. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- WT:MOS or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies would seem more appropriate. 32.218.46.19 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to forgo any request of BOOMERANG here in favor of posting a full report and request for sanctions in a few days. I repeat, I have no objection to an administrator reopening the discussion on my procedural error of involved close. However, it appears to me that there is a fair consensus that at least part of my rationale, wrong place, was correct. I await my serving of trout. John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Jzsj: I think we have a consensus to reopen your RFC at WT:MOS. If you do reopen it, could you
- Read the 2008 discussion about a similar issue?
- Notify WT:WPSCHOOLS and Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School, as well as any other venues you previously notified. It would be best if you could list every notice you placed in a comment to the RFC.
- If the RFC is relisted, I agree with the above editors and support closing this thread. If John or Jzsj feel further administrator intervention is needed due to broader editor conduct issues, they can go to WP:AIN. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I remain convinced that we need to reopen that discussion, and if someone claims that the question I've raised is settled elsewhere, please let them quote the words that settle it and not just the name of a page. I've read the 2008 page and I suggest that the honorifics talk may be "similar" but came to no conclusion about the issue at hand. Note that being a "father" or member of a religious congregation (OSB, OFM, SND) places you in a position of obedience to a bishop or religious superior for life: mere honorifics don't do this. We can argue over whether "Rev." is an honorific like "His Excellency", but if we could just clear the "Fr.", "Sr.", "Bro." ones and the post-nominals for religious congregations it would handle the infobox question raised here. Jzsj (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:SNOW, I doubt any admin will reopen the original RFC since it was in the incorrect venue for such a change. This thread is reserved for meta discussion of the RFC close, not for rehashing the argument from the RFC.
- Many editors may disagree with your proposed style changes, but you are making reasonable arguments in good faith. Let’s open a new RFC at WT:MOS and have a full discussion about your proposal. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The placement at Schools Project was to get rid of the "etc." added there. If policy/guidelines were clarified elsewhere, would the Schools Project still have an "etc." that seems to override that policy/guideline? The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. Jzsj (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. No, that would be the job of reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school, not of tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- By "extent" I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation. I would also borrow here from one of the few "new eyes" that found our NDCRHS discussion, at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Postnominals: "My reading of MOS:POSTNUM is that in this case it clearly supports post-nominals in the infobox. It says "should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization. (a) This order of nuns is over 200 years old and has a presence in 20 countries on 5 continents. I think an argument can be made that this order is "widely recognizable." (b) Furthermore, this is a Roman Catholic order, and the Roman Catholic Church is widely recognized. According to MOS:LEADELEMENTS the infobox is an element of the lead. In conclusion, since either the order or the Catholic Church are widely recognizable, and since the infobox is part of the lead, the Sisters postnominals should be restored to the infobox." – Lionelt 22:21, 21 February 2018 @Lionelt: Jzsj (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation.
- In other (long, convoluted) words, exactly what I said: tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. This aint' L'Osservatore Romano, this is a general-purpose encyclopedia with a specific, very hard rule about sourcing. In this case (again), reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Most unrealistic! This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media. It also flies in the face of the usage on hundreds of article websites. It's this attempt to turn around common usage in Wikipedia, that shows the common understanding of guidelines, that has alarmed me from the start. Jzsj (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media.
- 1) "The media" -- whatever that is supposed to mean here -- is not the only reliable source acceptable on Wikipedia; far from it.
- 2) If it's not explicitly stated, then how important could it be?
- 3) Common use? Common understanding?
- a)[citation needed]
- b) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
- --Calton | Talk 00:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media.
- Most unrealistic! This is hardly ever explicitly stated, much less in the media. It also flies in the face of the usage on hundreds of article websites. It's this attempt to turn around common usage in Wikipedia, that shows the common understanding of guidelines, that has alarmed me from the start. Jzsj (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, and you may wish to look up "common sense", since you're not using the term correctly here. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- The current practice in hundreds of articles would seem to me to reflect "common sense". Jzsj (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Your (usual) evasive reply would seem to me to reflect WP:IDHT. Try reading all three lines of point number 3. And, again, THIS PLACE IS NOT FOR CONTENT DISPUTES, no matter what canvassing you do. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- The current practice in hundreds of articles would seem to me to reflect "common sense". Jzsj (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- By "extent" I don't mean here a full assessment of the extent, but the common sense understanding that when a bishop or religious superior places an administrator at a school it is to fulfill the vision of the diocese or the religious congregation. I would also borrow here from one of the few "new eyes" that found our NDCRHS discussion, at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Postnominals: "My reading of MOS:POSTNUM is that in this case it clearly supports post-nominals in the infobox. It says "should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization. (a) This order of nuns is over 200 years old and has a presence in 20 countries on 5 continents. I think an argument can be made that this order is "widely recognizable." (b) Furthermore, this is a Roman Catholic order, and the Roman Catholic Church is widely recognized. According to MOS:LEADELEMENTS the infobox is an element of the lead. In conclusion, since either the order or the Catholic Church are widely recognizable, and since the infobox is part of the lead, the Sisters postnominals should be restored to the infobox." – Lionelt 22:21, 21 February 2018 @Lionelt: Jzsj (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. No, that would be the job of reliable sources which explicitly discuss the extent of control that a specified diocese or religious congregation has over a specified school, not of tea-leaf-reading of arcane Roman Catholic jargon. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The placement at Schools Project was to get rid of the "etc." added there. If policy/guidelines were clarified elsewhere, would the Schools Project still have an "etc." that seems to override that policy/guideline? The importance of the guideline to schools is that the pre- and post-nominals in infoboxes succinctly indicate the extent of control that a diocese or religious congregation has over the school. Jzsj (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
So, someone served me up with trout, it sure doesn't look like anyone is going to do anything about re-opening the discussion in question so how about some admin type closing this down? Since someone doesn't understand that this isn't the place to discuss the subject of the discussion in question, nothing good is going to come from continuing this. John from Idegon (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
George Soros Discretionary Sanctions?
Hello Admins. Seems to me we could use DS templates for BLP and American Politics at the George Soros article. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism on biography
There is a malicious sockpuppet who keeps trying to add negative tabloid journalism onto Nam Joo-hyuk's page.
Here is the sockpuppet removing references and adding negative BLP material: [1] After it was blocked, it keeps on returning as IP address to vandalise the page: [2][3]. Looking at the page's history, there has been long-term vandalism of the page by the sockpuppet dating back to last year: [4] by various socks of the same user. Is there a way to protect the page from vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.203.211 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this, so I've forwarded it to the correct place to handle these requests - Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's been protected in such a way that for the next 3 months, the only users who can edit it are those whose accounts are over 30 days old and have over 500 edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Reminder: Help the Anti-Harassment Tools team pick 2 Blocking tools to build
Hello everybody! Reminder that the discussion to select the improvements to the blocking tools is going on. Over the past weeks the Community health initiative team took a look at at all 58 suggestions that came out of the discussion about making improvements to blocking tools. Now join the discussion to select 2 to build from the shortlist. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at User talk:Samee - Automated tool use
I started a section on Samee's talk page after watching them dump over 119k worth of "rescue" deal url code in the Trump article. I have to be honest, I'm not sure where policy is on his other edits. He uses this IAbot and AWB a lot, and a lot of the edits seem very minor indeed. I'm not sure we should be rescuing articles with no dead links, for instance. I'm not trying to get him in trouble, I just need other admin who are more familiar with our policies on automated editing to take a look, and if need be, give him some guidance. He acknowledges the edit was a mistake, but some oversight and maybe guidance might be needed. I've told him I'm going to post here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- While I agree a full page "rescue" on a page that large probably should be done sparingly. Creating the archives themselves has advantages as some page may never get archived unless you ask Wayback to do so, and may die to linkrot without ever being archived. A lot of the sources, especially with the major news sites are going to get archived on their own anyways, but some pages had their first archive created with that bot edit. The "rescue" that was done, basically was more a "preserve", which could have been done without any changes in Wikipedia. It isn't really necessary to actually add the archive into the article, but if the bot could be configured to just tell Wayback to archive the source, and not actually add it into the article, it would be ready for a real rescue when needed. Him running the bot and you reverting it did basically that, but a one step approach that doesn't disturb the page would be way more beneficial. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Someone else actually reverted him. My concern here is how policy falls on this. Where is the line in the sand? That's why I'm asking other admin with experience in enforcement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- WikiVirusC I’d be cautious next time while ‘rescuing’ the links and won’t add archive links to the articles for working links.
- Regarding AWB edits, though they are minor but these minor linguistic changes such as 1 2 3 4, 5, and 6 etc. are important for a professional encyclopaedia. I make these changes in a good faith particularly for readers. samee talk 01:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- And to be clear, I'm not trying to get any sanctions on you, I absolutely believe you are editing in good faith, it just seems some of these are borderline and I'm asking for guidance from my fellow admin, not sanctions. If they are out of policy, my goal would be to assist you, not punish you. The Trump article edit really caught my eye and I just need some guidance of my own here. This is why I went to WP:AN and not WP:ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I did not mean that way. In fact, I am thankful to you and Muboshgu for pointing towards the edit at Donald Trump. I didn't realise the size of the edit and the resultant load on the article [before Muboshgu's revert]. samee talk 02:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I remember that there was a discussion/concern on such mass archivals on some other page - I think MelanieN was involved she (?) might remember where it was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I did not mean that way. In fact, I am thankful to you and Muboshgu for pointing towards the edit at Donald Trump. I didn't realise the size of the edit and the resultant load on the article [before Muboshgu's revert]. samee talk 02:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- And to be clear, I'm not trying to get any sanctions on you, I absolutely believe you are editing in good faith, it just seems some of these are borderline and I'm asking for guidance from my fellow admin, not sanctions. If they are out of policy, my goal would be to assist you, not punish you. The Trump article edit really caught my eye and I just need some guidance of my own here. This is why I went to WP:AN and not WP:ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Someone else actually reverted him. My concern here is how policy falls on this. Where is the line in the sand? That's why I'm asking other admin with experience in enforcement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Samee: You need to make sure the "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" is unchecked when using the IABot Management Interface, especially for larger pages. Nihlus 09:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'll. Thanks! samee talk 13:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Yes, I raised this issue at the Village Pump last October. Personally I really dislike these archive-everything edits, which can increase the size of an article by 25% or more. I would prefer that people only archive the dead links, not the live ones. And that is the default action of the bot: to archive only the dead links. But not everyone agrees with me, and I haven't seen any consensus develop in the subsequent discussions of the same issue. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is a prime case of why it isn't a good idea to "rescue" things that don't need rescuing. Obviously I can't fault Samee, he didn't violate a policy, but his almost 120k addition to Trump is exactly why this is a bad idea, and if it is a bad idea for one article, it would seem a bad idea for all, as (as MelanieN notes) it adds 25% or more to the article size, making a lot of articles harder to access (and more expensive to access) on mobile devices. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Yes, I raised this issue at the Village Pump last October. Personally I really dislike these archive-everything edits, which can increase the size of an article by 25% or more. I would prefer that people only archive the dead links, not the live ones. And that is the default action of the bot: to archive only the dead links. But not everyone agrees with me, and I haven't seen any consensus develop in the subsequent discussions of the same issue. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'll. Thanks! samee talk 13:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Panel requested for a discussion closure
Discussion closed. Message me, Primefac, and/or TonyBallioni if anyone has any questions. SkyWarrior 19:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know I already posted this at WP:ANRFC, but I think posting it here as well would give it more eyes (plus this is more of a request to get volunteers together to help close than to actually close it right then and there).
Anyways, the discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown needs closing, and a panel of at least three uninvolved editors is recommended since the discussion is rather contentious. Initially, we had me, Winged Blades of Godric, Ammarpad, and Primefac; WBoG and Ammparad later recused and Primefac said he wouldn't be needed in the decision-making process (though that may've changed given WBoG's recent recusal).
Since I am the only one left and I absolutely cannot close the discussion alone, I am asking for at least two uninvolved volunteers, preferably admins, who are willing to help out. And sorry if this seems like canvassing; that was not my intention. SkyWarrior 15:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- If no one signs up, I can take a look. --Izno (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm experienced with closing RMs, and would be fine dealing with it. If it is to be a panel, I'd prefer another experienced RM closer as the process there is typically a lot more nuanced than in other discussion venues. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Fine, TonyBallioni, twist me feckin' arm... Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I hope others will notice anyway that I've raised this at the RM, but just to save time I'll also point out here that a close might currently be premature, and that a panel might be neither needed nor advisable. But we'll certainly need at least one uninvolved admin to close... again in my opinion. And many of the RM regulars (self included) are involved. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alternate Account
As I create an account named MustafaAliIsAPakistaniWrestler for the reason given at user page, simply I need to know that is it permissible to create alternate account? Second, I need to know about this alternative account I've created that:
- Does it resulting any violation of Username policy?
- Are these added tags and userboxes ok or I have to remove them?
- Will it result in losing any editing privileges?
Thank You. CK (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- WP:Sock puppetry (and WP:SOCKHELP to a lesser degree) have the how tos. You need to link them on each account page. Generally, it isn't a problem to have two accounts as long as you never edit at the same time on the same article using the two accounts. That makes it look like two people are doing so. The key is insuring you never use them to make it look like you are two different people. If you commented or voted at AFD using BOTH accounts, for instance, you would be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) To be honest, I really don't see how you would be using that alt. account. You mentioned that you want to stop edit wars at Pakistani-related BLP topics. Why couldn't you do that with your main account? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I really don't see anything in WP:VALIDALT that could be applied here. byteflush Talk 19:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed this makes no sense, and also you can’t use the name of a real, well-known person in your username, so I’ve blocked that account. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- After loking around a bit I feel compelled to formally ask @Broken nutshell: to voluntarily restrict themselves to one account as they do not seem to have a solid grasp of what is and is not a legitimate use of alternate accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
RE: @Beeblebrox: I agree with you that you have blocked my alternative account and I got it because of Naming violations. No matter about this. Pakistani related BLPs are especially for those articles that related to OVERSEAS PAKISTANI who were born to a Pakistani Family but outside Pakistan, recent edit warring was occured in mid February at Mustafa Ali (wrestler) that he is Indian, Declaring Pakistani person as Indian appears to be incorrect as I've warned 2 IP editors for this thing, You're right at your blocking reason, as I've already appealed protection raise for that Mustafa Ali article.
RE: @Byteflush: You say "Someone Correct Me", I can understand everyone's message as you don't needed to be worry about it I clearly got your message too. By the way, Thanks for helping, at least I got what is right or wrong here.
CK (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Broken nutshell: You don’t actually seem to have answered my question above, so I’m going to ask again: Will you agree to limit yourself to one account? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
RE: @Beeblebrox: Yes I agree and from now I've decided to keep myself in one account. CK (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Good. Thank You. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Block required
Please block Tran9644 (talk · contribs) and revert all edits immediately. They are a WP:DUCK sock of Jack Gaines (talk · contribs)/SuperPassword (talk · contribs), repeatedly changing song genres to "bro-country" and vandalizing articles related to Alan Jackson. I would also propose some kind of edit filter to stop their edits, because I had to deal with one of their socks just yesterday and don't wanna keep playing whack-a-mole every time they show up. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like they are blocked and none of their edits is the current revision. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Possible hateful/vitriolic content in userspace?
ResolvedSo I found this very old sandbox from 2013 that contains some very hateful content in it. Should it be nuked? The user is indef'd anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've just gone and blanked it. Leaving it to the admin corps to decide whether it is worth deleting. Or it could go to MFD. Blackmane (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- ...And I lost my innocence. If I were an admin, I'd delete it. But that's just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMitochondriaBoi (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's run of the mill idiocy. But it's also a copyvio so nuked. --NeilN talk to me 01:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Off wiki harassment
Tran9644 (talk · contribs)/EbenezerStooge1 (talk · contribs)/SuperPassword (talk · contribs)/Jack Gaines (talk · contribs). This user has repeatedly been blocked for creating a myriad of socks to vandalize Alan Jackson-related articles. Today, the user has been repeatedly harassing me on Twitter, admitting that they made up some of the stuff they added, but also insistent that some of their vandalism is "correct" (i.e., claiming that a 50-something country singer is covering Wiz Khalifa and Lil Wayne in concert). Said user has been spamming me on twitter with name-calling, memes, and general harassment (their Twitter is here). Their edits on Wikipedia are easily discernible by use of edit summaries such as "Look at the lyrics" and "#AlanJacksonKilledCountry", while also using as a "source" a setlist.fm page that was clearly vandalized by them.
Is there a way that this user can be formally banned, and have some of their "tricks" added to the edit filter? I've had to revert and report two of their socks in the past 24 hours, but the Twitter harassment is crossing the line. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- If you're being harassed, report the account to Twitter and have it disabled. Tamara787 (talk · contribs) certainly qualifies for a site ban, but it won't accomplish anything. There is no difference between an editor who is site banned and an editor that no admin will unblock. And no admin can unblock Tamara787 – the account is globally locked. It is literally impossible for an English Wikipedia administrator to unblock this sockmaster; only a steward can do that. As far as an edit filter, you should file a request at WP:EFR. Someone there will tell you if it's possible. If you spot new sock puppets, file a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamara787. I have that watchlisted and will take care of any sock puppets that are reported. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters is likely to completely remove any perceived need to request a cban of an editor who socks more than once after an indefinite block. (Probably irrelevant here due to the global locking anyway. Although in some cases it's up to us if we want allow an editor who was globally locked to have another account. A publicly compromised password is an obvious example of that.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Should any attempt be made to try and contact Alan Jackson's representatives? A lot of the content being spread by this sock is hateful and could be damaging in the wrong hands. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters is likely to completely remove any perceived need to request a cban of an editor who socks more than once after an indefinite block. (Probably irrelevant here due to the global locking anyway. Although in some cases it's up to us if we want allow an editor who was globally locked to have another account. A publicly compromised password is an obvious example of that.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- If you have a short list of articles, and this is an ongoing problem, putting EC30/500 protection on them may help as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal
My name is Roman Spinner. I am 69 years old and have been editing Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis for over 12 years (first edit: January 22, 2006). Here in Commons, is a photo of me. Two years ago, in February 2016, I was banned from editing disambiguation pages and talk pages of disambiguation pages for creating overlong disambiguation page entries. Along with my unbanning request is a quoted excerpt from the February 2016 ANI discussion:
"Are you going to stop editing dab pages in this way? Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course, I will stop. Judging by the comments, I am on the losing side of this argument. As I wrote near the end of my April 2014 lengthy reply to your posting, "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect. All my future entries will be pared to the bone -- vital dates/defining date, nationality and profession/function/venue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)"
As a closing note, I will add that the content of my above reply from February 2016 continues to be valid today. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I took the liberty to change the title, as this is an appeal for the topic ban. I've read through the previous AN/I discussion, and I am leaning toward support lifting the topic ban pending response from the main parties in the previous discussion: Jwy, Boleyn, Ubcule and Swpb (Midas02 is not active in the past two years). Alex Shih (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Roman Spinner: how would you disambiguate Abraham Lincoln if he appeared in a disambiguation page? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would follow an existing example at any US president dab page, such as Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) and copy the form already there: "Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) was the 16th President of the United States." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would be fine lifting the ban on a trial basis and seeing how Roman gets on. If he starts breaching WP:MOSDAB again the topic ban can always be reinstated, but I hope that's not the case as his intentions were good and he seems to have taken the criticism of his prolixity on board. Roman, the example at Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) is actually a really good one for you to refer back to if you're not sure how much to add. As is JFK (disambiguation). Fish+Karate 09:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I spent so many hours on correcting these and trying to communicate with Roman, I feel weary at the idea of the lifting of the ban. However, it has been a long time and if Roman is now genuinely willing to follow the guidelines, I see no reason not to give this otherwise productive editor the chance to do so. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting the topic ban. Given the level of willful disregard of dozens of warnings and the blatant disdain for consensus that led to this ban in the first place, and the various attempts to skirt the ban since it was imposed, I do not believe Roman Spinner has demonstrated an ability to be trusted even an inch when it comes to disambiguation pages. Before I'd consider letting RS edit dabs again, I would need to see from him:
- A frank assessment of the damage he caused, with no hedging whatsoever
- An explanation in his own words of why each of the MOS:DAB guidelines he flaunted exist
- An explanation of what consensus means on Wikipedia, and what led him to believe he could ignore it
- Until then, we have plenty of trustworthy editors who work on dabs without wasting dozens of hours of the community's time trying in vain to convince them to follow the rules. I have tremendous respect for Boleyn, but I don't share her generosity in this case – all sweet talking by RS aside, the risk of lifting this ban currently outweighs any potential benefit to be had. —swpbT go beyond 14:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- A thorough read of "skirt the ban" shows there was one attempt to "skirt the ban", and it was more of an error than anything else. And risk? What risk? There is no risk whatsoever in assuming good faith and giving someone a second chance. Fish+Karate 15:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- The risk that we'll all be right back here soon. I have better things to do than participate in a fourth or fifth ANI for the same user. —swpbT go beyond 16:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support per WP:LASTCHANCE - it's been two years, and while I appreciate the disruption caused in the past it was in good faith, and RS seems to recognize that his past disambiguation editing was against standards and against consensus. I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out. I also expect he knows that if he does not then a reinstatement of the topic ban will be swift and may draw additional sanctions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support per WP:ROPE. If the problems return, so too can the topic ban. --Jayron32 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support, with the understanding that @Roman Spinner: should expect their edits to be watched closely. As others note, future disregard for policies will likely result in a more permanent sanction of some sort. BUT, on the other hand, if they're willing to edit within the scope of policy, then they should be allowed to do so. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Qualified Support per above with the caveat that any uninvolved admin should have the discretion to reimpose the TBAN if it looks like a pattern of disruptive editing is returning. No need for another trip to the drama boards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose; My response on seeing this was the same weariness Boleyn notes. However, I disagree that the ban should be lifted; there's no clear sign that the underlying issues that led to the ban have changed. (Let me make clear that while the following comments may sound harsh, they relate specifically to Roman's dab edits, and not the rest of his contributions to WP, which I assume are largely positive and am not aware of a problem with):-
- The ban was not an abrupt response to recent behaviour- quite the opposite. Roman was first notified eight years- eight years!- before the ban and on numerous occasions following that that his edits were contrary to our agreed consensus on dab page style. He was clearly intelligent enough and capable of understanding MOSDAB (even if he disagreed with it personally) but continued to ignore it for years in favour of imposing his own style on dab pages. In other words, he had no problem happily disregarding consensus opinion- for years- as long as he wasn't being called out on it.
- @Ivanvector:- "I expect an editor of 12 years' tenure to be able to respect consensus from here on out". With respect, I entirely disagree- if someone has been on WP even half that long and still fails to respect consensus on a given topic (despite it having been brought to their attention repeatedly) until basically forced to, it's pretty damning.
- Roman's self-quote in green highlights his self-appointed martyrdom- "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" This despite the fact it had *already* been pointed out on numerous occasions that these edits were not what dab pages were for. It's all very passive-aggressive- you already *knew* that this wasn't the agreed function of dab pages. If you wasted your own time and effort- for whatever reason- it's because you *chose* to do so.
- Roman nominally acknowledges that the weight of opinion is against him. ("I am on the losing side of this argument. [..] Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect)"). This still smacks of martyrdom and passive-aggressiveness; he's acknowledges that he's on the losing side, but not *why* the majority disagree with him. He's entitled to think his version is "right", but given that this previously seemed to be the driving force behind the disregard of the agreed consensus that led to the ban- and given that there's no sign this attitude has changed- I'm not hopeful.
- The fundamental problem is that- like swpb- I see absolutely no indication that Roman has changed in his attitude towards dab pages- that they should be fact-filled mini-articles (contrary to their agreed purpose). The arguable flouting of that ban mentioned above just reinforces this suspicion more strongly.
- If the ban is lifted, I strongly suspect we'll see attempts to stay within the rules- but not the spirit of the rules- while pushing towards what Roman possibly still thinks in his heart a dab page should look like (i.e. not WP:MOSDAB!) I'd expect adherence to MOSDAB to loosen as time goes on, he's less "on parole" and his dab edits being are scrutinised less tightly. This will lead to further tedious discussion, excessively verbose rationalisations and we'll be back here again. Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support It has been long enough. And since the TBAN was not set to infinity, it was only enacted so as to help him to disengage for a while from that area and have reflection on the kind of edit he did in the past that led to the ban. We should now give him another chance. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support - "I am 69 years old" is enough for me to support this topic ban appeal, (Although age shouldn't be a factor I see it as "They're old enough and wise enough"), As noted above the TBAN wasn't set to indef and as they've obviously not edited disams since I think's fair they're given another chance, Everyone deserves a second chance so easy support. –Davey2010Talk 22:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Davey2010 above. Let's temper justice with mercy. Miniapolis 23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support I'm sure somebody could find something to complain about in this user's move log (and most of their contributions in the past month are move-related), but I don't see any reason to keep a prohibition on editing DABs. Separately, the "contribution" link in Roman Spinner's signature appears to be broken. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
That whole thing about edit summaries
So as some of us have discovered (unfortunately) WMF have raised the cap on edit summaries from 250 to 1000 characters. The reason doesn't matter much, I suppose (Something something something non-English wikis something something bollocks), but the issue is we end up with copy/paste edit summaries like Special:Diff/828335644. There's already a VPR thread here regarding the issue, but until that is resolved, I am wondering about what we should do about these incredibly unnecessarily long edit summaries.
Now for the record, I am perfectly fine with edit summaries like this, as it's a bit long but it also explains the edit. I'm thinking threads like the first example or this, wherein the editor is simply copy/pasting their entire message into the edit summary. They just clutter up the edit history and don't give a summary of the edit.
If the answer is "nothing" then that's fine, I'm just looking to start a discussion about the administrative side of things. Is it worth performing a revdel on an edit summary that does absolutely nothing more than quote the edit itself? I've had a half-dozen people on IRC complain to me that they consider it to be "disruptive" (which would fall somewhat under the RD3 umbrella but not really). Do we just suffer through and ask nicely for those people to stop copy/pasting their text into the edit summary? Primefac (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- And to reiterate/TLDR, I'm mostly wondering if this is an "ask people nicely to stop" situation or if we even can/should escalate to revdel should they continue with massively long/unnecessary edit summaries. Primefac (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I should also mention that both of the editors connected to the copy/paste edit summaries linked above know about the issue and have said they'll be making an effort to avoid it in the future. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This is purely disruptive in my book (for disclosure sake I was the one that started the VPP thread to get it removed). The edit summary box is for, well, a summary. It is not the place to copy and paste your entire edit. If I wanted to know your entire edit I would look at the diff. All the extended edit summaries are doing is destroying page histories and watchlists. "+" would be better than an entire copy/paste like that. I'm all for calling these purely disruptive and treating them like all other purely disruptive things. RD3'ing them. --Majora (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- People should stop pasting the contents of their changes into the edit summary field. It irks me out. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- WP:RevDel says "Revision deletion should only be used in accordance with the criteria for redaction." RD3 is defined as "allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links." Edit summaries that pertain to Wikipedia clearly do not qualify for this criteria. It's like deleting a page as CSD A7 because you know it'd never pass AfD. Let's not stretch deletion criteria because our actions cannot be reviewed by unprivileged users.--v/r - TP 02:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)