Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 42

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Malfunctioning GoblinBot...

I think I have already pointed it out on IRC, but some edits Goblinbot reverts are not clear cases of vandalism. Another such case occurred just now.

In the long run, I think the bot needs a few changes:

  • Get away from a strict "anonymous user posted article change containing one of a few words (eg. vagina)" more towards an approach based on "scores" (as in: such a user posting a comment has a score of 0.3, but 0.7 is needed for clear vandalism.
  • Do not use static word lists, but get these periodically from onwiki pages (fully protected).
  • Rely on editfilter tags?

Yes, whether the case abnove is vandalism can be debated, but a bot repalcement/improvement should be considered.--Eptalon (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longtime Sockpuppet

I just noticed that a well known and prolific sockpuppet from En Wikipedia has found his way here and created an account. USer:Willy On Extrasuperwheels seems to identify to User:Willie on Wheels, User:Willy on Wheels, User:Willie on wheels and a whole pile of others from English Wikipedia. Someone might need to do a checkuser and see how many others there are.Kumioko (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really him and also the account is globally locked. --Bsadowski1 21:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but that seems like a pretty huge coincidence. Thanks for looking though. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit on protected user subpage

User:Barliner/userboxes/german has a redlinked category, Category:Wikipedian userboxes. Would an admin please change this to Category:Interest userbox templates? I did not do this via {{editprotected}} because I didn't want to create a talk page just for that. The user has not been active in over a year. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Osiris (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI/Self-promotion

Hello, just looking for clarification if any further action is required. I noticed User:Susie figgis editing the article Susie Figgis. I have left a message for the user to read WP:COI#SP but is any other action needed? Kennedy (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User

User 46.60.252.85 has been vandalising frequently since 28 November. Looks like he needs a bit of attention. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP resolves to "Southwest Grid for Learning", so probably this is a school (or educational institution). IP Blocked for two weeks; account creation/TP editing left open.--Eptalon (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get the flood flag for a little while please

I am working on some AWB typo and formatting cleanup and I don't want to flood the New changes so could I get the flood flag for a little while? Kumioko (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

taxoboxes screwed up

Overnight, someone has screwed up the taxoboxes. Please revert back to former, and discuss proposed changes with me. I am way the biggest user of taxoboxes on this wiki... Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it, and made a note to the user. It looks like it was probably an accident, but one that can easily be avoided in the future. Osiris (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you use the templates a lot doesn't mean any changes need to go through you, Macdonald-ross. This is a wiki, everyone is entitled to edit as they see fit. I'm a little surprised at having to remind such a regular editor about WP:OWN... Kennedy (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually say they need to go through me. However, deliberate changes in established practice do need a new consensus, so in such cases everyone is not entitled to do what they like without consultation. As it turned out, this was not one of those cases. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion of pages by 71.64.104.219 (and local block)

Please mass delete all pages created by 71.64.104.219, and a local block would also be appropriate. I already got a steward to block it globally, but the block is short though.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The global block ends on 30 December. Blocks are meant to be preventative, so we will monitor the IP's edits after the block ends and will block if necessary. Chenzw  Talk  02:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Requesting action re 222.165.27.167, repeat vandalism of my talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Barras, along with a complimentary rangeblock. Chenzw  Talk  10:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection.

Hi folks. Would like to suggest the protection of both Daniel Tosh and Tosh.0. Both have been protected for fairly extended amounts of time in the passed, as they are both some of the most commonly vandalized pages on this wiki. The history of both of those pages paints a pretty clear message.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Chenzw. Osiris (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin.

Hi Folks. I've been fairly inactive for around a year. I let this go for a while, however eventually I asked for my tools to be removed. It's been a long story as some of you know, involving school, work, and the death of various family members. I'm slowly coming back to the wiki, and my plan was to edit for a month before holding an RFA to ask the community for my tools back, as it has been so long. However, after the few days I've been editing I've had to nominate a few pages for deletion, and even send a user to VIP. I never thought it would come to this, but I kinda feel like this wiki needs active admins. At one point we had way to many of them, now it appears we don't have enough. I thought about nominating another user for admin while I got myself re-integrated back into the community, however, I've decided it would just be best to ask for them back myself. So, +admin please? It really wasn't my plan to do this, but I feel simple needs the help. I think I'm still within the criteria to get them back, so thanks.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I didn't like what Gordon did to Bowyer, we're both Nascar addicts and I hope you'll succeed because we are few people not yet admins on top 50 on Simple http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSIMPLE.htm and you're more trustable than Kennedy and much more serious than me. I could of course propose myself but I think it's better when the nomination comes from an already-sysop-user. ONaNcle (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Bureaucrat note: You do not meet the criteria to be considered as an inactive administrator in 2012, and since your flags were removed per your own request, I don't see why you cannot get them back. Putting this on hold for now in case Barras knows something I don't know. By the way, @ONaNcle: I don't consider your comment to be particularly helpful. Gordonrox24 resigned from adminship due to personal matters, and what you said has little relation to what is going on here. Chenzw  Talk  08:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Welcome back. (now get back to work) Chenzw  Talk  10:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Looking at the autogenerated statistics for Simple English is quite interesting. What I see, and would like to address:

  • Out of the ten editors with the most mainspace edits (and supposedly activity), four do not have an admin status. In my opinion, they would be candidates for a nomination.
  • 62 editors (with at least 3162 edits) do/did 57% of the editing, 15 people (with at least 10.000 edits) account for 33%, and 4 people (with 31632 edits) do/did 16%. This includes bots.

Summing it up: we probably have 62 "active editors and bots", which account for almost 60% of the mainspace edits.--Eptalon (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some are heading towards major milestones: Sasso and Creol are neck-and-neck for 50,000 article-space edits, and Ep himself is verging on 3000 new pages. Tbennert with 2,251 new pages is also amazing. TDKR Chicago 101 is clearly newcomer of 2012, with 748 new articles in just over five months. These are awesome achievements. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3000 new pages and yet you still insist on having "I have not written many new pages" on your user page, Eptalon. ;) Osiris (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...most of which are two sentence stubs created after deleting some graffitti left here? - It really does not feel like it...--Eptalon (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it determine who a bot is? It seems to think User:GoblinBot4 is a normal contributor, not a bot. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is a bot flag, but I guess it does not take that into account; as to GoblinBot4, there had been issues, so its flag was taken away.--Eptalon (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its based on who has a bot flag and who doesn't. As Eptalon mentions GoblinBot4 had its bot flag removed so we could see its edits in RC. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. Cool tool, even if I'm not listed on it.  ;-) – Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting emptied cats

Today I emptied some cats, then QD'd them with the note, "This cat was emptied on 11 January 2013. You can wait 4 days to delete if you want." Is that acceptable? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is acceptable. But really when you empty a cat you should make a notification in some way. Situations where you want to delete a cat with a fair number of articles in it is supposed to actually go to RfD. So if you are taking a cat with a number of articles and then emptying it and then 4 days later QDing it. That really is skirting process. If it is a cat with 1 or 2 articles in it (ie below the generally accepted 3) then what you did is fine I would say. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they all had fewer than 3 articles. Would it help if I said something like, "This cat had only one entry, which was removed or recategorized on 11 January 2013. You can wait 4 days to delete if you want."?--Auntof6 (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would still put the tag on after 4 days but what you did hopefully would make an admin stop and wait, because an admin is technically supposed to check that when deleting cats. Because it gives people a chance to notice you tagged it. Creol for example in that Greenland issue was more upset I think that he didn't get a chance to react to your QD because it was done in less than a day. But this is just my opinion. Others may have another view. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

There have been no good IP edits on Electrical circuit since the beginning of December. Requesting semi-protection. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, it seems no different from thousands of other pages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not sure I understand, does that mean pages are not normally protected here? Or is this just seen as not a lot vandalism? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really a lot of vandalism - the article has only been vandalised 6 times since November 2012. Chenzw  Talk  09:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyfraw

I would like to unprotect this page per request. Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -Mh7kJ (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposal for Huik01

In December 2009, Huik01 was blocked. Since June 2010, it was discovered he had a large sockfarm and to this day has been creating sockpuppets. If you look at his category of socks, there are more than 40 (actually more like 60+) confirmed socks. I propose a community ban for Huik. --Bsadowski1 19:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He pretty much is defacto banned. But if you want something official then yup I support. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag

I'd like to request the flood flag as I plan to use AWB and don't want to flood the new changes log. MJ94 (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would the task be. Need to know what it is we are hiding because some tasks need to remain visible. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBot malfunctioning

An IP made a bot edit (cleaning the sandbox). In accordance with the bot policy (all bots must log in to edit), this IP may need to be blocked. J9 91 20:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that big a deal for the type of work it is doing. But I have blocked it for 24 hours so the op will notice and fix his login. -DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue as to why my bot is editing logged out... Anyways, the "Talk to the bot operator at User talk:Riley Huntley!" is there for you guys to use (I'm not saying it is your fault for not messaing me), I was away on a trip so I couldn't tell that it was having an issue. :/ - I just did a test run now and it is doing fine. I'll take a look over the code to see why, thanks! Riley Huntley (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but being that it was logged out. We couldn't be certain it was your bot. Not without doing a checkuser of course which wouldn't really have been appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Telling me still wouldn't have hurted ;) Riley Huntley (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oversighted the a private info here and replaced it with something neutral. -Barras talk 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for move over redirect

The new page Professor Albus Dumbledore should be at Albus Dumbledore, which currently redirects to Harry Potter#Main characters. Would an admin please move the new page over the redirect? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Osiris (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for import

Would someone please import en:Template:R from misspelling and its doc page? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chenzw  Talk  00:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to import template {{Infobox cricketer}} to get updates

The version we have of this template isn't accepting some fields like birth_date. Would someone please import the current version from enwiki?

By the way, is Import a right that non-admins can have? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can fix this up. The policy on giving the flag out is here. It looks like the same sort of procedure for the flood flag. Osiris (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting the import flag is the same as an RfA. So you would run for it for a week and people would support and oppose. It is a right that can be a bunch of trouble and make a pretty big mess so it is very rarely given out to non-admins. -DJSasso (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm though now that I read that page Osiris links to that page differs from how we have handled it in the past. I don't remember us coming up with those guidelines. But that is probably just me being old. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually just found the discussion to switch it from RfA to temporary and I have no idea how I missed that discussion. Very low participation. I would have completely opposed making it a temporary flag. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree. Given the requirements, there is no way I would ever even consider jumping through all the hoops to get the flag. It is completely impractical to ever get the flag. Most import jobs here are 1 (template)-2 (template and doc) pages at a time. To require an RfP, waiting, getting approved, getting a Crat to flag, moving the page over, flagging down another crat to pull the flag.. for one template, just to preserve its history for attrib purposes. Flagging down a Crat (twice), every time I needed to get a location template ported over? I'd just flag the nearest admin and make them do the import for me or more likely copy/paste and toss on an attrib notice. The policy certainly pushes users towards the copy/paste/attrib practice. Just hope they actually do attrib it. Heck, the only reason to actually get the flag is to be annoying to the crats and make them flick switches over and over again for you.--Creol(talk) 23:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree. I was looking to see if I could save the admins some work if I did importing myself when I need it (which isn't often). Thanks for all the replies! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind a change to make it permanent. As long as the user is well trusted and knows exactly what can go wrong with it. I've lost count of the number of page histories I've had to clean up. Osiris (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Barack Obama

I think it would be good if the article Barack Obama is protected. There are no constructive changes in the history since the expiration of the last protection. --Mark91it's my world 21:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have had 44 edits to the page since the beginning of the year. About 25% (12) of these come from one editor (96.247...) and are constructive. Restricting editing to the autoconfirmed users blocks this user (since they are not logged in). Roughly about 15 edits are reversions. These two categories account for 62% of all edits. According to traffic statistics, there were 4900 views in the last 60 days, or about 82 a day on average. Statistics aside, I don't think the page needs protection, atm. --Eptalon (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Import needed

en:Template:uw-coi for Clarkcj12 (requested on my talk page) --Creol(talk) 22:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imported, but needs more work to make the entire template completely applicable to our wiki. I will try to find some time to get that done. Chenzw  Talk  10:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I guess it also needs to be added to the list here also when will it get added to Twinkle? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our twinkle doesn't get touched a heck of a lot. Up until recently it was a use at your own risk script because it was imported wholesale without being modified to work on simple. But someone was recently working at doing that so it may end up there soon. Feel free to add it to the talk page warnings list though. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template import request

Resolved. Imported. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone import the template en:Template:Metroid series here? I'd like to add it to the Metroid articles, as we have a good amount of them here, and I think it would be useful for those articles. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Bullying

We have a long-standing problem culture of bullying that has been ignored for too long.

The culture of bullying harms the work of our project. DJSasso's behaviour is not limited to any one isolated incident, nor is it limited to me. The good work that DJSasso does is clear, but it does not excuse or resolve the problems caused by a bystanders in a culture of bullying.

DJSasso used the word "disruptive" and the phrase "bad faith" here. These are loaded words. With bitter regret, I have learned the hard way that this is only the first threat, the first step in a process of SHOUTING.

This is something that only administrators the entire community can handle. I cannot -- see here

A COMPLAINT: The diffs of DJSasso do often -- too often -- eclipse all others. Again and again, the single and cumulative diffs overwhelm meaningful discussion.
B COMPLAINT: At Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs in 2013, the disruptive diffs of DJSasso make the process of consensus-building impossible. In part, DJSasso's tactics are deconstructed at en:Wikipedia:Escalating alphabeticals.
The marginalizing or undermining tactics of DJSasso are both familiar and predictable. For example, at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs,
C COMPLAINT: At Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs in 2013, the culture of bullying is an unavoidable topic. This pattern mirrors what happened in response to Racepacket's diff at Wikipedia:Big Weekend#Evaluation Questions in early February 2012.
#1: A very basic and non-controversial question was asked here:
... "What worked? Why?" I would be very interested in hearing answers from other participants. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
#2: An attempt to highlight consensus-building in 2012 was mis-labelled as an attack here.
Half empty or half full?
Is the glass half empty or half full?
Racepacket's words here deserve emphasis and repetition,
[Other things] "...should take a back seat to the important idea of working together."
In contrast, DJSasso's reasoning here creates a red herring with a false analogy.

What have we learned from CCW and BAW?

IMO, DJSasso posits assumptions and questions which are unhelpful. In other words, our guesses about "What worked?" and "Why?" have nothing to do with Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded

Yes, we need to be aware of what's missing from Wikipedia. However, this focus or point-of-view is not helpful when it is used to squash the slow growth of teamwork. DJSasso seems to see the glass as "half empty" ....

IMO, the "Big Weekends" were successful in part because they encouraged us all to see the glass as "half full". --Horeki (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

....

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This has become another example of Talking past each other.

My words were not provocative. My tone was mild. The timeliness and significance of these questions are not diminished by anyone's spin. For me, any further investment in this thread is not worthwhile. --Horeki (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone was attacking. -DJSasso (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The response to a glass-half-empty-or-a-glass-half-full shows that a culture of bullying was well established in early 2012.

A year of patient investigation and thoughtful reflection makes up the foundation of this mildly written complaint. The too-often repeated pattern is beginning to speak for itself.

It is timely and necessary to repeat Osiris' words as if they were my own: DJSasso should not be belittling anyone's contributions to the project.

DJSasso's likely escalation is also consistent with a long-standing pattern -- predicable and unsurprising.

I am intimidated, and I don't think I'm the only one. But I am not yet overwhelmed. It is now the job of administrators the community as a group to help me if they can. --Ansei (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ansei, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean their edits are disruptive. Consensus is derived from people disagreeing with each other and both sides coming together. You constantly assume bad faith of every comment I make because you disagree with it. Disagreement is allowed. The statements I make are for the betterment of the wiki because I have a vested interest in the wiki being the best it can be. Secondly your link about my comment about you throwing in non-simple phrases. This isn't just my opinion, you have been warned about that by a number of people. You were even banned for a year on en because of doing it. If using such archane, obscure and disruptive language is bad on en, it is doubly so here where we have to be simple even in the language we use on a talk page. Your constant personal attacks on me are getting very very tiresome. You want people to treat you well all the while you personally attack me in just about every discussion we are involved in. You tell me that I shouldn't belittle anyone's contributions but you consistently belittle mine. If it is respect you are looking for, its a two way street. You have to give to get. -DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy for everyone to respect the statistical proof of long-term contributions to the growth of our project here. I join others in respecting examples of good work and cooperation as are shown here. However,
No -- bullying distorts and eclipses consensus-building, which is the central issue in this complaint.

The words above are struck-out because of DJSasso's diff here. The harm to our project is highlighted anew in a context which does not involve me.

  • Gotanda briefly draws attention to problematic words here:

    "... this statement, 'Eptalon why do you insist on wasting so much time on this topic, you bring it up over and over.' is where the discussion first turned from a proposal to do something for the wiki to a personal discussion about intentions and questioning motives ...." Gotanda 22:49, 11 January 2013

  • DJSasso rejects Gotanda's constructive effort here:

    "... I am sorry if you don't like the comment above but Eptalon has quite literally brought up this topic every couple months for the last couple of years. It is tedious to have to discuss it over and over ad nauseum and smacks of trying to wear out the opposes." -DJSasso 00:31, 12 January 2013

Again and again, consensus-building is the underlying issue when DJSasso points fingers at the good judgment of others for example
A. DJSasso points a finger at Eptalon here over the last couple of years
B. DJSasso pointed a finger at me here almost a year ago.
C. ...?
In his own words, DJSasso's point-of-view is explained here a little over six months ago. --Ansei (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is best?
What can be done?

As a first step, this problem needs to be recognized.

Wikipedia's administrative tools are often likened to a janitor's mop, but this problem is not something that can be cleaned up in an ordinary way. Isn't this a bit outside what janitors are expected to do? Can you imagine a janitor (a) explaining what he sees as the problem; and (b) explaining why he can't clean it up or fix it?

If we use DJSasso's own words as a baseline here, this is a problem that has recurred more than a dozen times in the past two years. My complaint focuses on what DJSasso has done wrong; but isn't it also implied that the community was wrong to let this go on unchecked with such frequency across a span of so many months.

DJSasso unintentionally explains that Eptalon's long-term strategy is an example of something done right. In this context of blocked consensus-building, my diffs may have provided the missing catalyst at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs. My plan was made explicit here. --Ansei (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Side notes:
  1. The links to Simple Talk are incorrect.
  2. "At Wikipedia:Simple talk#Minimal city stubs, NPOV is not reasonable, not helpful" - :
“ NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. ”

—

It is neither unreasonable or unhelpful - it is mandatory. --Creol(talk) 19:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Creol -- Please take a look at the article about Ignoratio elenchi. It explains that "ignoratio elenchi is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue ...." --Ansei (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of your argument is that NPOV is not helpful and not reasonable. When this blatantly incorrect fact is brought up, you call that inconsequential. Hence, NPOV does not matter to you at all? A core philosophy of everything we do here is inconsequential? This is a violation of everything all sections of the Wikipedia Foundation stands behind. You point fingers and take shots at DJsasso again and again (and again and again.. it never ends) because he does not agree with you and is willing to defend his position on subjects while spouting that something as important as NPOV doesn't matter. I find this whole thing amazing. Extra point: for future notice, I will no long leave the wiki to get a translation for anything you state. If you cannot say it is plain English, I will no longer be considered what you say worth noting. You were banned from the English Wikipedia in part for this and warned time and again for it here, I will not allow you to waste my time by forcing me to read a dozen pages just to understand a minor point you are trying to make. --Creol(talk) 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Creol -- On one hand, I can only repeat the words of Eptalon here as if they were my own: "ignoratio elenchi is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue ...." On the other hand, my response to your heated words is to repeat that bullying distorts and eclipses consensus-building, which is the central issue in this complaint. --Ansei (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand the issue that was being talked about. Because what I talked about (NPOV) was the issue. It was one of the main reasons why we should not be doing what we was being suggested. It did address the topic, when you are proposing an action be taken you are supposed to look at both sides of the issue, good and bad, to decide if it is an action worth taking. As for his "heated words" you are the one doing the bullying. Since you are a fan of quotes "You point fingers and take shots at DJsasso again and again (and again and again.. it never ends) because he does not agree with you and is willing to defend his position ..." This is almost the textbook definition of bullying. I can't make a comment in a discussion without you taking a pot shot at me, which in effect causes me to stop participating in the discussion because you have derailed it. You've been asked time and again to speak in plain English by a large percentage of this wiki. Please start using your own words and using Simple English. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Ansei, DJSasso, Creol. The situation is currently being reviewed. Findings will be published in due time. Until then, please try to refrain from arguing. Regards, Yottie =talk= 19:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:TSE 1999 08 11.gif
The effects of an eclipse are many
The central issue of this complaint is doing something about distorted and eclipsed consensus-building.
Yes, Yottie -- I think I understand your point, but one word is wrong. The participle "arguing" sets up a chain of reasoning which leads us astray. Your use of this one word sets up the three-way structure of moral equivalence.

Like you, Osiris was also right -- and wrong -- in making a similar assessment: "This discussion has now degenerated into two editors having a go at each other ...." This is not easy to parse, but please think carefully

(a) this is not about a mere squabble, not about one dispute -- not about me; and
(b) the problem of DJSasso's bullying remains a difficult Gordian knot even if all my words are struck out.
Can you see that Osiris made things worse because of the unintended consequences. This plausible re-framing distracts our attention from an underlying, long-term process which, according to DJSasso's own words, has affected consensus-building for years. Please give some thought to the man who says to a battered woman, "You made me hit you."

Perhaps it will help to re-visit what you know already about eclipses. The word comes from the ancient Greek noun ἔκλειψις (ékleipsis) and the verb ἐκλείπω (ekleípō) which means "to cease (stop) to exist (be there)". An eclipse is a process that develops slowly across time. It is also a process that resolves itself slowly. --Ansei (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, the situation is currently under examination. We will let you know the findings in due time. For the mean time, I advise you to be careful with what you say as it may be held against you. I am not suggesting you do not comment on this thread, but when I said arguing, I used it meaning having a go at each other. It is not constructive, and can be held against ether of you found doing it. Regards, Yottie =talk= 14:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be assured that a response to this will be prepared. And might I remind you that your actions border on wikilawyering. We are not formally trained in logic, and neither are we prepared to engage in a long discussion about semantics. Chenzw  Talk  15:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing step away from this. If I change my name and start over, then I take myself out of this arguing context. A review of my change histories shows that my main interest is in articles, not arguing.

Username Changes Articles created Total changes Summary
Tenmei Tenmei changes 557 4,998 79.36% articles
Horeki Horeki changes 3,334 18,031 76.50% articles
Ansei Ansei changes 1,062 3,677 81.68% articles
Enkyō?

I see that the username User:Enkyo (SUL) has been inactive since 2009. Maybe it's a good idea to take over this old name?

As I pull back, I hope this helps to sharpen the focus on what remains. --Ansei (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your change of username is irrelevant. As long as the person behind these usernames remains the same, and as long as interaction between this person and Djsasso continues, regardless of intentions, I can only repeat the words of yours here as if they were my own - this "long-standing problem that has been ignored for too long" will remain. I would like to note further that it is in the interests of the administrators of this wiki to ensure long-term project stability. The statements provided by Yottie and me still apply. Chenzw  Talk  16:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Osiris -- Can't you see that long-term project stability is harmed when you re-frame my questions about a culture of bullying into "two editors having a go at each other ....". Please take a look at :en:Wikipedia:Bullying#Of typical bystanders. --Ansei (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Yottie -- Don't you recognize that long-term project stability is harmed when you re-frame my questions about a culture of bullying as if it were only about arguing. Please take a look at :en:Wikipedia:Bullying#Of typical bystanders. --Ansei (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw -- Aren't you sensitive to the fact that a culture of bullying is harmful to long-term project stability. Please take a look at :en:Wikipedia:Bullying#Of typical bystanders. --Ansei (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I gave any indication that I am not, and I also don't think that any administrator here has mentioned anything that indicates their non-commitment to long-term project stability. It is also important to note that there are many things on Wikipedia which compromise project stability, and bullying is only one of those things. I hope you understand where I am coming from when I denied your rename request. To allow it is akin to choosing to "move on" and ignore the greater issue at hand. I can only reiterate that this is being noted, and I should remind you that your continued editing of your case in this thread is slightly inconvenient to the administrators because we have to take note of the new diffs and what you have struck-off. We take it that all material which you strike off is material which you no longer stand by. Chenzw  Talk  14:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw -- Yes, thank you. I regret causing inconvenience. We are all doing the best we can with a very difficult subject. My fine-focus changes are an effort to move this thread forward in a timely, meaningful, and forward-looking manner. --Ansei (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ansei, I believe I understand your problem and I am not 're-fram[ing] [your] questions' - What I pointed out as arguing, is a clear case of arguing, and is not related to the culture of bullying you mentioned. As stated before, the case is being looked upon, but many factors make this longer: time, number of people helping, looking at diffs, checking you haven't decided to strike out diffs, changing your comments, to only state a few... An answer will be issued, but only when we are happy the evidence has been looked at properly. In the meantime I would suggest you avoid talk pages/AN/ST or any other place where conflict is possible, and continue your good article work (by this, I don't mean you shouln't post there, but simply avoid common threads with DJSasso). Until a solution is found, this is the best way of avoiding further conflict. Yottie =talk= 15:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

@Yottie -- Thank you. Yes, if I understand you correctly, you want me to remember that "it is better not to reach than to go too far." --Ansei (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Hello all, I have had other people look at the logs, as well as this thread. The idea behind doing so was the following: If any of the claims could be substantiated, we would need to open a case at ArbCom. Arbcom cases take a long time, and the result on a small community such as ours would probably to split the community into two camps, those that support the ruling, and the others that do not. I have done decision theory; the economic/mathematic model of how people take decisions. The person I asked did not find amy obvious case of bullying. To me this means, that if we take this to ArbCom, the likely outcome will be the same, except that reaching the decision takes a long time. To those involved: If you don't get along with one another, try avoiding direct interactions, not biting, and focusing on the subject, not on who talks about it. Note that this is not an interaction ban; hopefully we are all adults, and to me, the situation looks like it does not need an ineraction ban. As for myself, I value all the editors involved; Ansei, you are more or less the only one writing about Japan-themed subjects. DJSasso, at around 50.0000 edits you are a welcome editor; I would also miss your work as an administrator and bureaucrat. If any of you insists, we can go the extra mile and make an Arbcom case; in my opinion, the outcome will be similar to what we have now, so other than consuming time, we probably will not gain much.--Eptalon (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I would note Eptalon, that we can't go the Arbcom route. The English Arbcom has no jurisdiction here and we at Simple have voted against having an Arbcom. Our highest authority is this page or rather any community consensus found here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Eptalon -- the curious proposal that I avoid disagreement with DJSasso is not realistic nor practical -- see here. --Jinki (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Eptalon -- The relationship between power and resistance is complex.
resist = (a) to attempt to counter the actions or effects of; (b) to withstand the actions of; and (c) to oppose.
Stepping back, is it possible that you may not have considered our small problem in more general terms?

I wonder if your perspective might be described in ways that are not uncommon in Japan? For example, the Japanese government creates and promotes "bureaucratic 'solutions'" as you have done. The bureaucratic strategy tries to channel, confine and re-frame any problem into forms which are more easy to control. Sometimes the goal is less to solve a problem than to make it look as if the problem is being addressed.

Is it appropriate to ask if you have a top-down perspective? Is it reasonable to wonder if your point-of-view more or less assumes that organized structures create categories and boundaries for discussing any subject including this one? --Jinki (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy, or any other political system, for that matter. Wikipedia is also not meant to be a bureaucracy, and might you be able to tell me what "organized structures" you think eptalon is trying to implement here? Chenzw  Talk  16:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth I generally try to avoid him but as you can see by the link Jinki has posted. He tends to attack me in every thread I am involved in instead of attacking what I am saying so it does become somewhat difficult to avoid. -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attack? No. I must disagree that that was anything remotely close to an attack. Kennedy (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to read the definition of a personal attack. When you attack the person and not the statements of the person that is considered an attack. Instead of debating my opinion on the matter he attacks my motives. That is the very definition of a personal attack. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this Q.E.D.? Is this not another small example of the way a comment about questionable judgment is re-labeled, re-packaged, re-focused and rejected so that "the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voice"? The linked words are cited at :en:Criticism of Wikipedia.

Is this a brief and incomplete part of a pattern which distorts and eclipses our consensus-building? Is it not an issue of questionable judgment -- like Hans Christian Anderson's story about "The Emperor's New Clothes"? --Jinki (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I would suggest is to create a page on Wikipedia:Bullying similar to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks page, and end it with a similar set of escalating warnings, starting with 1. Your change may not seem to many as bullying but it could have a bad result. 2. Your changes have been seen as having a bullying chill. 3. Bullying is really bad and is not acceptable. 4. This is your last warning, and any more of this bullying will result in a time out of up to a month. The English Wikipedia, page, en:WP:WikiBullying can be used for some assistance. It is very timely that this topic is brought up because cyberbullying has been in the news a lot lately. Apteva (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article in category space

Would an admin please either delete Category:Atomic physics per the QD request, or move it to article space? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)  Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy regarding moving the speedy deletion part to another page. Comments requested. --Rschen7754 06:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While at first separating quick dleetion and regulardeletion policies maylook tempting, there is a strong argument of keeping them together: There are many cases which cannot be clearly attributed to one or the other; in such cases, the usual way to handle it is going for "regular" deletion. In my experience, quick deletion applies to a few very clear-cut cases (examples: obvious nonsense, obvious vandalism, obviously promotional material, andobvuisly insulting/degrading material which may need oversighting as well). In all the case where the situation is not obvuius or contested going for regular deletion is usually a safer bet. In my opinion, this speaks against separating the two policies. - A policy is something local editors agree on, they are not unchangable, but adapt to the needs of the local community. Wikidata may be nice for things like interwiki links, but as to policies, this still needs proving. If all needed is that a page exist at the given location, we can alsocreate a redirect toour current page. --Eptalon (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eptalon, I wish it worked in that way. However, right now, redirects cannot be put into Wikidata (which I do not think is right, and am discussing on Wikidata to change). Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_42&oldid=4335202"