Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

• Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/straw poll 2008-10-18
• User_talk:ChyranandChloe#Closure

I'd like to request a neutral, third party to close this.

Besides the fact that the current person attempting to close this commented in the discussion, they are, for some reason, suggesting that the comments presented which aren't in "straw poll format" should be discounted (and don't even note the opposes). I think that this directly flies in the face of consensus. - jc37 03:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain neutral in your requests. Under the discussion which established the straw poll per Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Request for Comment; and which was later extended perWikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Instead of tossing out ideas.... The RFC only counts only supportive votes per discussion (link above): the opposes don't even make sense to be counted as a quantitative value, and for the rationale is that because these proposals are currently so dynamic in nature (several of them changed during the RFC) that many of the reasons for opposition can easily be corrected in the next phase of the proposal process. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I welcome clarification, that currently doesn't make sense, since the point/intent of the RfC was to eliminate all but 5 proposals in a sort of sudden death match. So attempting to determine consensus on each proposal (and the parts thereof) would quite seem appropriate.

(And incidentally, the AN is a place for expressing opinion, which I what I did, after noting my request.) - jc37 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm centralizing discussion at User talk:ChyranandChloe#Closure. There's more discussion to add context to this situation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that another "involved" editor has reclosed the page. (The "more discussion" noted above is a comment by that editor.) - jc37 04:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really would like to see other eyes on this. - jc37 04:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And note that other editor is one of the proposed "final 5". And that editor has been changing the various proposal pages to reflect this closure. So while Wikipedia:There is no deadline, it's starting to look like a "fait accompli" to me.

And since this involves deciding on the format of the Main Page, I would think that actual consensus would be appropriate. - jc37 05:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not Canvass. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to read over WP:CANVAS. And also note that this is the admins' noticeboard, not a user's talk page. Noting my concerns is quite appropriate here. - jc37 05:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ChyranandChloe linked above pretty much sums up the situation. The page stated from the beginning that participants should review the designs and place up to five supports. There were support, oppose and comments sections for each proposal. The set end time was for 12am on this day UTC. Jc opted not to participate in the given format, to instead place his broad comments in the "General comments" section at the bottom of the page. He was told that the "top five proposals from this stage will be combined and worked on, so it would be in your interests to Support the proposals with features you mentioned." Jc then stated that he would "allow whomever closes this to please take [his] comments here into consideration concerning the above." It is an unrealistic expectation that his comments be compared to all of the open designs to determine which five to place his support under. He should, as everyone else did, have placed his support under the designs he most liked. Regardless, as was noted in that section multiple times, these five designs will be the foundation for the final design (or two) that will go up against the main page in the final community poll. All comments from this poll he disputes will be taken into consideration in the final design. However, for the matter of determining the final five, it was clearly stated from the start that it would be the five with the greatest support. He did not dispute this until after it was over. لennavecia 06:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Due to what I deem to be repeated statements and direct accusations of bad faith by User:Jennavecia (see the talk page discussion), I am choosing to avoid interaction with the user unless required for clarification. Good faith discussion with User:ChyranandChloe is ongoing.

And I still strongly request that a third party be the one to close the page, and not any of us who have commented on the page. - jc37 06:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am declaring a freeze on discussion between myself, Jennavencia, and jc37 — until two neutral party users can improve the situation. We are beginning to recirculate our own reasoning. And if we cannot recognize each other's logic, then therefore the discussion will only transgress into a mess of quotations. In a way, this is for the benefit of the neutral user, which has to read two and a half pages of direct discussion, and several others for reference.

*for the sake of comic relief* Don't forget to remain neutral when you canvass. I won't be able to, because I live in the wrong time zone — see you tomorrow. Links are as stated above, discussion is centralized on User talk:ChyranandChloe#Closure. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize, Jennavecia, that your argument basically boils down to "it was clearly stated from the beginning that we intended to violate Wikipedia's core principles"? Conducting a plurality vote and deeming its purely numerical outcome "consensus" (while ignoring constructive comments) is unacceptable. —David Levy 07:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say we were ignoring constructive comments? لennavecia 13:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You factored them into the "consensus"? You didn't merely tally the votes? —David Levy 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and others already stated that it is practically impossible to do that. The comments were too broad, too vague to attempt to figure out which five designs to apply them to. If he wanted them to be in support of specific designs, he should have placed his support under those designs. His comments, and all others in that section, will be taken into consideration during the current phase of design. And as someone else pointed out on CandC's talk page, even had we attempted to figure out which designs to place his support under, the final outcome would not have changed. لennavecia 02:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that the poll's responses were incorrectly assessed. I'm saying that the entire poll (and the objective on which it was based) was improper. Please see my other replies below. —David Levy 03:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, feel free (David or anyone) to attempt to go through the comments and accurately and fairly apply them to five designs. I don't think it's possible. All the comments will be taken into consideration during the next phase of design. But there is, as far as I can tell, literally no way to figure out which five designs any of the commenters in the general section would want their support applied to, or that any of them, other than Jc, even expected their comments to later be applied to any designs for the purpose of which ones would go on to the next phase. لennavecia 16:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you asked people to vote for designs in their entirely (with the objective of eliminating designs in their entirety). I stated this before the poll began. —David Levy 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, what possible constructive outcome are you trying to achieve by arguing against the principle of an RfC that has already been planned, held, and closed? I'm sorry to hear your concerns but it's far too late to argue against the methodology. Your point that votes "violate Wikipedia's core principles" cannot apply to this situation: a "purely numerical outcome"is perfectly applicable to a purely numerical decision - 25 proposals to 5. It's appropriate here. As User:Jennavecia noted re User:jc37's comments, it would be unfeasible and subjective to apply generic remarks to all the proposals. Pretzels^Talk! 16:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't believe that this poll can lead to any constructive outcome, and I stated that before it began (so I don't know why you're acting as though I waited until now to weigh in).

Yes, counting votes to arrive at "a purely numerical outcome" is a means of making "a purely numerical decision." Among other things, I'm criticising the strategy of seeking a "a purely numerical decision" in the first place. —David Levy 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The poll is over. Your discussion was voiced before the watchlist-notification, and you have made no attempt in the main discussion. Furthermore, the consensus wasn't in the numerical outcome, the consensus was in what we were to do with the numerical outcome. The rationale, as you have probably heard, is that since so much decision rests upon personal preference it has proven impractical to discuss over twenty proposals. Therefore we decided to measure this aspect though a RFC/Straw Poll with supportive voting. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The poll is over.

Indeed, it is. What's your point?

Your discussion was voiced before the watchlist-notification, and you have made no attempt in the main discussion.

What main discussion?

Furthermore, the consensus wasn't in the numerical outcome, the consensus was in what we were to do with the numerical outcome.

On the project's talk page, Jennavecia referred to the numerical vote count as "consensus." But I'm not interested in debating semantics.

The rationale, as you have probably heard, is that since so much decision rests upon personal preference it has proven impractical to discuss over twenty proposals.

And this is one of many reasons why a "competition" was a very bad idea (as several of us warned at the very beginning, citing lessons learned during the last main page redesign). I believe that you and I are in agreement there, but we disagree on how to resolve the issue.

Assuming that it's possible to salvage this debacle (of which I'm far from certain), my opinion is that the best solution would have been to initiate a discussion in which the designs' individual elements were evaluated, leading to the creation of one consensus-based candidate. It even would have been okay to collaboratively remove some of the designs from display ahead of time, provided that all of the key elements were represented.

Instead, the "competition" continued; people were asked to vote for an arbitrary number of designs in their entirety (with the goal of eliminating an arbitrary number of designs in their entirety). So if someone loved one element of a design but hated another, too bad. He/she had to vote for all or nothing as a package deal. Such methodology is highly flawed, as is the idea of counting people's votes (instead of analyzing the reasons behind them).

Therefore we decided to measure this aspect though a RFC/Straw Poll with supportive voting.

A request for comment's outcome cannot be purely numerical, and a straw poll's outcome cannot be binding. I realize that this poll was conducted with the best of intentions, but it was procedurally improper and largely unhelpful. —David Levy 02:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David Levy. (Though, in the interests of transparency - which has been lacking throughout this process - I not happy with the winning designs, in my own, subjective opinion.) I think this poll has focused too much on campaigning and self-promotion than it has on seeing eye to eye and discussing various aspects of design on their merits. I would have set this up as different sections dedicated to different issues, listing pros and cons of each, and inviting the community at large to opine (and add more pros, cons, and topics). I would have held a moratorium on actual page design until we knew what we wanted, what we didn't want, and what we knew we were unsure of. Instead, some users barged into the process with a pitiful amount of pre-planning and a minimum of openness. (It's possible that they announced the redesign in July, when I was on WikiBreak, but transparency should be continuous.) Some users - names should be obvious from comments above - have tried to retroactively justify this mess, which is both un-wiki-spirited and has resulted in unfairly chosen designs and strong community disapproval. (Transparency does three things: 1, it ensures equality and fairness, the wiki-way; 2, it brings in new ideas, and it's easier to discard bad ideas than create good ones; and 3, the more people involved, the more votes the new design will get in the inevitable faceoff with the current MP.) I think the designs need to be scrapped, or at least put on hold, until such time that we can discusses and form a consensus on what needs to be done before we do it; attributes of the page rather than entire designs.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried to be as transparent as possible, but at every turn, in attempting to draw attention, we're told no. The process, which we realized long ago is jacked, has been criticized, but no real guidance of where to take it, and now it's a little late. When I submitted my design, I was not aware of how the whole thing started or where it was going, though I was surprised to see it moving so slow and with so little community input. As far as the idea of deciding what the best features are from each and then working on one design collaboratively to put up against the main page, that's exactly what we're doing now.

So basically, what it boils down to, is a whole lot of IDONTLIKEIT shooting us down at every turn in an attempt to get more comments from the wider community. Repeated notices at the CP apparently went unnoticed. A watchlist notification was shot down by David. Neutral talk page messages were called canvassing and MZMcBride threatened to block. It's dozens of designers trying to get the process to move, but it's just halted. That's how it's been for weeks. And now this big stink is taking place because jc didn't feel like putting his support where he wanted it.

The poll was a vote on potential. Which design has the overall layout you like? Comments on features, like portal lists, icons, introductions, duel featured articles, etc, which can be added and removed from any design, will be used to determine the final design features. So this poll was a matter of determining which designs showed the most potential and had the most popular overall look. And from there, we work with those five most popular designs and take all comments into consideration to determine what are the most popular features to work into one or two designs, as a group, to take to the final community discussion against the main page. The poll told us which were the most popular layouts and gave a great deal of comments on what people like and don't like. If you look at the comments, there are supports that say "I like this, but I don't like that, and this other things would look better if it was this way." And opposes that say "I like the thing there, but I don't like this thing over there, or that thing at the bottom." Valuable input that will hopefully lead to a design that will blow the community away.

That said, what exactly would any or all of you like to see as far as where this process goes now? لennavecia 03:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried to be as transparent as possible, but at every turn, in attempting to draw attention, we're told no.

Nonsense. The lack of participation is due entirely to the proposal's poor implementation; people feel as though they'd be wasting their time. And now we're asked to prop up this mess because otherwise...people will have wasted their time.

The process, which we realized long ago is jacked, has been criticized, but no real guidance of where to take it, and now it's a little late.

Several of us realized that the process was broken before it even began, and we offered advice (much of it based upon lessons learned during the last redesign) back then. We were ignored. When the watchlist notice was proposed (before the polling began), I offered advice on how best to dig out from under the rubble. Once again, I was ignored. Now you're claiming that "no real guidance" has been provided?

When I submitted my design, I was not aware of how the whole thing started or where it was going, though I was surprised to see it moving so slow and with so little community input.

Meanwhile, some of us weren't the least bit surprised.

As far as the idea of deciding what the best features are from each and then working on one design collaboratively to put up against the main page, that's exactly what we're doing now.

No, it isn't. You just eliminated most of the designs in their entirety, and now you're "opening" editing (which purportedly was barred) on the remaining five. Various elements might be modified/reintroduced, but you're working from base designs selected via a highly flawed process (and still not unifying them).

So basically, what it boils down to, is a whole lot of IDONTLIKEIT shooting us down at every turn in an attempt to get more comments from the wider community.

The last main page redesign drew an ENORMOUS amount of feedback with less exposure. Pointing out that Wikipedia's core principles are being set aside in favor of ill-conceived plurality voting isn't an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which applies to deletion arguments, incidentally); it's a citation of WP:NOT and WP:POLLS.

Repeated notices at the CP apparently went unnoticed.

No, they didn't. People examined the proposal, found it to be in a state of disarray, and left.

A watchlist notification was shot down by David.

I possess no such authority. I opposed the notice, and you failed to achieve consensus for its inclusion (and I've explained why). But again, the last main page redesign succeeded without such a notification. (Only the final discussion was advertised via the watchlist.) And this proposal already has received a watchlist notice (which primarily served to fuel the chaos).

It's dozens of designers trying to get the process to move, but it's just halted.

Because it's broken.

And now this big stink is taking place because jc didn't feel like putting his support where he wanted it.

No. This "stink" is taking place because you conducted a poll that necessitated such responses. Who knows how many users declined to participate in the poll because of its counterproductive (and downright un-wiki) format? I certainly did, and I was one of the most active participants in the last main page redesign.

People aren't holding you back; you're driving us away (albeit unintentionally).

If you look at the comments, there are supports that say "I like this, but I don't like that, and this other things would look better if it was this way." And opposes that say "I like the thing there, but I don't like this thing over there, or that thing at the bottom."

...none of which played any role in the outcome. But again, I'm not saying that it should have; I'm saying that the entire poll was improper. Without the artificial constraints, we could have received infinitely more useful input to carry to the next round. Instead, we have scattered comments made by users willing to take part in a winners-take-all plurality vote.

That said, what exactly would any or all of you like to see as far as where this process goes now?

I've continually answered that question, and I've continually been ignored. So have many others. —David Levy 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try explaining this another way. Your average WP user cares about the Main Page. It's the door to their contributions, their project. However, they are not user interaction specialists or graphic designers. Holding the poll this way gave them something visual to gauge, which I think made responding a whole lot easier. It also lets users actually see what a feature would look like, instead of everyone imagining it differently and then being disappointed. I understand this kind of logic doesn't usually apply, but for a design change it makes sense.

If the poll was flat-out to decide the next main page, I agree, it would be inappropriate. The point is that now, we can look at the reasons given for supporting each proposal, and see what is popular and what works. From that, we can build something far better than all of the existing work that will be a feasible update. Pretzels^Talk! 03:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone has objected to the idea of allowing users to see the various submissions and comment on them. The problem is that they were asked to cast votes for designs in their entirety (with the objective of eliminating designs in their entirety). People who liked and disliked various elements of a particular design were forced to either support or oppose all of them, and this discouraged both overall participation and the particular type of feedback needed most (comments on specific elements). —David Levy 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the statement that it hasn't been transparent. There was a watchlist notice for quite a while back when designs were being accepted. Everything took place on-wiki. We don't require massive advertising for the inner workings of other projects or processes. Nothing that has happened in the proposal to date is meant to have any direct impact on anything outside the proposal. I would ask people who want everything to get tons of people involved to stop kidding themselves. When tons of people get involved, the chances of something productive happening goes way down. "Involve tons of people" was the strategy initially. It ended up with tons and tons of talk page discussion that will probably never be read again, and it ended up with a crapload of designs, which made evaluating and comparing them all the more difficult. The whole project however, has been mismanaged from the get-go. It started without any clear plan and any suggestion for a plan or guidelines was either rejected or ignored. For a while it seemed like the plan was to just accept designs until people stopped submitting them. Now, I have no idea what the plan is. Last I saw, the 5 designs chosen after the RFC were going to be tweaked, then all 5 used in the final vote. Now I see that's not the case. The previous comments I read were incorrect, the plan changed, or people are just making it up as they go. I currently suspect its the last one. Mr.Z-man 03:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in debating semantics just as much as you are, David; however you the primary opposition before the Watchlist notification at the time, and therefore are entrust you with "striking it down." Jennavencia misspoken when she stated the count referred to the consensus. I wrote the RFC/Straw Poll and therefore I believe I hold the authoritative voice over how it is defined. RFC is a misnomer, I chose and promoted it because Wikipedia:Straw polls failed to pass. The consensus was never in the numerical value, it was in how we were to use it. The main discussion I am referring to is the root proposal page WP:MPRP. You never voiced your opposition there, where it was being proposed; and I believe it's too late now. The RFC/Straw Poll is over as of two days ago. So my question to you is: what you want to do? Now you can take apart each of our statements and we can discuss each point of disagreement; and become ourselves disagreeable. Or I would like to hear your plan of action. Other than that, I see little purpose in discussion with you when I believe your primary interest is nonconstructive criticism. I advocate HereToHelp's plan to discuss our goals, link here. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First: I hold no grudges against anyone, nor accuse anyone of bad-faith, and if anyone feels that I have acted in such a way, I sincerely apologize. I do not advocate discarding any proposals (anymore - I might have said so in the past but I am now clarifying/updating my position) but rather putting any design work on hold for a few weeks while tensions settle (already in progress) and we decide what we want out of the new design; the "Goals" proposal. The final five were selected in a fundamentally flawed fashion (yay for alliteration!) but do contain useful design ideas. I also agree with Pretzels' comment above: "[Your average WP users] are not user interaction specialists or graphic designers. Holding the poll this way gave them something visual to gauge, which I think made responding a whole lot easier. It also lets users actually see what a feature would look like, instead of everyone imagining it differently and then being disappointed." The caveat, though, is that so many things had changed it was impossible to sort them out. Such, once we get a little further on, we can "prototype" ideas by taking the current MP and changing only one thing at a time. But first, let's put the past behind us plan. --HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had some time away, I've re-read everything, and the thing that really bothers me here is the complete lack of good faith for my concerns.

I've now been accused several times of essentially not liking an outcome, and so, complaining after-the-fact. I've been accused of being only concerned that my suggestions were not taken under consideration. I've repeatedly been accused of bad faith. (Among several other things. For example, to my utter surprise, I was actually accused of canvassing for posting here at WP:AN.)

All this because I went to someone's talk page to ask them to clarify a closure (since it only was listing "votes", and only "support" ones at that), at which point I noticed that the closer had participated in the discussion. And after initial interaction with them, in which they avoided several times my question of their valid reason to close the discussion even though they commented (as, unknown to me, an WP:IAR rationale may have applicable), and only at that point, I reverted the closure. They responded, and reverted me with an edit summary "resolved". It indeed was not resolved, and so I reverted a second time.

At this point someone who is so involved that they have a proposal up for discussion decided that my reversion was "ridiculous" and re-closed, and proceeded to "push forward", and modify all related proposal pages as well, in an apparent attempt at "Fait accompli" (which I note that arbcom has denounced several times).

At this point, I did not continue reverting (though perhaps it may have been appropriate per the current guidelines on closing discussions according to WP:CON). Instead I attempting to continue to "discuss", facing continued accusations, bad faith, and just, in my opinion, a real lack of understanding what consensus is.

As my concerns continued, I posted a notice here, in the hopes that a.) someone neutral might close the discussion), b.) just more eyes on this, because it really seems to me to be a problematic situation, especially in regards to the lack of understanding of what consensus is, in particular by User:Jennavecia, and c.) To express at least an abbreviated form of those concerns here. Note that I didn't incially post to AN/I, since my main goal was more eyes and WP:3PO, not WP:DR. Though eventually it became clear that such a post perhaps would be appropriate, so I posted a notice at AN/I to look here.

If nothing else is resolved from this, I would like the following to be re-affirmed and made rather clear. (As I believe has been recently stated in a recently closed Arbcom case.)

No one should ever be attacked for requesting clarification.

Look, I understand the difficulty in trying to get people together to decide on something as important as the "face" of Wikipedia: the main page. At times, it can be like trying to swallow a piano whole.

But that's all the more reason to do this correctly. Because it's going to be just as difficult to "undo" or to "re-do".

How do we do that on Wikipedia? By consensual discussion. Can a framework be set up to help guide the discussion to keep it at least somewhat focused and on track? Sure. Can tools like "a competition" be used in order to help promote contribution? Sure. But the determinations of such should still all be based upon Wikipedia's policy of consensus.

That's my concern.

Incidentally, I suppose I should note that one of the 5 that they chose in their closures did have much of what I was preferring stylistically. And I believe I noted rather clearly at the time of my comments (not only just after the improper closure), that my comments were made with the belief that consensus would be the process used in closing. So trying to paint a picture of "sour grapes" on me simply doesn't hold up to the evidence. Though I believe evidence of bad faith by others, which has been directed at me, easily holds up.

I hope this clarifies. - jc37 05:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This clarifies a lot, I believe. The closure referrers only to the Straw Poll. My primary concern was that: we posted note at the top of the Straw poll telling you when it was going to be closed, we had several threads discussing how we were going to run the Straw Poll, and when you revered the closure: it flew against every notice and compromise we set forth. Myself and Jennavencia assumed ignorance and bad faith, because your actions disregarded such a basic principal as a notice that we've posted at the top of the page. Of course one reason for this transgression is that we've expanded the issue far above this basic principal. And as David, HereToHelp, Pretzels, Jennavencia, and myself has expressed — I believe now we are questioning the legitimacy and fundamentals of the entire operation.

From my understanding David and myself agree that the proposal has fundamental flaws, we have an agreement that our interests now is to reduce competition mentality, and I believe we may have an agreement that we aren't going reopen the Straw Poll. However, we disagree on how to proceed with the proposal. One of the most confusing aspects is that I do not know what David wants to do. The Straw poll is over, and therefore criticizing really has no purpose other than to promote disagreement. I am currently advocating HereToHelp's plan of going over our goals (link here), however I believe that "discarding" the proposals is a poor choice. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to me, you're (plural) disregarding "such a basic principal" as consensus. And perhaps I read the notice too quickly (I haven't gone back to read it since), but one can have 5 finallists, and still have that determined by consensus rather than "votes".

Anyway, as it stands right now, if deemed "closed", then the "straw poll" should not be considered "binding", since there are enough concerns to fairly declare it "rejected" or at least "no consensus" to support. It seems now that you're suggesting that all comments will be taken into consideration for the 'next step", correct? And if so, then no whole proposal should be considered disqualified, nor any single proposal to be qualified.

As has been suggested, I think that more discussion at this point is likely a good thing. - jc37 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to explain how you expected it to be done, Jc. How did/do you expect your comments to be applied to the designs in the format of the strawpoll? You named one design, but stated you liked that aspect of all designs, which, if I understand correctly what you were referring to with "four box design", would have also applied support to my design. Then you stated you liked one aspect but didn't like it, so there's not much we could have done with that. So, as I have requested several times before, what did you expect to be taken from your comments? Which designs did you want your comments applied to, and why could you not just add that support yourself, as everyone else did? لennavecia 07:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That than presume based on recent past experience, let me give good faith another chance...

Is this a good faith request to explain how one can look at the substantive content of commenters' comments and discern consensus thereby? - jc37 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in full agreement that this proposal is against a number of principals. However I am against discarding the results. If you have an alternative plan, which details more than just discarding these results, I am very intent on hearing it. Otherwise there appears to be little purpose in an ongoing discussion with you other than to prove either one of us wrong, which I believe promotes further transgression and disagreement. We have a ongoing discussion in Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal discussing this point on procedure, and I believe you may have interests in joining. My interest, of course, is getting this proposal going; not upholding principals which I haven't been able to reasonably apply. Right now I am asking you to get off your moral highroad. There is a world that does cater well to consensus: from which the decreed action is undeniably accepted and justifiable. There has been a compromise prequel to your arrival, and I apologize that you have not been allowed to develop it. In shot, I am asking you to leave your bitterness behind and look at what needs to be done rather than should have. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Moral high ground" - Hm, probably guilty as charged. "Bitterness" - not so much.

"not upholding principals which I haven't been able to reasonably apply." - I'm sorry to hear that you havenn't. And on that front (at least) I'd be happy to help with how consensus can indeed be applied.

"There is a world that does cater well to consensus: from which the decreed action is undeniably accepted and justifiable." - Yes there is, and that world is Wikipedia. Except in cases where we are deciding on whether to grant individuals more responsibilities (such as RfA or arbcom elections), all determinations on Wikipedia are done through the consensus model. This isn't something to wave away because someone decides it's "too difficult". If you or I cannot see a way to determine consensus in a situation, then we should wait for someone else to. It's how this works. And if there is a time or deadline in place for the closure, then that's a "backlog", and one can either place Template:backlog on the page, or else post to WP:AN, in order to request that "someone" close the discussion. If it's felt that a discussion is "too big" to determine that way, then it's merely a situation of breaking the discussion down into parts, determining consensus of each of the parts as a part of the whole.

Honestly, I am concerned that neither of you seem to understand how distinct a problem your suggestion to ignore the consensus model is. I honestly hope that this lack of agreement with a fundamental Wikimedia Foundation issue doesn't spill over into any other determinations you (plural) might make, such as closing other discussions. Jennavecia seemed to rather clearly indicate thast she feels that "votes" is the way to close any discussion. That, sincerely, greatly concerns me. - jc37 06:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed that someone had started a topic (which was subsequently removed) on WP:VPR which included their personal details. I have a vague recollection of a similar post being replaced once with a templated message about not posting one's own personal details and a link to WP:RFO if the user wanted it, but I cannot seem to be able to find that template (I think it might have had a picture of headphones on it). Could someone point it out to me for future refrence and add it as a new section to the user's talk page? It Is Me Here (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for such things would be {{Uw-pinfo}}. MBisanz ^talk 13:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, done. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user recently created an article without any content at Dad and Dave, rather than adding an A3 tag to the article I moved it into their userspace in the hope that they would develop it and move the article back. I thought this had the potential to cause less drama than tagging the page for speedy deletion. Unfortunately I was mistaken, the article's creator is not pleased and from their comments would appear to very much like to have the page moved back into main space. Could somebody please delete the original location of the page at Dad and Dave (which was created as a redirect to the userfyed page) so that this will be possible. Guest9999 (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I've tagged it as an A3 candidate. I guess given the circumstances a general discussion of my conduct might be wanted/required. Guest9999 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with what you've done, that I can see, is that you moved first, and asked questions later. It wasn't helped by a seemingly experienced editor creating a blank page in the mainspace, when they should, it could be argued, have known that it wouldn't have lasted long, instead of creating it in their userspace first and then moving it over. So it looked like you moved it whilst they were then fleshing it out...why their material was lost, I don't know - either the back button or an edit conflict warning should have been able to prevent that. _Gb^T/c 14:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to comment on the rather irate nature of the user's replies to your post on their talk page, but you probably should not have done anything to an article that was five minutes old and had a {{construction}} tag on it. If it was a few hours old and hadn't had any edits for awhile, sure, but there was every reason to believe that the user was still working on and expanding the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Why am I told that this page is one the blacklist? I was going to create a redirect to List_of_foreign_adaptations_of_The_Nanny#Russia. --eugrus (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has non-standard characters used in page move vandalism in it. I can override that blacklist and have created the redirect for you. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) --eugrus (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that title shouldn't be blocked. I've trimmed down the overbroad blacklist entry. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image was poorly transferred to commons, without any source/author. The local duplicate has been deleted and i can’t access it. Would it be possible to restore it so that i can transfer the information correctly? Thanks in advance. EuTuga^msg 14:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Tag {{db-i8}} when you've finished. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin deleted it again before i got the info. Please restore it once more, i won't forget to tag it afterwards. Again, thanks in advance. EuTuga^msg 17:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thank you. EuTuga^msg 18:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WT:MOSNUM has become rather interesting of late for those that don't follow it. In the last few months, Tony and others have proposed that date autoformatting (DA) should be depreciated from WP, and have given a quite valid list of reasons to do so (the two primary ones, due to how DA is overloaded on wikilinking, is that it creates over-linkage in articles, and that non-registered users and those that have not set a date preference could potentially see a whole mix of styles). (I will state that I completely agree with said reasons - I'm not trying to fight against this change, only the process of how its being done). Though Tony and others have informed various Wikiprojects about this and have stripped wikilinked dates from FAs and the like, it wasn't until early October that the MOSNUM was actually changed to call DA "depreciated", which at that point brought in a few vocal people against that change, but their challenges to it seemed to be brushed off, pointing to a discussion that maybe up to 20 people were involved in and claiming to be consensus. Myself and others asked if there should be an RFC on this point, but that also seems to have been brushed off, with those behind it suggesting that all the date stripping they've done in the past on thousands of pages have only brought a couple of complaints. That may be true, and my gut tells me that there is a consensus for this, but the lack of demonstration of this is what keeps those disagreeing with DA coming back and asking for such demonstration. Of late, there are also issues of what dates should be linked and how (eg, the various day and year pages), and the fact that these actions and discussion have seemed spurred the MediaWiki devs into providing a DA approach that doesn't use wikilink, and suggesting that stripping dates completely may not be helpful (instead using a passthrough template for the time being to allow bots to convert to the new format when its ready).

Here's not the place to go into the issues of DA'ing or the like, but I do feel that there's a general cabal-like atmosphere brewing at MOSNUM that needs to be addressed. Over the last few day a {{disputed}} tag has been added and removed to the text of the DA being depreciated, forcing User:MBisanz to protect the page. This seems likely completely unacceptable behavior on a policy/MOS page, and the fact that any attempt to get a wider discussion is waved off concerns me. I know from trying to work a version of WP:FICT through that any change felt like it had to go through 20 committees and a general election to get in place, and that's just a guideline in progress. I don't know if more significant involvement to help settle issues at MOSNUM is needed here. --MASEM 15:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get into it here, is there a centralised forum for discussion on this? WP:VPP/WT:MOSNUM? the skomorokh 16:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that wider discussion is required on this. I think date-linking is a good thing, and the methods used to ram the unlinking through were dubious at best. [ roux ] [x] 17:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of the actual change in policy has been mostly confined to WT:MOSNUM. Again, I'm not talking about the policy change itself but the method that it has been done by. --MASEM 17:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make an RFC, and people will discuss it. If you're having trouble keeping things cool, drop a line here for some help. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On his userpage, Abtract posted this: [9] which seems a clear indication that he wishes to exercise his right to vanish. It should be noted that, in WP:RTV it states that "Sometimes the community will not extend the courtesy: for example, if the user is not actually leaving, or if the user is not in good standing." So I am posting this here to see if the community wishes to extend this right to Abtract. He certainly seems to genuinely wish to leave, the question remains if the community wishes to extend to him that right. I remain 100% neutral on the issue, and am only posting this here to see what the community decides. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem in letting him go *poof*! Should he return in some form we can deal with that later. JodyB _talk 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind deleting his pages, with the explicit note that if we ever catch him under a new identity, he forfeits any future right to vanish. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Since he's not in good standing at this point and is serving out a block for gaming the system, I think the best thing to do would be to wait until he's finished the block and come back to the wiki. That'll make sure he actually wants to vanish, and not just that he's upset about being caught and blocked. If he still wants the RTV after that, I'd give it to him, although I would certainly inform Collectonian about him vanishing in case this issue comes up under a different identity. I find it interesting that him taking on a new identity was one of the first things that three different editors thought about. Dayewalker (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dayewalker on waiting for the block to expire. Blanking Abtract's Talk would be OK, but deleting it would not, in my view. Regular editors would no longer be able to view part of the evidence about past disputes, including at least one arbitration case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Let the block expire and then let him vanish. JodyB _talk 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if its relevant, but if he does decide to leave after his block, it might be prudent to also kill his secondary (though currently unused) account User:Abstract. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely leave the block to expire, then confirm and allow the vanishing. I suspect we'll see this editor back, however (considering this comment the ArbCom case didn't have much of an effect on the editor's viewpoints), and suggest that a note be made on the ArbCom page that while the editor may not be active, if he/she appears in future, the restrictions there should be applied. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the ArbCom and block history Abtract has done some good editing, usually on dab pages, and per AGF I think we cannot say he is in bad standing. I see no harm in permitting him RTV since, if he does not truly disappear, he will quickly make himself known and we can indef block and undelete and template his account pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, but if he uses his right to vanish and returns to harass the other user under a different name, he should forfeit any good faith he's accrued. If he vanishes and removes himself from wikipedia, the Arbcom case should no longer be applicable. I support his right to vanish (after his block), but returning to skirt a previous ruling should result in a quick block. Dayewalker (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he vanishes then the ArbCom is in abeyance, not inapplicable. If he returns then the ArbCom is simply reactivated in conjunction with any other sanctions or other actions considered necessary. Per his own commentary, he has suggested he may return in some future where he will link any new account to this one; at that time the ArbCom again reactivates... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with LHvU, if he returns publicly, the ArbCom would still be in effect. However, if he were to return without admitting his previous identity and continue the pattern of behavior that has led to his multiple blocks, wouldn't he forfeit the protection of the ArbCom ruling? Dayewalker (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{resolved}}no remaining conflict among involved admins Slrubenstein | Talk 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC) - while it's true, I' like to discuss Tennis expert's actions. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC) WP:WHEEL defines "wheel war" as follows: "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions...." Max asserts that WP:WHEEL does not apply when an administrator reverses another administrator's decision to remove an editor's WP:AWB access. Is this assertion correct? The factual background is that Mart removed Lightmouse's WP:AWB access on October 22, 2008 and again on October 25, 2008. Max reversed that decision on November 2, 2008. When asked whether his reversal was a "wheel war", Max said, "Nonsense. Read WP:WHEEL to find out why. I'll just add that AWB usage is not covered by WP policies and there's nothing that can prevent me from making a special version that will ignore all checkpages in the world." Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy for Max to have reverted me if he sees that line of action as sensible :) Martinp23 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing an action once is not a wheelwar. It needs a third change in order for it to become one. If Martin had reverted MaxSem's change, it would have been the start of an edit war. Wheel war more refers to logged actions, such as deleting/undeleting. But I suppose it could also apply to "admin-only" areas, like the AWB access page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. But WP:WHEEL does not say that a wheel war exists only when the second revert happens. In fact, the "needs two reverts" requirement was deleted from the policy 19 months ago. Tennis expert (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does: Repeatedly implies that the action needs to be done more than once. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)What they are trying to say, I believe, is that it says "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it". MaxSem's revert was not repeating anything, and thus not a violation of the current wording of WHEEL. --barneca (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin said he doesn't care though, so the question now is purely academic. If the person being reverted is fine with the revert, there's nothing actionable. Mr.Z-man 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But this important policy needs to be clear. Is it permissible for administrator #3 (Max) to revert administrator #1 (Mart) in the same way that administrator #2 (Jj137) reverted administrator #1? That's what happened here. Mart removed Lightmouse's WP:AWB access. Jj137 reverted him. Mart reverted Jj137. Max then reverted Mart. Sounds like a wheel war to me. Tennis expert (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this needs to be clear, but - with respect - it seems that it is clear to everyone except Tennis Expert. Repeat does mean "twice." If "twice" was removed before it could only have been for style, to avoid redundancy. You know, repetition. Saying the same thing twice. "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." This can only mean one of two things: Admin x does something. Admin y reverts it. Admin x does it again - this is the repetition. I think this is the crux, and Tennis expert, if you feel the Wheel War policy would be clearer if we added this well, I would be behind you 100%: Administrators can disagree with one another. And, as with most editorial disagreements (like the BRD cycle) the first way we express disagreement is by reverting. Some editors seem to have gotten really nervous about reverts as if this hurts someone's feelings. But we are all acting in good faith, we are working on a wikipedia where no one owns anything so we all take it for granted that virtually anything we do will be changed or undone by someone else. That is like at Wikipedia and there is no point in taking any of it personally. Let me put it another way: admins have certain powers which means there is always a risk a power may be abused - and not always through malice, it could be carelessness or just a decision made too hastily. Another editor reverting is the simplest check on that power. In this case the system worked perfectly - Mart has no problem with what happened - so I see no reason to belabor the case. If anything let's put a link to this case in the Wheel War article as one example of things working out well. Mart had three options: agree with Max, disagree with Max and begin a discussion with him, or disagree with Max and revert him. Only the third constitutes a wheel war. Tennis expert, if you do not think this is clear in the policy, what do you propose we add? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) If reverting once is not a wheel war, then why was the "needs two reverts" language deleted from WP:WHEEL 19 months ago? (2) As for the exact situation I'm talking about, Mart clearly stated his disagreement with the reversion of his removal of Lightmouse's WP:AWB access. How is it possible to interpret Mart's reversion of Jj137's reversion of Mart in any other way? Despite this explicit statement of disagreement, Max then reverted Mart, i.e., reinstated Jj137's reversion of Mart. That seems like a wheel war to me, regardless of anything else. And wheel warring is disruptive even if the administrator being reverted says after-the-fact that he doesn't disagree with it. In the situation we're talking about, Mart explicitly disagreed with reversion #1 (see this thread) but now says that reversion #3 was OK, presumably now saying that his own reversion #2 was in error. Tennis expert (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is any wheel-warring, it was Mart's reversion of Jj137's reversion. But Jj137 does not seem to be taking it too rough, so I still do not see a problem. As I said, repetitively, but I guess I need to repeat again, I believe that "needs two reverts" was deleted because it is bad style. If you are proposing to restore it, for what it is worth, I would back you. Frankly, I have no problem revising the Wheel War policy so that it follows our 3RR policy for editors, with the crucial difference of imposing a 1RR for administrators in administrative actions. If we had a 1RR, technically none of the admins here would have violated it. I think the policy has two purposes: to allow admins to balance out one another's mistakes without leading to an escalation of conflict. I think admins should have a 1RR rather than a 3RR because there should be fewer disagreements about administrative actions than writing great encyclopedia articles. I think 1RR does it. I think the current language is adequate but if you think it needs clarification please pursue it at the policy talk page. None of the admins involved here are in conflict. What is your purpose: to stir up conflict, or to improve the policy? If the former, well, please don't. If the latter, I respectfully (and encouragingly) suggest that your purpose would be better served on the policy talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose is to find out what the policy is. It's as simple as that, and I'd recommend that you assume my good faith. We have one administrator saying that WP:WHEEL does not apply at all to WP:AWB. Then, we have a chain of administrators reverting each other. We also have the reverted administrator vehemently disagreeing with the first reversion but agreeing with the third reversion, which in effect says that his initial disagreement was erroneous. Finally, we have WP:WHEEL, which some say applies only beginning with the second reversion but which no longer has the language that explicitly supports this interpretation. So, we have a mess in several respects that I would like resolved. Tennis expert (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the situation with the AWB is currently stable, right? That is what I inferred from what you wrote, if I misunderstood you I apologize. If the situation is stable I see no need to discussion at the AN. If you think the policy is unclear I can only repeat - and yes, I am assuming good faith and I wish you would too because this is good constructive advice - take it to the policy talk page. That is the place to discuss ambiguities in the policy. Right now there seems to be no conflicts among the administrators you mentioned. I think that is nice. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just try to quickly explain my reversion: it was a mistake. I saw the two names at the Check page and added them to the approval page (they had 500 mainspace edits) without noticing that Lightmouse had been removed a few days before. I admit, I made a silly mistake, and I was definitely not trying to start a wheel war. Sorry for the confusion.   jj137 (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my own view is that Wikipedia asks everyone to be bold and it is inevitable that people will do things they regret and sometimes clash with others. What is most important is not any of our policies (all of which are superceded by "be bold") but rather our ability to correct our own mistakes or the mistakes of others in a quick and collegial fashion. I see WHEEL as a safeguard for those incidents, which should be rare, when admins are tempted into a silly escalation against one another. In this case, it seems like none of the admins involved did that; none acted in bad faith, no one was mlicious, doesn't look like anyone holds a grudge ... I really think this is how Wikipedia should work at its best. There was a problem, others caught it, some confusion which is natural, and it is all water under the bridge. If it always worked this way we wouldn't even need policies! I really admire the thoughtfulness and good faith displayed by the various admins here. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cough, cough, so I'm finally awake. And now let's take a look at the situation:

1. Due to concerns of some users, including Tennis expert, that delinking dates alone violates AWB's policy "Avoid making insignificant minor edits", Lightmouse's approval was revoked by Martin.
2. Tennis expert actually objected against delinking at all, and had revert-warred against users enforcing MOS:DATE across articles in his area of interest, whether such edits were automaticor not.
3. Lightmouse later applied again through usual means (WT:AWB/CP), was approved by someone, then removed again by Martin when he noticed this. Nothing terrible here, reapproving admin was obviously unaware of situation.
4. A discussion started on WT:AWB about whether delinking dates is inconsequential. After much debate, a straw poll took place, and it ended with 2/3 support for allowance for such edits (though, obviously, users performing them should enable AWB's general fixes and typo fixes to have a chance to fix more things in one edit).
5. After discussion faded, Lightmouse asked for reinstatement.
6. I, uninvolved in this conflict and not having a strong opinion about both date linking and the inconsequentiality of date delinking using AWB, reviewed the discussion and declared that will approve him next day, if there will be no compelling objections.
7. The only user who objected was Tennis expert, whose objections were against date delinking in genera.
8. I approved Lightmouse and left a remark about Tennis expert's wikilawyering (so slap me).
9. Tennis expert started this thread, at the same time he took a 100% measure to win the match - adjust WP:WHEEL to suit his needs (can someone revert him plz if they feel he is climbing the Reichstag?) At the same time, TE does not forget to revert-war by returning date links in direct violation of MOS:DATE#Linking of dates such as [10].

Now ask yourselves: whether undoing someone's actions after discussing the matter and achieving consensus is wheel-waring, or it's TE who's wikilawyering and disrupting the project to get things done his preferred way? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst we are in debriefing mode, let me state how things looked to me. I do janitorial edits on many articles and therefore I encounter lots of people with a variety of views relating to dates, units of measurement, the MOS etc. Some editors decide that they don't want date delinking to take place and simply revert such edits. I don't like it but I try not to take it too seriously. I had not heard of Martin before so his action appeared out of the blue. I didn't take his action too seriously because I assumed that he was genuinely unaware that delinking is acceptable. Metaphorically, I shrugged my shoulders, access had been turned off so I simply asked for it to be turned on again. In a failure of wp:agf, I was accused of being 'cunning' by requesting access on the request access page. I didn't take that accusation too seriously either because it is false and I am comfortable with my own actions. I frequently ignore mistaken beliefs and don't defend myself as often as I should, but since the matter is now been raised to this important page, I decided to say something. As far as I can see, this episode is just the way of the wiki and I am content with how it turned out. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of our policies are written in ways that encourage wikilawyering, and Tennis has gotten stuck on some wording in the WHEEL policy that s/he sees as leverage for continued discussion. TO ANY OF YOU who oppose wikilawyering and encourage administrators to sort these things out themselves, I suggest you go to the WHEEL policy and propose changes to promote administrator flexibility and discourage wikilawyering. You guys can knowck Tennis all you want but be honest, it is not like you can build and ArbCom case against him. I am suggesting that instead of harping on the past we focus on the future: how would we wish this kind of stuff to be handled in the future, and how might some policies be reworded or revised to make this future more likely? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case? What? Who said anything about that? Who's harping on the past? This all took place very recently and is still actionable. We can only look at the recent past. We can't issue sanctions in real-time or predict the future, so the past is all we have to go on. Wikilawyering is bad, unilaterally changing policy to help win an argument is a serious problem. (what the purpose of that argument is has yet to be explained, I'm starting to think its beyond simple clarification of the policy) How should it be handled in the future? Exactly like it was before this thread was started. No harm was done, so no action needs to be taken. Mr.Z-man 18:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dealing with an editor who is systematically ignoring the no original research policy, insisting on the authority of unreliable online sources and constantly promoting his own personal views on an article. He's ignored all the advice he's been given by other editors, and a mediation has failed due to the mediator giving the case up as hopeless. There's no indication whatsoever that he's willing to abide by NOR or NPOV. The underlying problem is essentially one of POV-pushing through original research. Do I have any realistic options other than a user RfC or arbitration? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to those types of threads, you know the first thing we are going to do is look at your history and work out who the editor in question is. Can I suggest you do the decent think and tell that editor, that they are the subject of discussion at AN/I. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking anyone to do any detective work or intervene here; I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of the situation; I'm simply asking whether there are any options other than RfC or RfAr in this kind of situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If mediation has failed, then it seems those are the only two options left. If he has ignored advice that's been given to him, I don't think an RfC would get a whole lot done, but it's worth a shot, as if nothing else it'll be one more thing to show ArbCom what you've tried to do. Hypothetically speaking, of course. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean a user conduct RfC? Article RfCs are pretty hopeless, in my experience; they just tend to be ignored, particularly if the articles are in specialist subjects, as this one is. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggestion is for a user conduct RfC, which in my experience are no more effective than article RfCs. But the ArbCom usually claims that one should be done before requesting arbitration. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that seems logical. (I suppose from ArbCom's point of view it's a matter of exhausting dispute resolution before going to them.) Thanks for the advice. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just go to ANI and ask for a block on the basis of disruptive editing? I know who you're talking about, and in my opinion a block would be a good thing. Looie496 (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to give the impression that I'm trying to systematically knock out editors who disagree with me - I'm not. The dispute is a bit more complex than the recent issues with Ariobarza (talk · contribs) and Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) which I recently raised on AN/I. The issues in this case have perhaps been less exposed to public discussion so far. I'm inclined to think that a user RfC would help to clarify the problematic behavioral issues concerned, and could provide a final opportunity for the editor in question to take account of feedback. He seems to be an enthusiastic contributor but seems to have no understanding at all of the prohibition on original research. Carrot first before stick? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please watchlist the candidate biographies for Obama and McCain. The protection for both was recently downgraded to semi. There are MediaWiki editing notices on each warning that POV or unsourced edits or BLP vios may be met with a block without further warning. Zero tolerance is probably the only option in lieu of returning them to full protection. Let's not be forced to re-protect them if we can avoid it.--chaser - t 05:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just rejected a RFPP request for both asking for either full-protection or replacing them as today's TFAs. As I've stated before, I'm uncomfortable touching political articles because I have strong opinions, so I'm going to echo Chaser's request for more eyes. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain is currently fully protected. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we use the same level of protection for both to be consistent? --Tone 08:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: move and semi. Full protection on a main page article isn't exactly the ideal way of introducing people to the ways of the wiki or Wikipedia. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is "X is teh gay lol"... Or maybe it is, nevermind. Everyme 09:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ur So Gay could be though, if there was a dedicated Katy Perry fan --NE2 09:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not have one on full protect and the other on semi. I'll put McCain on semidougweller (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well? ... As of right now, Obama is still on semiprot, while McCain is still on fullprot. Btw, I'd still argue for fullprot in this very exceptional case. For once having two mainpage FAs fully protected vs. this kind of stuff, even if it lasts only a few seconds is a no-brainer. Please fully protect both articles. This is not an ordinary situation. Everyme 11:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have formally requested temporary full protection for Barack Obama. Again: Any admin declining to fully protect in the face of this reality is personally responsible for letting the inevitable happen. Everyme 11:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • O RLY?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't know what the fuck you're kidding about there, nor do I give a flying fuck. Everyme 13:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He meant The_Sky_Is_Falling_(fable). VG ☎ 13:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Everyme, cut it out. It's bad enough that you've decided to run around left, right and center shouting "disclaimers" about how you're going to "hold all admins personally responsible" for failing to do your bidding without descending into invective simply because people raise an eyebrow at your somewhat dramatic approach. _Gb^T/c 13:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the admin who fully protected John McCain some hours ago, I am more than happy that, now there are more eyes on the articles, another administrator was bold enough to reduce the level of protection. I would like to remove the semi-protection on the talk pages of the two articles, as well, despite our earlier episodes of apparently organised vandalism, if there are sufficient people who will stand by to quickly RBI. They will likely need to be semi-protected again in about 8-10 hours, but it would be good to open things up a bit for at least a while. Is there support for this? Risker (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can try and see, but I fear the talk pages will be unusable to be honest. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go: we tried.[11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Since the Obama article is already up to over 500 hits a minute, (up from 440/min the previous hour), there may be little benefit. Incidentally, that link, to the most popular articles in the previous hour, gives some good ideas about what other pages to watch. Risker (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, are you suggesting full protection? -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul fully protected the article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable choice to make. --Tone 15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens.rf put an irrelevant discussion up about how much he was derided for his perceived aggressive edits in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rebecca_Watson (sorry, don't know the right tags) discussion for deletion page. I responded that his complaints were not on topic and I responded by moving them to the discussion page of that discussion page. His response was to undo my edits and remove my comments and label me an SPA. I may not be highly involved in wikipedia but I am not an SPA, I have edited several articles on several subjects. I don't think this behavior is acceptable and I think that he should be warned or punished for it. Deleting someones on topic comments in a discussion is never acceptable. --Brendan White (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Additionally, you should avoid labelling editors as "vandals" (especially "repeted[sic] history as vandal") unless you have actual evidence of vandalism. We do not have the power to punish people and will not act on requests to punish people. Finally, if you are bringing someone here to complain about them, please inform them that you have done so. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and sorry if I did it wrong,I responded on my talk page rather than his but he was told he would be reported. --Brendan White (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Brendan White has just been blocked for 3RR on this very case. Nothing to see here. --Damiens.rf 15:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not absolve you of post warring, you just caught him in misunderstanding the rules because he is a fairly new editor, You still deleted his post from the talk section, that or you filed a false claim against him, you pick which violation of policy you committed --129.19.133.33 (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I tagged this for speedy deletion, but the tag has been removed once by the author, and once by an anonymous IP address (single use account). I've reverted the article twice, but don't want to fall into a 3RR, so could someone please review ? Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another editor now seems to be running into the same problem on this article... CultureDrone (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, for future reference, should I be reporting this sort of thing at WP:AN3 instead of here - even though 3RR hasn't actually occurred yet ? CultureDrone (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say WP:AIV (I don't think 3RR would be applicable on a speedy notice, since the author is supposed to contest on the talk page, not remove the notice) :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User was blocked for this. Commiseration comes from User 2 in the form of this. Personally, if that's the sort of thing that even the briefest and most sulfurous brain-fart of User 1 might emit, I would change "tomorrow" in User 2's sentence to "sometime after the heat death of the universe" and might--just might, mind you--descend into personal invective of the sort that managed to escape the internal clue-filter of the editor in question. (Yes, I am aware that this is beyond-trivial, but "oh, you can get unblocked tomorrow" is NOT, IMHO, the message these drive-by jackals should be getting. A pat on the head, if administered at all in these cases, should be given with a fair-sized housebrick.) Just leave it, or...? Gladys J Cortez 18:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eerily enough, I saw the edit in Gladys' second diff, and went to the trouble of writing a comment on the vandal's talk page, and hit save, but Wikipedia freaked out at that moment, and I thought it was molehilly enough that I didn't bother to rewrite it. I've gone ahead and left a comment that any potential, hypothetical unblock-request reviewing admin will see. The editor leaving the "commiserating" comment appears, from their edit history, to be a good faith editor guided by an opinion on today's page protection who may not have considered the content of the edit very closely, and who A'd a little too much GF. I'd just leave it, myself. --barneca (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also felt more or less obliged to comment because I think bad advice ought to be corrected whenever possible. Should the editor who made the remark be contacted? It probably isn't necessary. ETA: Congratulations, Gladys, on your restraint with the cluebat. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a sock of an existing editor, or a returning banned editor ripe for a checkuser request, it may sometimes be that a new user who "somehow" has a good knowledge of Wikipedia processes is simply... not an idiot, and is able to read the instruction manual before using the tool. Discuss. Steve ^{T • C} 21:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently stumbled on a user by the name of AllmusicGuide (talk · contribs) editing the Thriller article. I can't think of the term, but I wanted to alert others of a possible account owned by a company. I've been having internet problems, so I might not be able to myself. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One edit so far, minor changes to track timings to match the Allmusic.com entries. Paradoxically, s/he hasn't changed them all to match. I'm prepared to not go for the jugular but will invite the user to edit under a different account name to avoid blocking as a role account. --Rodhullandemu 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the user name to the user name notice board about 15 minutes ago (I didn't see this discussion). — Realist² 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role account, that's what I was thinking of. Thanks for handling it, I'm still shaking the rust off from retirement. I'm marking as resolved. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was discussing this on the admin irc channel, but I never really got a straightforward answer, while the discussion on UAA was removed, so I'll post it here for wider community input, since it doesn't really fall squarely under any one guideline/policy. I'm at a bit of a standstill in my interpretation of our conflicts of interest guideline, our spam guideline, and the username policy. My concern, as well as a few others', was primarily with ABCNews EH (talk · contribs), an editor for ABC News who registered an account and has been adding links in the form of references back to abcnews.com articles. On one hand, several editors have pointed out that this is a good thing; for, it helps source our articles, it's best to assume good faith and not bite, and it's not really advertising since ABC News is well-known.

However, on the other side of the issue, because abcnews.com is a for-profit corporation with ad-based revenue, it's in their best economic interest to drive hits to abcnews.com content by paying someone to add links to them here; moreover, had it been a podunk site adding backlinks to themselves, one might argue they would have been treated differently. Forbes had an article on this practice last year, pointing out in the section on Comedy Central that we're a significant click-magnet. The article also gave some tactics for sneaking links in, this being one of them.

Personally, I think that given the current state of our conflicts of interest and spam guidelines, the actions are promotional in nature. Had the person been adding sites other than abcnews.com, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. But, if it is indeed the case that the addition of links back to the editor's site is not independent of producing valuable content, I would also think that the username, in its current state, violates the username guideline, since it contains a company name and is being used to promote it. However, on the latter point, some editors have stated that it shouldn't be blocked, because they believe it's not harming anything and that it's okay to state one's affiliations in the username. Again, I'm not sure what the consensus is, if the policy's inaccurate, if it applies to this situation, or what.

I really don't care either way, and I'll completely defer to whatever consensus that there is/will be/has been. I really just would like to know for future reference so that I don't make mistakes by taking action where action shouldn't be taken (I've postponed taking any action in this case). That way, the appropriate changes can be made to the respective policies/guidelines to accurately reflect consensus and practice for other editors just as confused as I am. Any input would be appreciated. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago I first encountered the edits of Simulation12. If you take a peek at the user contributions, you'll see little of value, but I was trying desperately to AGF--in part because the user claimed to be "twelve years old" and "in elementary school". So I tried, patience decreasing hourly, to steer little "Riley Lizzie", as she claimed her name to be, in the right direction. However, her bad edits caught up with her and she was blocked by an uninvolved admin. Well, today, another user who'd been working with Simulation12 dropped some good advice onto her talk page [12]. Still AGFing, I added my own bit of advice as well. Here's the reply I got:[13] Note the sudden change in age--is she six? is she twelve? Am I the Queen of Schenectady? But wait--there's more! ElButler also noticed that "Riley"s YouTube page claims that she's NINETEEN. It goes without saying that my own PERSONAL good faith with this user has now dipped below the x-axis, but that's neither here nor there. We have a user whose edits are much less-than-optimal despite patient explanations, warnings, and a block--who ALSO now turns out to have less-than-perfect regard for little things like FACTS. Do we let this user continue to annoy the REAL editors, or do we take a slightly BOLDer step? I can do nothing, since I'm "involved", but I'd rather nip this in the bud. I will say this: Simulation12 is NOT a net benefit to the project, and while I'm a firm believer in miracles, I don't see it happening--not now, not soon, not ever. Any qualms about BITEing a newbie are, in this case, misplaced.Gladys J Cortez 22:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]