Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 32 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 104 | 0 | 104 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
- 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 122 sockpuppet investigations
- 16 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 4 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 4 requests for RD1 redaction
- 111 elapsed requested moves
- 4 Pages at move review
- 28 requested closures
- 120 requests for unblock
- 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 17 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm not sure how this user continues with his tendentious edition on Bulgars article. I opened one thread in 2022, another in 2023, in which he got sanctioned for two weeks. Now trying to do the same with his current edits. Beshogur (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, this user's edits are systematically dubious, destructive and tendentious and do nothing to improve Wikipedia. Jingiby (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- The page Bulgars is full of misleading and unsourced information. Correction are needed. MiltenR (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- If you are reverted, you are required to take any concerns to the talk page and get consensus. You have edited on Wikipedia for nearly 5 years and have 7000+ edits, therefore you already know the proper way to interact with other editors. IF you are unable or unwilling to use the proper method for consensus then perhaps a block is in order. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Eyes on AfD, please?
We've recently had an editor nominate a large number of articles for deletion such that per WT:Articles for deletion#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today is semi-broken, we have too many entries for it to be transcluded. I've asked [1] one prolific nominator to withdraw without prejudice some of the entries such that they can be deliberated at a later time. I did so before I became aware that the volume was actually breaking our system. If any admin feels like helping the nominator out and thinning down today's nominations--that is, removing them without prejudice to speedy renomination as an administrative fix--so they can go through at a more appropriate pace, I'd sure appreciate it. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, and to give some perspective here, note the Oracle for Deletion table for June (User:JPxG/Oracle/2023-06). More or less every day of the month has seen somewhere around 40 to 60 nominations (which has been the stable daily average for some years), except for the 26th, 27th, 29th and 30th of this month, all of which have more than one hundred nominations. No day in the entirety of 2023 has had more than a hundred so far, and four of them in a row -- this is not sustainable. jp×g 04:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Adding this: is there any sort of restriction on nomination rates? This shows one person making 66 noms in three days, which seems extremely undue to me (22 nominations is on its own about half of a normal day's backlog). jp×g 04:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that some editors create 100's of articles each day (for example, on the 27th Iespecu created 203 articles) 22 nominations in a day doesn't seem unreasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Until there is a limit on the rate that articles can be created I don't think it is reasonable to object to the rate at which articles are nominated for deletion, assuming that the nominations are otherwise reasonable - otherwise we end up with WP:FAIT problems. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- If the articles being nominated were the ones that were being mass created, I would agree. Unfortunately, what you're seeing (in horrible generalities, of course) is low-effort nominations on high-effort articles, which is not the same as a low-effort article creation. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused here. Is this one nominator, a group, or a systematic problem? Jclemens mentions Spinixster but he only nominated 9 articles yesterday, which is fine. Pokelego999's 66 is more extraordinary – but still not enough to account for having 40–60 more nominations than average over 5 days. @JPxG: Any chance you have statistics on nominations per day by nominator?
- In both of the cases mentioned so far it looks like we could have avoided this if the nominators knew that bundled nominations are a thing, so if we can identify who else is doing the nominating we can probably nip this in the bud. – Joe (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I specifically did NOT mention any editor by name, nor did I claim to have a systematic view of the problem. I watch a few DELSORT lists, and that is where I saw one part of a problem. Sure, 9 articles a day is fine... but not 9 a day, every day, such that a particular topic area has to field 63ish discussions in a week. BUT, an overall discussion on throttling AfDs is best handled elsewhere, and so again, I mentioned a problem without any intent to attribute it to one person. While technically this might count as an "incident" I specifically posted to AN vs. ANI to avoid the perception that I believed any bad acting was happening. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm trying to say I don't think we (admins) can do anything about that problem without identifying the users responsible. Removing things from the AfD log to get it down to a transcludable number would be a pretty big invocation of WP:IAR, and hardly a long-term solution. – Joe (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Bundling doesn't work; editors reject it solely on the grounds that they are bundled. For example, the Nielsen's, which I later had to nominate individually - all bar one where deleted when nominated individually. The same with the unnamed Olympians, which I also had to nominate individually at a later date.
- Before we can encourage bundling to be used we first need to reform the process. BilledMammal (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I share the misgivings on bundling nominations, though I'm not sure of anything else we can do to improve things. Are there any specific topics that are more affected than others? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've mainly seen it for sports, but I think that is because most AfD's I am involved in relate to sports - I suspect it is a much broader problem.
- To improve it I think we need stronger rules on how to oppose bundled nominations; only permit editors to oppose the entire group if there is a sufficient percentage of the nominated articles that there are reasonable and specific objections to. If editors can't produce these specific objections then their general objections should be dismissed by the closer, and if they can only produce specific objections about a couple of the nominations then the closer should unbundle those specific nominations and dismiss the general objections. BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: Since you objected to me hatting this, I'll just suggest that if you want to open a discussion on the effectiveness of bundling you do so at the village pump. It's not going to lead anywhere here, and it makes it harder for the rest of us to focus on the problem at hand. – Joe (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I share the misgivings on bundling nominations, though I'm not sure of anything else we can do to improve things. Are there any specific topics that are more affected than others? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I hope I don't get in trouble for replying here, but I would like to make myself clear.
- I do not do AfDs every day; I only do so when I feel like it is absolutely necessary. If I recall correctly, my last nomination was a few months ago. It was not until yesterday that I spotted several articles that needed to be deleted. I wanted to make a bundled nomination, but I was worried that a WP:TRAINWRECK might happen, so I did them separately. I cannot speak for everyone involved, however. Spinixster (chat!) 09:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- No problem at all, Spinixster. As I said above I don't think nominating 9 articles in a day is particularly problematic, especially if it's a one-time thing. – Joe (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I will also reply to this, seeing as I'm specifically mentioned, and I nominated significantly more than Spinixster. I'm a bit new to AfDing, and thus I didn't actually realize bundled nominations were a thing (It looks very confusing, albeit not impossible to figure out) so I just nominated a whole bunch at once. The articles I nominated were, as a majority, articles with little to no sourcing and had very little notability. Granted, it was not the greatest idea to nominate so many within such a short span of time. I know now for the future to space them out if I ever do single noms again. I've withdrawn some of the nominations, though I'll probably put them up again at a later date so as to not make a greater mess of things right now. But for the time being, the AfDs should hopefully be a bit less clogged. I acted highly irresponsibly by putting so many at once, so I'm really sorry for the inconvenience I've caused with all of this. I seek not to make a repeat of this in the future should I ever try a mass AfD like this again. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for these comments @Pokelego999. Can I ask what your process was before deciding to nominate an article for deletion? You mention no sourcing and little notability. How did you come to those conclusions and did you examine evidence of notability and sourcing beyond what was in the articles themselves? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I always double checked for sources before putting anything up. I didn't want to purge every DW related article, but I wanted to hit up those who had basically no chance for potential improvement. I used some personal judgement to decide some of the articles to look at, but I only nominated it if it had the following criteria:
- Little to no sourcing. Primary sources were basically the only thing used for a large majority of the article, if the article had any at all, because many were unsourced. I also checked for if the article had a decent reception section, as if it did, it typically would be more contested than something like Edward Travers.
- A Google Search for sources in multiple categories yielded little to no results. I mainly used "News" and "Books" as that tended to be where a large amount of coverage on fictional elements was. Typically if there was enough potential coverage in those categories, I thought the article had potential for future improved sourcing and ignored it. If it didn't have any or very few potential sources in either of those sections, I figured it likely would not have any significant coverage beyond that and thus nominated the article for deletion. Very few articles I considered for nomination met the former.
- Adding to 2, I tended to consider it non notable if all the sources found were primary. So for instance, if the Books search yielded things only from official Doctor Who related books, or the News search yielded results from primarily listicles or passing mentions.
- Some articles I put up were generally notable in the series itself, but I only nominated a select few, as for the most part, I didn't want to target too many potentially "major" articles with this. Some DW related articles are in a dire sourcing state, but I felt that there were enough potential sources lying about that its sourcing state could be improved. I really wanted to deal with a lot of the articles that were just plot summary and lacked any notability before attempting to improve some of the bigger articles.
- For the "bigger" articles I nominated (Namely articles such as Polly and Turlough) I looked at their current sourcing state and then did the same search as before. They had surprisingly little potential sources pop up, hence why I nominated them. The reason I selected articles such as them was due to the fact that they had very few appearances within the series itself, and thus were least likely to have significant coverage. I looked at a few other articles potentially along those lines, but a quick search yielded some potential results that I intend on going through at a later date to see if improvement of those articles' sourcing states is possible.
- So, in short, I selected articles based off of lack of notability, abysmal sourcing state, and the potential for an article to be improved to Wikipedia standards. If it met the first two and lacked any potential as of now for improvement, then I put it up for nomination. Apologies for the long and drawn-out explanation, but as you asked for my rationale, I wanted to explain it in full so there wouldn't be any confusion. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I always double checked for sources before putting anything up. I didn't want to purge every DW related article, but I wanted to hit up those who had basically no chance for potential improvement. I used some personal judgement to decide some of the articles to look at, but I only nominated it if it had the following criteria:
- Thanks for these comments @Pokelego999. Can I ask what your process was before deciding to nominate an article for deletion? You mention no sourcing and little notability. How did you come to those conclusions and did you examine evidence of notability and sourcing beyond what was in the articles themselves? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I specifically did NOT mention any editor by name, nor did I claim to have a systematic view of the problem. I watch a few DELSORT lists, and that is where I saw one part of a problem. Sure, 9 articles a day is fine... but not 9 a day, every day, such that a particular topic area has to field 63ish discussions in a week. BUT, an overall discussion on throttling AfDs is best handled elsewhere, and so again, I mentioned a problem without any intent to attribute it to one person. While technically this might count as an "incident" I specifically posted to AN vs. ANI to avoid the perception that I believed any bad acting was happening. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.
Technical news
- Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.
Arbitration
- Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
non-admin edit filter manager access application
Hello all, there is an EFM application open for a non-admin. For information or to participate in the discussion, please see the edit filter noticeboard. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 19:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
CTOP 0RR appeal by Marcelus
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to make a request for the 0RR restriction to be lifted or at least reduced. I was given the right to make an appeal after 3 months, which passed on 7 June, and I originally made it at HJ Mitchell talk page (link, but since 11 June HJM has been inactive on Wikipedia, so I am filing the appeal here. I hope I'm not breaking any procedures in the process. I'd just like to add that I don't want the restriction lifted just to immediately engage in edit warring, but to have more freedom in editing. It's just very uncomfortable if you have to wonder if every edit can be interpreted as a revert or not. I have generally learned over this period not to use "undo" button, and instead to engage in discussions about edits with their authors. Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- More background: User talk:Marcelus#AE result and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive316#TrangaBellam –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- In the general course of things a shift to at least 1RR would be fairly normal. There's this thread which anyone reviewing should look over - I've not yet had the time to check the actual underlying edits to see if the (now temp-blocked) user had any valid concerns or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that there have been no blocks for violating the 0RR, I can see reducing the sanction to a 1RR, which should reduce the Sword of Damocles feelings expressed in the appeal. Courcelles (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've read over Marcelus' talk page and it seems like they understand the disruption they caused and thus a reduction to 1RR would be OK with me. However, they should still take care to revert constructively and carefully, mostly to remove unambiguous vandalism, spam and copyvio. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 15:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that there have been no blocks for violating the 0RR, I can see reducing the sanction to a 1RR, which should reduce the Sword of Damocles feelings expressed in the appeal. Courcelles (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- In the general course of things a shift to at least 1RR would be fairly normal. There's this thread which anyone reviewing should look over - I've not yet had the time to check the actual underlying edits to see if the (now temp-blocked) user had any valid concerns or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Administrator note: I have rescued this thread from the archive and given it a title that might be slightly more eyecatching (previously was just "0RR appeal"). There are no objections above, and if this were an unblock request I might be inclined to take that as rough consensus to unblock, but WP:CTOP mandates that clear consensus be established prior to reversing a sanction, so I've unarchived in hopes we can reach a consensus. My involvement here is procedural; I take no position. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)- Support to 1RR per Prodraxis. 0RR is extremely restrictive, and reducing to 1RR should be enough to prevent disruption. BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support reduction to 1RR given time elapsed and productive edits during that time. DanCherek (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support reduction to 1RR per above. Three months and several hundred edits without a sanction or warning for violating the restriction that I can see; 1RR gives Marcellus the opportunity to show that they can be trusted with the revert button. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The time of #WPWP has come again - some filter questions
The Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos contest has started for 2023. In the past this contest has caused issues with new accounts making rapid-fire image additions of questionable quality (see prior discussion from 2021, another one from 2021, one from 2022, and one I started, also from 2022).
In the first 2021 discussion, a decision was taken to throttle "entries" to 25 per user, per day. This was implemented in filter 1158; 1158 was reactivated in 2022 as no mention was made at the initial discussion of limiting the restriction to one year only.
The contest organisers for 2023 have - quite sensibly in my opinion - restricted participation on the English Wikipedia this year to extended-confirmed users only (see contest FAQ). One of the contest organisers posted at EFN to request that filter 1158 be changed to (a) restrict entries to XC users only, and (b) raise the daily throttle to 100.
I'm not sure it's technically possible to have "throttle if in group, block entirely if not" logic within one filter, so have implemented and enabled the XC restriction in a separate filter - coincidentally numbered 1258.
I have not yet enabled 1158 as I think this deserves some discussion. Personally, I think we could leave 1258 in place without 1158 and see what happens. If we don't get unmanageable levels of disruption - great, problem solved! If we do, I think we should turn 1158 on with its current settings. Most of the issues in past years were from accounts new to enwiki rapidly adding images - restricting to XC should cut this down massively. However, if I am wrong and we still get floods of useless pickle images then the original solution is clearly still needed.
All "contest entry" type edits - including WPWP - are tracked in filter 1073.
Thoughts? firefly ( t · c ) 10:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I think 1258 should probably be sufficient on its own. We may get the odd editor causing issues, in which case we can either deal with them individually, or just turn 1158 back on. Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I would support re-enabling the filter. Looking at previous years I don't believe limiting this to extended-confirmed editors will make a significant difference in the level of disruption seen.
- In 2021, with the filter only being enabled on the 7th of August, 377 editors made 27,258 edits tagged with #WPWP. Of those, 22,039 were made by 175 extended confirmed editors compared to 5,219 by 202 non-extended confirmed editors.
- In 2022, with the filter being enabled a month earlier on the 7th of July, 105 editors participated with 3,843 edits; 57 extended-confirmed editors made 3,125 edits, while 58 non-extended-confirmed editors made 718. BilledMammal (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- WP:XC users are expected to have gained sufficient familiarity with project policies. Hence, they're allowed to edit most contentious articles of the project. So if they've such sufficient experience to make edits that comply with policies and community norms, there should be no limit to how many edits one can do per day, as there's no policy that prescribe that.
- I believe whether extended-confirmed users make 3,000 edits or 10,000, that means little in this context, as Wikipedia technically or by policy does not throttle users barring manifest malicious intent. What matters is the percentage of edits among that which is considered problematic. Over years, data showed this parcentage is largely proportionate to the number of participants that have fewer and fewer edits (mostly < 200); thus lacking understanding of the project policies and even basic wikitext skills.
- Restriction to extended-confirmed means now participants are editors who actually have crossed a certain threshold, which the community itself considered sufficient to edit many controversial pages, and so are unlikely to make the problematic edits. And without disruptive editing, there's no limit to how many number of edits a person can do on this project. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinions on whether we turn 1158 back on, and will happily implement whatever is decided here. I feel it worth flagging that the contest offers no monetary prizes this year as far as I can tell (in the past, dollar-value gift cards were on offer), which I think will go a way toward mitigating issues. In the past I think we saw lots of people who just wanted the cash, while this year, the prizes are just souvenirs and certificates. firefly ( t · c ) 17:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- What fantastic filter numbers. Hopefully 1158 is not needed, and if that proves a vain hope I would support the filter being available for activation if anyone finds a significant issue without the need for further discussion. CMD (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Extensive copyright violation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrators may want to keep an eye on this page. I was alarmed to discover that it had a months-long history of under-the-radar copyright violation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Silent_Hill
Darkknight2149 18:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Are you certain it's a copyright violation that needs to be deleted? This talk page reply makes a good argument that Fandom has an acceptable license for copy/pasting text into Wikipedia, as long as proper attribution is provided. In this case I think the fix may be to give the proper attribution then talk to the editor to make sure they attribute in the future. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm feeling hurt and unmotivated to edit
I'm not sure where to go to talk about this but I've been accused of "disruptive editing" by Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) all because I've been editing arena Wikipedia pages "without source". I think (in my honest opinion) that if a event has a linked Wikipedia page (e.g. Michael Jackson's Bad Tour) then it should count as a source right? I'll add in some of the diffs that I was talking about.
Exhibit G (by the way I worked hard on this one)
I would love to have someone have a opinion on this as I feel like that being called a "disruptive editor" really hurt my feelings. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Thomasthedarkenguine, I'm not sure I'm understanding...are you asking whether you can use Wikipedia as a source? Valereee (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not exactly but I was thinking if you can use the linked pages as technically a source, you can go to the page and find the source there as well. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Apart from WP:CIRCULAR, that's not good practice. What happens if the source is removed or challenged on the original page? Anyway, if there's a proper WP:RS on the orignal page what's the problem copying it to the new article? Why make a fuss over doing that? DeCausa (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not exactly but I was thinking if you can use the linked pages as technically a source, you can go to the page and find the source there as well. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, I want to make this clear: I never intend to pick fights with users.Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, so, I'm not seeing 'disruptive editing' in any of those edit summaries?
- It looks like the problem is that you're using concert announcements at consequence.net to source statements about what happened at the concert? Yeah, you can't do that. As Magnolia is pointing out, those announcements happened before the concert happened. They may be a source for what was planned, but that can't be a source for what happened. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Allow me to share where he accused me of "disruptive editing"
- [2] Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- That appears to be from a template generated by a tool used to make life easier for editors. It can indeed feel a bit impersonal, and I'm sorry for that. Valereee (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe the template should be re-worded, I feel disrespected whenever I see "disruptive editing" when really I'm trying my tail off to make good edits. Also I find it a little hypocritical that on a lot of arena pages there are numerous shows listed that aren't sourced but when I make one show added on without a source, that automatically makes me a menace to society. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- You can certainly go to the template's talk and suggest that. It's probably Twinkle, so the talk is at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. I don't think anyone is suggesting you're a menace to society, just that you should stop supporting edits with sources that don't support those edits. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Actually no, suggesting changes on the template's talkpage would be a wild-goose chase. The text Thomasthedarkenguine complains about isn't in the template, which says only "Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing." The bolded text, "Your sources do not support your edits. Please stop your disruptive editing" was added by hand by Magnolia. Reasonably so, in my opinion. Sources published four months before the concert cannot support what, if anything, happened at the concert. Bishonen | tålk 20:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC).
- Ok, I've been now working my butt off to find sources and if Magnolia677 is still not satisfied then I'm going to be upset. Would Getty Images also be a good source? Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Getty Images, the stock photos source? Kind of off-topic here at AN, but what exactly is it you're trying to add that could be sourced to Getty Images? Valereee (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- You can certainly go to the template's talk and suggest that. It's probably Twinkle, so the talk is at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. I don't think anyone is suggesting you're a menace to society, just that you should stop supporting edits with sources that don't support those edits. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe the template should be re-worded, I feel disrespected whenever I see "disruptive editing" when really I'm trying my tail off to make good edits. Also I find it a little hypocritical that on a lot of arena pages there are numerous shows listed that aren't sourced but when I make one show added on without a source, that automatically makes me a menace to society. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- That appears to be from a template generated by a tool used to make life easier for editors. It can indeed feel a bit impersonal, and I'm sorry for that. Valereee (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@Thomasthedarkenguine: Thirty minutes after coming here to report me, you made this edit at List of entertainment events at the Little Caesars Arena, adding that there were 11,607 in attendance, and $789,403 in revenue. Perhaps I missed it, but where in the source cited does it say this? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- The KOD Tour Wikipedia page says so Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not accept original research. Moreover, copying unsourced content from one article to another does not improve the reliability of Wikipedia to its readers. I realize that you find it "insulting" when other editors revert your unsourced edits, but by continuing to add unsourced content you undermine the hard work of other editors, and make Wikipedia less reliable for its many readers. Please stop. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thomasthedarkenguine, please read WP:CIRCULAR. You cannot use one Wikipedia article as a reference on another Wikipedia article. It simply isn't permitted. But you may be able to find an acceptable reference in the "References" section of the first article. Editing will be less frustrating for you once you thoroughly understand the core content policy Verifiability and how to identify and cite reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I want to add that some of these examples that you put I re-added them WITH sources and like it or not there may be some times when someone doesn't have a source and it's most likely going to be something that everyone knows so sources aren't "needed" for example the fact that Billy Mays was the face of OxiClean for many years, 98% of the world already knows that so would putting it unsourced be worth being agitated about? Also do you even bother looking at the sourced before judging? I noticed you removed the shows for Bill Graham Civic Auditorium (again) when I actually sourced it that time. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but the source you added didn't support any of your edits. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have heard of neither Billy Mays nor OxiClean before. I'm sure that more than 2% of the world shares my predicament. Maybe it's because I'm one of the 96% (give or take a percentage point) of the world who doesn't live in the United States. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thomasthedarkenguine, see WP:BLUE for what sorts of statements are allowed without citation. Your Billy Mays example would certainly require a citation, and specific event dates, attendance, and ticket sales (the kinds of edits you show being reverted in your exhibits above) are basically the exact opposite of edits that don't require a citation.[L]ike it or not there may be some times when someone doesn't have a source. That's not how it works. Don't have a source, don't make the edit. Folly Mox (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- (after edit conflicts) If that number is sourced in the KOD Tour page (and its up to you to check) then copy the source to List of entertainment events at the Little Caesars Arena. If it's not sourced then either find a source or don't add the content. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- The connection between Billy Mays and OxiClean is well-referenced in both articles. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Cullen328, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The comment you replied to was about the number of people at a concert. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think (please do correct me if I am wrong) the point was that the connection between Billy Mays and OxiClean is not sky-is-blue obvious, as evidenced by the fact that our articles on those topics go to the trouble of providing citations. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Cullen328, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The comment you replied to was about the number of people at a concert. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- The connection between Billy Mays and OxiClean is well-referenced in both articles. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not accept original research. Moreover, copying unsourced content from one article to another does not improve the reliability of Wikipedia to its readers. I realize that you find it "insulting" when other editors revert your unsourced edits, but by continuing to add unsourced content you undermine the hard work of other editors, and make Wikipedia less reliable for its many readers. Please stop. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thomasthedarkenguine, could it be that you don't know how to copy references from one article to another in the visual editor, which you appear to be exclusively using? On a desktop browser, if you right click on a reference (as opposed to ordinary text) there may not be a copy action in the context menu, but you can still copy it by pressing Ctrl+C, or by clicking on the copy action in the menu bar (edit -> copy, in every browser; press Ctrl+E to reveal it if it's hidden or click on a particular icon, depending on the browser if it's "behind" the icon). You can then paste it in the usual way into another article.—Alalch E. 21:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Help
I messed up, did a mass rollback on an IP, but was on my 'tribs page, don't know how to reverse the edit. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I think all are fixed. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not naming any names here, but it has caught my eye that there is a lot of IP activity and a fair amount of SPA/very new editor activity popping up on this particular talk page. Reasons are easy to surmise. Just flagging this for community attention going forward. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Appeal: Topic ban from closing AfDs
Last February, I was banned from closing deletion discussions. And unfortunately, I wasn't able to break my silence in the said discussion by the time a consensus was made. So, I'll say what I was supposed to say in that discussion.
Someone asked in my talk page if I unilaterally decided that singular !votes for redirect should always override majority consensus for deletion, despite this not being policy-backed and such discussions being inherently inappropriate for NAC
and I told him that it's based on my experiences when I usually casted votes in various discussions before. Take example of these discussions:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Day in the_Morning (Tabernacle Choir album)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se (Song)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Sleepless Night (album)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissection (album)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Are We Waiting For
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge over Troubled Dreams
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tu Jaane Na
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Rage (EP)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surface (Aero Chord song)
Of 1 or more "delete" votes in those discussions, I was the only one who voted for a "redirect". And all were closed as "redirect", with some of the closers mentioning WP:ATD. Same case for this discussion, where only one voted for a "redirect". That said, those discussions indicated serve as my guide when it comes to closing various AfDs.
Moving On
I believe this is the right time for me to officially get out of my "retirement" from deletion discussions. I admit that I've taken freedom too far. Whenever anyone takes any of my closures to the DelRev, I thought that it's their problem and not mine. I didn't expect that this kind of mindset would create a negative impact on my contributions. I realized that I'm also part of the problem as such.
That said, I'm appealing for my topic ban from closing AfDs to be lifted. From hereon, I'll be careful in closing deletion discussions. Whenever anyone challenges any of my closures, I'll revert it immediately and leave it for other editors to relist or close it. I may not close as many discussions like before, but I promise to be careful in closing them. That way, I won't get myself into trouble like before.