Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RyanGerbil10 (talk | contribs) at 05:58, 13 August 2011 (→Un-Retirement: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

Request for community sanction against uploading images of Anders Behring Breivik from his manifesto

Hi there. There are numerous ongoing deletion discussions, both here and on Commons, regarding images of Anders Behring Breivik from his manifesto.

Without going into the details, each one has been deleted, and many have been re-uploaded, and then re-put up for deletion, and so on and so forth. We are now in the third round of re-uploading.

The whole thing is compounded by the fact that unlike most FfDs, where the only participants are people that spend time on FfD and know image policy, these ABB discussions are attracting not only Wikipedians who are rehasing arguments that have nothing to do with policy (a lot of ILIKEIT and IHATEIT), but it's attracting people from outside sites that are rehashing the same irrelivant arguements.

It's far past the "it's getting disruptive" stage, and is now in the "please make it stop" phase.

I am asking for a community sanction that essentially says "Any image from the Anders Behring Breivik manifesto is to be deleted per CSD G4 on sight, without further discussion. Repeatedly uploading the image will be seen as a blockable offense" (warning for first upload, block for subsequent uploads).

Maybe in six months we can all have a nice chat about this again, but right now it's just too much. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support wholeheartedly; I'm bored making the same arguments. They're not PD/CC - as detailed in Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_23#File:Anders_Behring_Breivik.jpg (no clear declaration, etc...) and, they fail NFC as living person, and various other reasons (some here).

They're bouncing back-and-forth between enwiki and Commons; there's been massive interest over the 2 weeks since the attacks to keep some-kind-of-image, and our sluggish bureaucracy has allowed that to continue. This suggestion might close the door.  Chzz  ►  23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Example of one chain: en.Wiki upload > Commons upload > en.Wiki reupload. There are similar chains in various stages for the aquatic scene, the police uniform scene, etc. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is just me musing aloud, but... on the face of it I tend to agree that the licensing terms on these images are largely unclear and confusing and we can't sensibly claim they are freely licensed at this point. So, yeh, I support Sven's suggestion. On the other hand he is alive (if detained) se we could possibly deal with the issue - is he able to receive mail in prison? If so, is anyone able to send him a letter which asks him to clarify the licensing in a way which meets ours (and commons) guidelines? Ideally this would resolve most of the issues relating to the images. I'd be happy to draft such a letter, but have no idea where to send it to, or how! :) --Errant 00:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Better idea; contact his lawyer - any idea who that is? --Errant 00:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Appears to be Geir Lippestad. (source) —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
      • He... I'd not want to be the OTRS volunteer that got that ticket. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• The opening of the book 2083 where these images appear states, "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form. In fact, I ask only one favour of you; I ask that you distribute this book to everyone you know." I don't see what the copyright issue is or why people keep deleting these images. Shii (tock) 02:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's what I've been wondering: it's hard to make a clearer PD release. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • But a lot of the text was taken from copyrighted works, so that is why it was removed from the Commons. We are trying to sort it out on the Commons and having discussions at 2 or 3 places isn't going to work. User:Zscout370 03:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally (and apologies that I'm repeating what I've said on a dozen deletion-request pages), the same doc says it is required that the author(s) are credited, and that the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world, the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world, and I have written approximately half of the compendium myself - clearly, we do not know which half. Therefore, we have no 'author' information. In addition, we already know that the same document contains other copyrighted content, without appropriate licencing. As for 'fair use'...please see this FFD.  Chzz  ►  13:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine someone else took those pictures, or that they are photos of someone else. Shii (tock) 04:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the problem. To summarize:

• In terms of Commons/free image: there is no clear licence that is compatible.
• In terms of NFCC: It's a living person (hence, further pics are possible), and it's not historically significant.

That's been decided by consensus several times now - see the discussion mentioned, and others have been deleted by admins under CSD criteria. Two more have just been deleted from Commons, in Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anders_Behring_Breivik.jpg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik portret blackwhite.jpg.

The problem is, that despite repeated deletion, the files are uploaded repeatedly and bounce back-and-forth between enwiki and commons, with days of discussion between, repeating the same arguments. Meanwhile, since the actual incident of 22 July (18 days ago), we've been displaying the images on the articles.  Chzz  ►  07:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I have no opinion on whether these images are usable or not, but if they are persistently being re-uploaded in ignorance of the deletion discussions (or worse, in full knowledge), then they should simply be deleted without further process. In fact, unless there is some special rule for files I think it's already possible to speedy them as recreation of deleted content. But it can't hurt to make this perfectly plain in this specific, high-profile, case as well. Hans Adler 10:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support Do it now. It seems pretty obvious that there are serious problems about using the images and this is wasting time that could be used more constructively. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Let's not glorify a crusader wannabe like him. and persistence to upload the manifesto images is right up that alley even when there's a lot of deletion discussions, that's ignorance indeed.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support There should be no rush to display manifestos at Misplaced Pages—anyone wishing to "exercise their rights" can easily find the document using Google. When the dust has settled on the incident (in a few months), a calm discussion can occur regarding the merits and copyright aspects of the case. Meanwhile, it is a waste of time to debate each upload. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Requirements for voters (in deletion, transferring or merging articles)

Is there a requirement on the users who attend such nominations, as for example the number of contributions and etc?Kazemita1 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Their comments will be struck if they are banned (either from Misplaced Pages generally or from the specific topic), and a given person may only comment from one account. There are no firm requirements beyond that, but if a contributor has very few edits, is a single-purpose account, or has an apparent conflict of interest, other editors may point that out and their comments may be discounted by the person who closes the discussion. The lack of specific requirements is partly because deletions, etc., are supposed to be treated as discussions, not votes. --RL0919 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, "votes" are given weight based on the strength of the arguments, particularly how well they appeal to our policies and guidelines, or even more importantly, common sense. Except for the few cases RL0919 enumerated above, that's just about all that matters. A good "primer" can be found at WP:ATA. -- Atama頭 05:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions regarding returning vanished users with ArbCom, community, and/or self-imposed sanctions

I view editing sanctions as an agreement between a user and the community. The user has agreed to moderate their behaviour in order to remain part of the community. If a user with editing sanctions invokes their "right to vanish" but returns later under a new username, the community is unable to confirm that the user is abiding by that agreement.

Setting aside the more contentious issues of "abuse" of RTV, if a vanished user returns and confirms the connection to the vanished account:

1. Should sanctions-imposed by ArbCom be explicitly transferred to the new account (i.e., WP:SANCTIONSLOG updated)?
2. Should community-imposed sanctions be explicitly transferred to the new account?
3. Should sanctions voluntarily undertaken by the returned user (eg those noted in ArbCom cases) be applied to the new account?
4. If sanctions are not explicitly transferred, should the account (or accounts) of the returned user be connected to the vanished account so that other editors will have the ability to check for sanctions (if they are recorded)?

In my experience, the community is better at imposing sanctions than recording or monitoring them, but even when those sanctions are recorded, returning "vanished" users are able to sidestep the agreements they have made in the past. I believe that the community desires the ability to monitor compliance with sanctions and I am posing questions here to gather more input. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How about moving this discussion to WP:RTV or one of the other venues where this topic has already been discussed in the past week or two? Risker (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There have been discussion about RTV in a more general sense, but I am posing very specific questions here. I don't want this to become a discussion about any specific case, and I think that those existing discussions have suffered from a lack of broader input. Community sanctions are very often started by admins, necessarily involve discussion at AN or AN/I, and are imposed by admins. I think this is an appropriate place to ask these questions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's always a problem when decisions about a policy or guideline are made on pages that don't relate to that policy or guideline: it's not transparent why those discussions happened, where they happened, why they were interpreted to have the result that they did, etc. Many of the very issues you've mentioned here have already been discussed in considerable detail in the past few weeks. I'm not opposed to the idea of consolidating the discussion, but restarting it again in a new venue without links to the very recent prior discussions comes across as forum-shopping, whether intended or not. It places an unfair burden on those who have already discussed this matter, provided information and recommendations, and shared their experiences; those recent discussions are essentially ignored now, as if what those users had said was irrelevant or immaterial. Risker (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping that that discussion here will clarify the community's thoughts about sanctions as they relate to returning vanished users. I don't believe that the subject has been discussed in any detail at other forums, although there has been a great deal of argument lately about what constitutes "abuse" of RTV. My questions are about sanctions, not about abuse of RTV and I would prefer that you not try to insert that suggestion here. Please don't derail this discussion, Risker. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

looking for a closer

There is an involved discussion on categories for school attendees on the WikiProject Schools talk page. I believe we've come to a general consensus, but it would help if an uninvolved admin could read over the discussion and close it based on their own conclusions. Thanks!--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RFPP is backloged

I normally don't raise concerns like this but the RFPP page is almost 13 hours backloged (31 protection requests). If an administrator could see their way to evaluating the reports and resolving them, that would be great. Hasteur (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob topic ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not going to happen per WP:SNOW. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the astounding amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and edit warring by User:Off2riorob on the actual article, I propose that he be topic banned from sexual minorities / LGBT topics, including BLPs of that kind. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose if that is the only issue. The discussion about that one article is getting VERY heated all over Misplaced Pages, but this is a singular issue, and needs to be hashed out via dispute resolution processes. One single discussion, no matter how heated, doesn't indicate a need for a ban. --Jayron32 05:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Request for RFC. Off2riorob's abrasiveness and aggressiveness in discussion is not new, see: Tin Pei Ling (for my earliest encounter with this editor), where WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT also seems to apply. I appreciate his strange mix of radical conservatism when it comes to enforcing BLP policy, but his abrasive style rubs me the wrong way, and I suspect, other editors too. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 05:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• There is nothing preventing you from starting an WP:RfC/U yourself. You do not have to "request" it.Griswaldo (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Of course, there'd have to be a second user who can certify they'd tried to resolve the same issue with Rob. It's worth noting here for clarity's sake that Rob has supported a topic ban on La goutte de pluie (Elle) at ANI. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose He's stating the issue is not notable, which is understandable and valid. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 11:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a frivolous suggestion IMO. You don't jump right to a topic ban proposal when someone's arguments are frustrating you. I think the proposer ought to outright withdraw this proposal and explore more productive ways to work the situation out. If Rob is really refusing to listen is there a way to mediate these types of discussions? And perhaps the problem isn't his in the first place. If you have a complaint about him it would be much better if you air the complaint first and get feedback from the community in general before suggesting a topic ban, which to me, simply looks like an attempt to gain advantage.Griswaldo (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; interestingly - Rob appears to be constructively discussing actual content on the article talk page. I don't notice FuFoFuEd on there... what I do see is two trivial comments by FuFoFuEd in a long thread where Rob is trying to discuss policy with a mass influx of SPA's... :S The content is legimitately concerning in its original form, and Rob is helping apply policy and sensitivity to the subject. What's wrong there? --Errant 11:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose All I see here is someone who doesn't like how a conversation is going. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• LOL I stopped looking after seeing the most recent revert made by Off2riorob at Luke Evans (actor). The reverted text included "...his publicist refused to clarify Evan's sexuality...". Thank you Off2riorob, and would someone please pass around a few clues to the SPAs. Johnuniq (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't often suggest wet fish when people feel aggrieved, however, if the OP feels that a topic ban is appropriate because they don't agree with what has actually been valid, useful discussion, then perhaps Misplaced Pages the internet is not the place for them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose O2RR is engaging in appropriate discussion and behavior for determining what belongs in a BLP. LadyofShalott 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose One might note that he has the consensus view on this topic - seeking to remove him is outre at best. Collect (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Rob is discussing the matter, I see no justification for a topic ban. GB fan please review my editing 12:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Post close comment

This thread was closed while I was composing a comment. I agree with the result but I think a general point needs to be made. I took a quick look at the BLPN thread referenced. It looks to me like the "pro-say foo is gay" side isn't completely without merit (I haven't looked at it that closely though) but the case isn't being helped by a bunch of SPAs who drop out of the sky and say things like this information will continue to be re-added until it sticks. It would have been better if this remained a discussion between here compliant editors because people unfortunately tend to support the "side without the socks", not the side with the strongest argument.

You know it would be quite ironic if it turns out the best way to get an article deleted is to create a bunch of socks and have them scream "KEEP" in the AFD. Perhaps I should reconsider this AFD close from last October. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock notices

I remember back in 2005 or 2006, it used to be quite visible if a user or IP tripped an autoblock and this was one way to catch potential sockpuppets. Has the visibility of autoblock notices been reduced since then? elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 06:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bibcode Bot needs to be blocked

The automatic bot User:Bibcode Bot is not reliably harmless or useful. Its purpose is to add Bibcode links within citations to an astronomy database. Let me repeat that. An astronomy database. However, it is adding links within citations in all articles that happen to include a journal in that database. Some general science journals cover both astronomy and medicine, say, so the database overlaps into other fields to a small extent. However, the astronomy database is useless for medical citations (and I dare say, for most topics outside of astronomy). We already have PMID and DOI links. This third link adds nothing for non-astronomy journal articles and is further clutter.

The bot's unwelcome edits have been reported on the bot's talk page here by User:Marie Poise, here by User:Looie496 and here by User:Colin. This has met with rejection by the bot owner (User:Headbomb) and edit warring to restore any reverted bot edits (this edit, and this edit, and this edit).

There is no policy requiring Bibcode links in citations and this bot should not attempt to enforce such a non-policy. It may prove to be generally useful if its scope is restricted (category, or project scope perhaps). But on the vast majority of topics on WP, its links are not guaranteed to be useful and should instead be done by a user (albeit using some tool). Editors should be free to decide which links are included in citations and to decide which are useful. Until this bot can be adapated to be 100% useful, it should not be run automatically and so needs to be blocked. Colin° 12:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been looking through the complaints that were made, and I do get the feeling this is a case of:

1. I don't like how the new citation looks like.
2. These links are not useful for me/for the articles in our scope.

Well:

1. it is a reference, it is not prose. You don't like one of them, don't click on it.
2. are you determining here what a reader may find useful? Or is this 'stay away from the articles in our project, we don't want your links?

As far as I can see, all the databases yield different information (sometimes slightly), and from any site there may be something that is useful - moreover, some readers may prefer one database over the other, or have specific access to it. There is also no policy to keep Bibcode out of citations, however, I would say that it should be our goal to include information which may be of interest to some. I would say that this is pretty useful, at most except to the table-creep like effect. --Dirk Beetstra 12:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much what Dirk Beetsra said. Also

1. Citation bot, Rjwimsli, and Bibcode bot has been adding these codes for a while now. They didn't suddenly become controversial overnight. Each went to extensive trials, and each had their BRFAs, etc...
2. PMIDs are routinely added to astronomy articles. No one's going "doctors shouldn't be able to use their own database to look up stuff, they need to use the NASA database, it is much more useful". I don't see one reason why the converse should be forbidden. Misplaced Pages is for everyone, and yes, that includes physicists, astronomers, material scientists, who might be reading an article on brain cancer.
3. The bot added the codes. They were reverted. I re-added them, not the bot, and there's a discussion. This is usual WP:BRD.
4. Rjwimsli added bibcodes to these very articles a while ago. My code's more advanced so he asked me to do a run on the same articles he did. He didn't get in trouble for it, so why should Bibcode Bot be blocked for the exact same thing?

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

These links are not useful in the cases where editors have complained. I have clicked on the links for those I reverted. The database provided nothing useful. These were useless external links. The "are you determining here what a reader may find useful" is in fact the basis of the complaint. This bot is cluttering citations with links that are not useful outside of astronomy. If we take the hardline "editors mustn't dictate to the reader what may or may not be useful" argument, we've have folk adding links to Amazon so they can buy the book, or to their university library so they can borrow it. For an automatic bot to be acceptable its edits have to be always welcome. These edits are not always welcome.

Beetstra and Headbomb are assuming that because there is a consensus that adding links to big citation databases is generally approved and useful, that it is acceptable for a bot to enforce such links on all articles and all citations. This is the difference between guideline and policy. These bots should not be used to enforce a guideline that has exceptions.

Headbomb continues to miss the point about astronomy articles with PMIDs. I wouldn't support adding a PMID link to a journal article that had nothing to do with medicine. Whether to add the link is a decision based on what the journal article's topic is, not what WP article it is in. Bibcode links are likely to be only useful in astronomy articles (perhaps others?) and rarely useful in the 99% rest of Misplaced Pages.

Please can someone block/stop this bot while we discuss this. It is currently running and adding these pointless links to scores of articles. If there's a consensus to keep it, the bot can be unbocked later. There never was any wiki-wide discussion to add these links or to automate their insertion and the approval page clearly indicates the only discussions were on astronomy projects and the authors only thought that outside of astronomy, it would only affect "a few odd pages which cites a astronomy/physics journal for some weird reason ". What has become apparent is that many articles cite general science journals that are in that database and none of them are astronomy related. Therefore the original remit of the bot has been exceeded and is unwanted. Colin° 13:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I will stop the bot pending further discussion.

There is an issue though of link overload which I don't think is being understood. Here is an example of what a reference in one of my articles looks like now that Citation bot and Bibcode Bot have gone through it: Berneman, ZN; Ablashi, DV; Li, G; Eger-Fletcher, M; Reitz Jr, MS; Hung, CL; Brus, I; Komaroff, AL; Gallo, RC (1992). "Human herpesvirus 7 is a T-lymphotropic virus and is related to, but significantly different from, human herpesvirus 6 and human cytomegalovirus". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 89 (21): 10552–10556. Bibcode:1992PNAS...8910552B. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.21.10552. PMC 50377. PMID 1332051.

It's entirely unnecessary to have all those links bloat the references section. A virology article has no real need for them; the PMC (or the doi with a |free=yes parameter) could act like a link to the article and the rest of the reference codes could be placed on an easily accessed subpage somewhere. NW (Talk) 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's adding the links to the same articles Rjwimsli did a month ago, per his request. Blocking is completely silly. And that link IS useful. Please unblock the bot. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocking is entirely appropriate for a bot that is not 100% harmless and consensual. In my perception, the bot is spamming. -- Marie Poise (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot is 100% harmless, and bots do not require 100% consensus to operate. Right now it's cleaning up after Rjwimsli, on articles which already contained bibcodes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that adding additional metadata to citations was helpful. I guess not. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. :) Note the quantity of metadata in the Cirrus cloud article—I added everything I could find, and no FAC reviewer complained. In fact, one actually complained about the lack of bibcodes in a couple of the citations! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Colin, I assumed nothing. You are the one enforcing that the pages in a certain subject should only use certain links to certain literature databases, and not the others. The only thing I said is that it seems that a) certain people do not like to see astronomy links on their articles (which are outside of astronomy) because they do not see the use of it, and b) certain people do not want to see astronomy links on their articles (which are outside of astronomy), again because they do not see the use of it. Although I agree that Headbomb should not have re-inserted the links when others removed them, you are now a) depriving those articles outside of astronomy (but inside your scope) for which the astronomy link would be of interest from these, while for those articles where it may not be of interest (to you, at least) are by no means harmed by having that link in a reference (again, it is not prose). Moreover, I would strongly encourage to have links to PMID's on astronomy articles, even if it not necessarily adding more info everywhere, I encourage chemistry articles to have links to all of them as well. It may not be necessary, but it utterly, absolutely does NO harm to the articles to have them (and in some cases it may even give more info).

Regarding the block, this bot was not breaking anything, these edits were certainly not making Misplaced Pages worse (the argument is maybe that it is not making Misplaced Pages better, which is a POV). I therefore think that this is a bad block. --Dirk Beetstra 16:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that these edits are indeed making Misplaced Pages worse. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And many others think these edits make it better. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed the whole point, Looie496 - You are of the opinion that it makes Misplaced Pages worse, but we are writing this encyclopedia for the reader .. --Dirk Beetstra 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe we are benefiting readers of medical articles by adding links to an astronomy database to them. Adding that clutter makes it harder to find the correct way to access the reference source. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The correct way to access the reference is whichever the reader prefers. Don't make decisions that readers can make for themselves. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)What is 'the correct way to access the reference source', Looie496? --Dirk Beetstra 17:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually by PubMed, because it provides a lot of extra information in addition to the abstract. To be clear, I have no objection to a human editor adding a bibcode where there is any reason to think it is useful, I just don't like this automated addition of useless clutter. I don't think I'm alone in this, by the way -- I have yet to see a biologically-oriented editor who claimed to be happy about this. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am speechless that you actually answered that question. --Dirk Beetstra 18:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm more speechless that he would have his preference enforced and the preference of others denied. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Look, suppose you're an ordinary reader who doesn't know about all this stuff, and you are looking at this version of the optogenetics article. Look at the first reference in the list -- suppose you want to look up the source. There are three links presented to you: a bibcode, a doi, and a Pubmed link. Which do you choose? Even parsing out the links is bewildering. This just isn't a user-friendly way of doing things. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And suppose there's doi, pmc, pmid? Which do you choose? Or if there's doi only? Or if there's doi and bibcode? You choose like you choose all things. You try it. Then you decide which you like. And then you use that one (or those ones). If I just wanted to read the article, and I had to choose between bibcode and pmid, I would pick the bibcode since there's a good chance the article is digitized and available in the ADSABS database (and also often contains lots of additional information about the article). Between PMC and PMID, I'd pick PMC since PMC = free and available. If I'm interested in who cites the article, then both Bibcode and PMID, as they both cover different journals. What you choose depends on what you want. But what I don't want is someone telling me "you shouldn't have access to want you want because this is not what I want". Misplaced Pages is for everyone, not just medicine experts. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Looie496, they are all going to the source, so it does not matter. Let me be clear, I have no clue about Optogenetics, I am a chemist. I will use the DOI to get there (maybe PubChem if it is there). And if an astronomer goes there they may use the Bibcode, because they are familiar with that. If you really want to enforce PubMed, because PubMed is the best way of reading the sources, you should be removing all the other identifiers (they are inferior to PubMed anyway). But if it is a personal choice that PubMed is thé only way of accessing references on medical information, then you can change that behaviour with some clever programming in your style sheets. One question, you accidentally stumble upon an article on something typically belonging in the astronomy world (something that does not have a clear relationship with medicine), and you have a reference on that article which links out via PubMed and BibCode .. which one do you chose? --Dirk Beetstra 18:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What I want is for human editors of the article to be able to make these decisions without having bot coders who know nothing about the topic area coming along and overriding them. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And that is about the clearest violation of WP:OWN in this whole discussion, Looie496. --Dirk Beetstra 18:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I do hope this bot contains better logic than some of the arguments being presented in its favour. Like "There is also no policy to keep Bibcode out of citations" or "PMIDs are routinely added to astronomy articles." Or the logic Headbomb's using to excuse his edit warring that somehow the bot (which he runs) should be regarded as an independent other editor wrt BRD. We could do without the false arguments and the attempt to set projects against each other. Like "bots do not require 100% consensus to operate" as though the opponents of the bot suggested they did. Or that opponents suffer from WP:IDONTLIKEIT and topic-based WP:OWN because they object to a bot. None of the opponents here object to the inclusion of Bibcode links where a human brain has decided they are useful. That might be an astronomy article, a medical article or a Simpson's article for all I care. We object to the assumption that these Bibcode links are useful to all articles and all citations where the journal happens to be in some obscure astronomy database. Looie is right about our reader's reaction to the clutter of citation links. If they hit one, when reading about viruses say, and end up in an astronomy database, their reaction will be WTF, not "thanks for the link".

For this bot to be allowed to run across all of WP, it needs to have consensus approval among a wider scope of readers than the astronomy/physics projects listed in the bot approval page. Actually, following the project-notification links we find this discussion. Which consists of three posts by Headbomb and one post by Snottywong, who co-authored the bot. Great! So even the astronomy/physics projects haven't given any sort of consensus for this (unless one takes apathy for consent). This is unacceptable. Colin° 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been express support for the addition of bibcodes all around (do you really think the astronomy project, of all projects, would oppose this bot?). Discussion concerning bibcodes sprouted on most citation templates, several wikiprojects, and various other pages. Bot variants of bibcode-related tasks have been done in the past months before Bibcode Bot's approval, (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_6#Bibcode_cleanup) User talk:Citation bot/Archive 1#Bibcodes, User talk:Citation bot/Archive 1#Bibcodes 2, User talk:Citation bot#ADSABS database API, Template_talk:Citation/Archive_4#Many_things_about_identifiers, etc...). Citation bot has been adding those for years now, and Bibcode Bot has been adding those for months. It's hardly something new. Should block Citation Bot from adding PMIDs and PMCs to all articles? I mean, they aren't sociology/mathematics/physics/military history/naval warfare/linguistics/haute-couture/engineering related! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your links are to a citation template talk page and to the citation bot talk page. We're hardly talking the village pump here! Do you appreciate how obscure those pages are and atypical the watchers of those pages are likely to be. Neither of these will be on many user's watchlists. Each of the "discussions" involve at most three editors. You haven't linked to even a project-based discussion (involving those other than the bot authors) where this bot's actions were discussed. You are right that the astronomy project members would likely consider this a useful tool, but even some of them might realise that setting it off across all Misplaced Pages might not be wise. Discussions that are pro-bibcode in citation templates or about transforming a url to a template parameter do not indicate that folk want all citations in all articles to include this database link merely because the journal is in the database. Let me repeat that I have no problem with the template containing the parameter and no problem with editors filling in that parameter after considering whether yet another database link actually adds anything (which Beetstra's example below doesn't). It is just clutter if it fails that. Filling WP with clutter is not desirable. Colin° 19:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Colin, you are pulling things out of context here, you first say "They end up in an astronomy database, their reaction will be WTF, not "thanks for the link"" .. while exactly that is what the people get, a proper link to the proper article, only hosted in an astronomy database as I try to show below - and now you turn it into whether it actually adds anything? Yet another argument which does not hold anything, it adds exactly just as much as the DOI (which redirects to the original), or the PMID - the article title, the authors and the abstract. And again, clutter, yes, it may be clutter to you (you can edit your stylesheet if it bothers you), but it may be very useful to someone else. You keep pushing arguments where you push your preferred databases, because other databases are for you not useful, and because they clutter the page for you, that must be the same for others. --Dirk Beetstra 19:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

'They end up in an astronomy database, their reaction will be WTF, not "thanks for the link"... this link gets you exactly where you expect to get, to the correct article. And I stand by my argument: It is up to the reader to decide which database to follow, not those who (normally) author these articles. You are right, this is unacceptable, it is unacceptable that editors use their bias for preferred databases to link externally. --Dirk Beetstra 19:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

This dispute in this way is not getting us anywhere. While one side argues that the links can be of interest (and some of these links are already there for some time on articles outside the scope of Astronomy which suggests people don't mind, and suggestions and insertions of the link did not show significant opposition up till now), or are actually an addition for some articles, the other side argues that they don't see that it could possibly be useful to the reader in any form, and that it is mere clutter (yet another link which does not give more info and makes it impossible for the reader to find the 'proper' reference). Headbomb, is it an idea that for now the bot stays with articles in areas where the link surely is of interest (for sure within the Astronomy project, broadly construed, maybe using some setting with a list of 'allowed categories') and allow for discussion whether the link generally is of interest outside that area before (if ever) inserting them there as well (or finding other solutions like I believe is currently discussed on the template talkpages)? --Dirk Beetstra 20:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A simpler rule that might achieve the same result would be to restrict |bibcode= addition to articles that already have one or more existing citations including a |bibcode=. Rjwilmsi 21:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is .. that that is true for many articles, also outside of Astronomy (it is even true for articles that were recently reverted). --Dirk Beetstra 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean, a highly visible article like Dog has already a BibCode for months (occasionally, next to a PMID and a DOI ...). And sure, we have Laika, but considering Dog a typical Astronomy subject .. nah. --Dirk Beetstra 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

All these articles already had bibcodes in them (many, but not all, added by Rjwilmsi). That's why the bot ran on them in the first place. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It will often happen that one or another, but not all, of the citations will lead to open access copies. The one that is almost certain to is PMC, and it would therefore make sense to list that one first if available--even for articles in Astronomy. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just commenting from the perspective of an astronomy editor, bibcode is usually useful in cases where there is online data, a non-fee copy (arXiv) of an article, or for older articles that lack identifiers such as doi. It is also useful for finding other publications by the authors because it has built-in search capabilities.

Besides the topic of astronomy, I would expect bibcode to be useful in physics or space exploration articles. Sometimes odd connections also occur because of the mythology of astronomy naming conventions (Example: Sirius and dog), or just the extensive history of astronomy. But I have no particular preference about it being automatically used in non-astronomy articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we unblock the bot now? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the bot is only going to run on articles that already have at least one Bibcode and that it hasn't already edited? NW (Talk) 02:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Right now the current run covers a list of articles Rjwimsli edited, per Rjwimsli's request so the vast majority of them should have bibcodes.
• The bot is slow, so it focuses on areas where it makes the most impact (usually astronomy, physics, etc...) or on requests. Right now it's running on a request. There's no point in running it twice over that list. So no the bot won't run twice over this list.
• That being said, the code is refined after every run, mostly to include some journals it might have missed due to unconventional spellings, non-standard journal abbreviations, etc... So the bot could and will run on certain articles twice. But articles receiving multiple runs would be those that have either been explicitly requested twice, or those much more closely related to physical sciences & astronomy (e.g. those in Category:Exoplanets or Category:Semiconductors). Will there be runs covering topical non-physical sciences categories such as Category:Physiology? Unless someone makes the request, no, simply because it's not a good use of resources.
• Will the bot ignore articles without bibcodes? No, because this is highly-undesirable. A stub like AB magnitude lacks any kind of identifiers. A run from Bibcode Bot would add the arxiv, doi, and bibcode (assuming it can find them, in this case, it would add Bibcode:1974ApJS...27...21O, doi:10.1086/190287. Citation bot would do the same, although it might miss the bibcode because its logic is not as sophisticated. But if the questions is will the bot run on stubs like Priapulites? Unless someone makes a request, no it won't.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Education in Washita County, Oklahoma

I am trying to create and add categories to the category Category:Education in Washita County, Oklahoma, but it gives me the following error message:

"The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

"Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you. "

I would like to create this category, since I have created education categories for other Oklahoma counties.

Thank you. Jllm06 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Created. TNXMan 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this an example of clbuttic autocensorship? --Golbez (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is: "Category:Education in Washita County, Oklahoma" --Carnildo (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remove my IP block exemption

Hi sysops! I have/had IP block exemption because my previous ISP used IP sharing. I've moved to a new ISP and I have my own IP address :). Therefore I no longer need the IP block exemption. Thanks! Tim1357 00:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, give it to me instead, I'll lose it down the back of the sofa and we'll both be rid of this annoying bit Egg Centric 00:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, don;t know about that, but I've removed Tim's. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was quick. Thanks Tim1357 00:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Un-Retirement

Hello all! I've been in retirement for perhaps 2.5 years now, but have recently been considering getting back into the Misplaced Pages game. I realize that this question may be over-broad in its focus, but would anyone be willing to offer links to the most pertinent changes in policy since January of 2009? I assume that most things are the same but I would hate to step on toes considering the extreme length of time I've been gone. I guess listing them either here or on my talkpage would be sufficient. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards