Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive309

Request lifting of topic ban for Nfitz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In September 2017 I (Nfitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) received a community-placed Topic Ban from editing the Wikipedia namespace that could be appealed here (at AN) after six months. I'd like to request that this ban now be lifted. The ban is listed at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community and documented at here. A lot of time has now passed since the problems I ran into working with the community in 2017. I've come to understand that my behaviour was well outside of the norms acceptable here. While there are a lot of personal reasons and explanations for all this, they aren't really relevant or of interest to those here, and I just want to move on. Thanks everyone; I'm very sorry that I was difficult to deal with in 2017, which lead to this topic ban, and shortly afterwards to a block that was later lifted. I've left a brief summary below of what lead to those events. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Supplemental comments by Nfitz

*I was asked during the unblock process about comprehensive rationale. Looking at what happened, in summer 2017 I was clearly becoming far too obsessive about the lack of clear application of policy/guidelines. In particular, I think paranoia got the better of me regarding another edit leading to various conflicts; which I didn't deal with very well. All I can do is apologize. I can see my mistakes, and note that the underlying medical condition that lead to the situation has been diagnosed and is being successfully treated. (my sleeping problems were no secret - turns out I had massive sleep deprivation caused by sleep apnea, for years it would seem, but worsening notably). Needless to say, the impacts extended far outside of Wikipedia. The good news is that I'm being treated (CPAP machine), and am pretty much my normal self again. I can assure everyone that there'll be no repetition of the events of 2017; I'm painfully aware, and embarrassed, of where I went off track. And I know better how to walk away, when I don't see eye-to-eye on something.Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Having been involved first time round, I'm content to see the ban lifted now based on the statement provided above. - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• If this is good enough for Sitush it's good enough for me. I am very interested in hearing from Johnuniq and Bishonen, and maybe from that mysterious User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, who seems to have disappeared, or possibly grew a beard and went incognito. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• A very necessary topic ban originally; those 2017 discussions can still make my toes curl. I'm willing to see the ban lifted now. But frankly, I'd like to make it conditional, in the sense that if obsessive behavior recurs, any admin can restore the ban without going through another AN/ANI discussion. But perhaps that's just me. (Drmies, the "Fortuna" fellow you're looking for is simply our friend Serial Number 54129.) Bishonen | talk 20:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC).
• No problem lifting the topic ban provided any future problems can be quickly handled. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see any reason this shouldn't be removed. I'd prefer an unconditional lift. If @Bishonen:'s suggestion of what is effectively a GS version of parole, then I could only endorse such a thing if we put an automatic end-length of that too (presumably 6 months). It's unjust to have permanent restrictions without them being justified. I personally don't think any special change is needed other than the usual eggshells conduct warning in place after any removal of restrictions. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• An automatic end-length is a good idea. But for the rest, are you thinking of the removal of community restrictions such as this one, User:Nosebagbear? A non-specific "usual eggshells conduct warning"(?) won't make it possible to handle future problems other than either by block or by starting over with another AN/ANI discussion. User:Johnuniq, did you have a logged condition in mind if we lift this one? Bishonen | talk 03:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC).

• I wasn't thinking of anything other than lifting the tban but I understand reticence on the matter because it is hard to sanction someone merely for posting their thoughts in the Wikipedia namespace, and the previous behavior was very unhelpful. It's really hard to define what is unacceptably unhelpful particularly when so much of it is posted daily at ANI. The big problem is when someone comments in a way that derails a discussion. If you can think of some wording that covers that or anything else, it might be better. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see a big deal with a finite probation period - though I'm not familiar with how it's been applied in the past. Can someone point to guidance and examples? I'm not sure I agree that the topic ban itself was particularly useful though - the problems I had in WP space were symptomatic of a bigger problem, and the WP ban didn't end that problem or the resulting behavioural issues. I was indefinitely blocked not long after the topic ban - and I waited months until the root cause had been dealt with before I sought over a year ago that it be lifted. To be honest, a block in the first place rather than the topic ban would have probably been more effective in this case - though it's only in hindsight that I can see that. Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Nfitz, I'm not aware of any precedent for a conditional lifting of a TBAN, so I hesitated before posting to suggest it. Blocks are frequently lifted with special conditions, TBANS not so much. If it has happened, I haven't seen it. But finally I thought, why not? In respect of probation, I've treated it the same as a block, i.e. I've suggested a condition that's similar to common unblock conditions. I believe you are asking for the ban to be lifted in good faith, but I don't feel sure your problems won't return. Sorry, I know such frankness is tactless. A probation period of either three or six months would do me. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC).

• What I really want from this, is never to have to discuss this or anything like it here again! If an automatically-ending probation is what it takes, I'm okay with that as I'm confident that will go well. I don't think it's necessary, as the issue was never restricted to the WP (or the WT) namespace - and I've been editing without out problems returning for over a year. I'm fine with frankness - to be frank. Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

So, an obvious question: why? Why do you want the topic ban lifted? What will you do that the topic ban prevents you from doing? --Calton | Talk 05:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

What drove the issue for me, was that realizing I couldn't have participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sudbury schools for an article I had worked on in the distant past - and for which I've been trying to improve after there was no consensus on the AFD. Also being unable to participate in discussions that I've historically done, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues - particularly with semi-professional National Premier Soccer League spawning the apparently fully-professional NPSL Founders Cup later this summer which needless to say needs some discussion! Nfitz (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally, since you have apologised for past behaviour, and show a willing to change, I support the idea of giving you a second chance. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• If it wasn't clear, I don't insist on making conditions, and my suggestion for them doesn't seem to be particularly popular. I'm OK with simply lifting the ban. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC).
• Lift unconditionally. ∯WBG^converse 10:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• I've had my fair share of run-ins with this editor over the years, but I am glad to see they have resolved whatever offline issues they had, and that they now seem to be back on the right track online. Agree to lift unconditionally. GiantSnowman 12:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Watchlist misbehaving?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's something odd about the edit counts in the watchlist. I use the option that gives a "(XX changes | YY since last visit | history)" indicator (I forget what the option is called) and the "Display pages on your watchlist that have changed since your last visit in bold" gadget. Today, the bolding is random as far as I can tell, and the "YY since last visit" is also weird. Eg. I load my watchlist, it says "70 changes" for AIV (I haven't visited AIV yet today, so that's plausible). I visit AIV, then wait for someone else to edit it. Watchlist now says, "71 changes | 68 since last visit". It doesn't seem to matter if I reload the watchlist page or use the "view newest changes" link. Does anyone know what's going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs)

Probably a matter for WP:VPT? GiantSnowman 14:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

T218511 -- ∯WBG^converse 14:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, looks like it's tracked at least. I - still! - can't log in to Phabricator to comment there because the "log in or register" link ends up with only an option to register and no way of logging in. GoldenRing (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: You can try alternative: phab:login/email. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:RaquelSalanchez and Copyvio issues at Draft:Solving logic problems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over the past few days, this user has continually inserted copyvios from many different sources into this article, and has received a large amount of warnings over this, but has continued to do so anyway. I believe that some intervention may be in order due to their seeming Competency issues. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 12:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• And she just removed this thread with no comment.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

RaquelSalanchez just created Combinatorics in real life, which I have tagged for copyvio. They've also created a version of their draft in mainspace at How to solve logic problems. - MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:School and university projects/Discrete and numerical mathematics/Participants and major contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• There's no loophole for students to excuse them from observing WP:COPYRIGHT (es:Wikipedia:Derechos de autor). Students are given fairly wide tolerance for behaviour which, in other circumstances, would be dealt with as Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry. In return they need to comply with Wikipedia's policies, and respond on-wiki and behave as Wikipedians, not just as students on a course. In the course notes pointed at by Bbb23 which Jmleonrojas (talk · contribs) provided his students (including RaquelSalanchez (talk · contribs)) there's discussion of the subject matter, but no mention of the wiki's expectations. Cabayi (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked for copyright violations independent of this discussion. The other editors from Wikipedia:School and university projects/Discrete and numerical mathematics/Participants and major contributions should have their contributions checked for copyright violations. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Jmleonrojas (talk · contribs) responded positively on my talk page & will be advising his students.
  Taking a wider perspective, it's another one of the recurrent problems of having a cohort of editors each trimester who look to their college or the wiki edu dashboard for affirmation/approval/advice rather than to the wikipedia community and who will lose interest in resolving any problems as soon as they have their final grade. Cabayi (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tor node?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP user claimed to be using a tor node here [1]. I thought that the software automatically blocks all editing from Tor, but if I am wrong, can an admin hard-block the IP address? funplussmart (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

All active Tor exit nodes are publicly documented. Either, the extension has a delay which it hasn't tripped yet or it hasn't been updated. A more probable idea is that the IP is mixing up Tors vs. proxies, or just saying anything. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please issue a block for this. I'm not notifying as IMO no discussion is needed and there is no possible defense. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I blocked for 48h, though the user does not have a perfect track record (lots of warnings for adding unsourced material and noncompliance with fair use policy), and I hesitated whether the block should have been indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yea, that might merit discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocking indef after an unblock request that continues to demonstrate WP:NOTHERE. Sandstein 19:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And based on their response to the indef, looks like it's time to remove talkpage access as well. WaltCip (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible minor reprimand for derogatory language in edit summary by bbb23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My new article, Backdraft 2, was recently A9'ed.

I contested, and it has since been suggested for A7, but there's a problem.

First of all, the commentary in the edit summary conflicts with the purpose of an A7 deletion, since the actual complaint, such as it was worded, suggests a quality issue, and this contradiction suggests a likely benign ignorance of the CSD process.

Of more pertinent concern to this notice board report is the actual language used in the edit summary. Calling a budding article "crud" in the process of suggesting it's an A7 candidate is needlessly pejorative and it suggests a potential for personal conflict.

This is a minor issue, but I foresee potential escalation.

Shentino (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't suggest an a7. I said it wouldn't be eligible for a7 and obviously wasn't an a9. I did call it "crud", but only because it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(note: Restored bbb23's comment, which was mistakenly deleted by Shentino. ST47 (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• ’Crud’ was an apt, if informal, description of the article as it was at that point, meaning ‘something of poor quality’. That aside, BBB23 correctly assessed and refused a request for speedy deletion per A9 and, also correctly noted that it wasn’t eligible for A7 (there is an obvious typo in the edit summary - ‘now’ should be ‘nor’). If anything, Shentino should be thanking BBB23 for rejecting the speedy deletion request and I suggest they withdraw this meritless complaint speedily. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help nominating protected template for deletion, please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to nominate Template:Curlie for deletion as the website to which the template is connected appears to be very outdated and largely unmaintained so it's no longer helpful for readers. However, the template is protected so I can't nominate it for deletion on my own. Can someone please help or provide advice on how I should proceed? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I did the administrative work to get it nominated. Please write an actual nomination at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 6#Template:Curlie. DMacks (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

...which I see you have already done. Thanks for the prompt attention! DMacks (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fake sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Has anyone else noticed articles like this one: Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Cao Son (Cao Son Nguyen)? It's a first for me, and I'm not really certain how to dal with it (apart from the fact that it doesn't belong in the mainspace for certain).

It has a lot of sources, all with more or less different text and titles, but all of them seem to be computer-generated pages not actually about the subject of the article at all, e.g. this, this, this or this. I don't know if the article creator doesn't understand the sources, doesn't care, or is somehow responsible for fabricating them. Any siggestions about how we normally deal with something like this are welcome. And if these kind of sources appear more often, any ideas on how we can easily prevent them from being used (blacklist? edit filter?) are welcome as well. Fram (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi dear Fram I really don't understand if these sources fit to wiki criteria. Please pardon any mistake and please guide me how can I improve this. (Ramniram (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC))

I have trouble believing that you would ever believe it to be correct to source "2013-2015: “Cho Ngay Mua Tan” and other YouTube covers, collaboration In June 2013, he started recording and publishing piano covers of pop songs on YouTube, under the pseudonym Cao Son Nguyen Ngoc. In about sixteen months, he had 2 million views and 10,000 subscribers, with covers including Noo Phuoc Thinh's "Cho Ngay Mua Tan", Mr Siro's "Chot Thay Em Khoc", SHINee's "Ring Ding Dong" and many many more piano cover videos In 2014, he used his nickname as "Crystal June" and start playing classical piano with many songs, featured songs like Bridal March by "Vicente Avella", "Turkish March" by Mozart, etc" to this, which supports nothing in that paragraph, and then "2018: YouTube Channel Become Popular In Spring 2018, he has released many music videos on YouTube, featured is: Vu.’s “La Lung”, “Dong Kiem Em”, Phuong Ly’s “Mat Troi Cua Em”, K-ICM’s “Buon Cua Anh” and so on" to this which again has nothing of the info it supposedly references, and so on. You seem to add random sources to random paragraphs, without bothering to read them at all, or hoping that no one else will read them and accept them as is. You have already been warned that you look like a paid editor based on earlier problematic articles (e.g. Omar Ezzou, where you used the same press release 11 times from different webpages, as if they were different sources). I don't know if you are a well-meaning editor who simply lacks the competence or language skills to contribute here, or if you are indeed a paid editor trying yo push sub-par articles and subjects into enwiki (you could be both at the same time of course), but I don't think guiding you will solve this. Others with more patience may take a different approach of course. Fram (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

kbselflocking.com is a site advertising SEO. Do you have any further questions? Block, blacklist, move on. GoldenRing (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget to delete the spamcruft. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This smells of paid editing. The profile image is claimed to have been received via email.

In a prior article which has now been deleted via AFD, the article was referenced with 11 references which were the same identically worded press release. When more sources were added, it was the same press release and two link where the sources made no sense because there was no article there. It made more sense after the addition of a fourth reference which was a rehashed press release which was badly worded. That refernce was deleted from the source site, likely because it was spam and not an article (deleted reference article author claimed to be an SEO expert). The timing of the addition of that fourth reference was very suspicious. It was added on the same day it was created. Full details at the previously linked AFD.

The editor has been asked about paid editing, but has denied being paid.

This latest article with nonsensical references looks like the editor has engaged another SEO person to carpet the internet with article so that they could be used as refernces in the article. However, it looks like the SEO person just used a bot to generate nonsense articles. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you. I'll block and delete. Fram (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More accounts

Apologies for reopening this, but there is more to this story.

• Ramniram recreated Jonathan Wax ([2]) from a redirect following the second quarantining of Draft:Jonathan Wax.
  • The edit history of this spam draft is now at User talk:Rahulji (!) after being moved there by Rahuljia1.
  • Ramniram tried to unquarantine this draft before, but it was moved back.
  • The first iteration of Draft:Jonathan Wax was written in mainspace by AfPEN. I subsequently blocked this editor for UPE and quarantined the article. AfPEN petitioned me via email for the unsalting of Draft:Milan Kordestani using an email address that suggested UPE. I made an informal CU request for this account to @TonyBallioni:, but don't know if it was followed up. Milan Kordestani and Draft:Milan Kordestani have deleted histories full of UPE socks.
  • There was a declined AFC submission by Classycouture, also in the history of that draft.
• Rahuljia1 moved CreditDigital to mainspace and significantly expanded it. CreditDigital was created by MrDanielVictor.
  • Ranajia1 removed advert and notability tags from that article.
• Rahuljia1, Ranajia1 and Rahulji are very similar usernames.
• Ranajia1 and Ramniram have very similar userpages.

{{checkuser needed}} MER-C 16:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

MER-C, sorry for not getting back to you:

• Ramniram (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Rahuljia1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed
• Lord J Official (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Technically indistinguishable from Ramniram
• Ranajia1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is operating on a proxy but shares two devices with Ramniram.

TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, tagged and quarantined. Thanks. MER-C 17:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• This may be related to this discussion at WP:COIN about a company that's doing UPE on BLP articles, and has listed a number of articles as part of their "portfolio" here. Ramniram leapt in to oppose the deletion of an article that was until recently included as part of the company's "portfolio," so I'm thinking there might be a connection. Also, I'll note that an IP editor 157.37.199.19 posted to WP:ANI to complain about my AfD of that article after Ramniram was blocked, so that IP may be associated as well. Pinging El_C and Joe_Roe as well, to keep them in the loop. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That's not all. I have blocked Qwe0101 for unquarantining CreditDigital. Qwe0101 also created Tanya Nolan and Draft:Ash Davies, which are spam. Qwe0101's userpage states "In future, I also would like to Update Wikipedia as a Freelancer." Youth001 removed the AFD tag on T. J. Allard and whose other edits spammed a website (theyouth.com.pk) which matches the description given on Qwe0101's userpage. BB3132 removed advert tags on Draft:CreditDigital and created Youth Academy, which so just happens to be about, you guessed it, the organization on Qwe0101's userpage. MER-C 17:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hands needed at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some assistance needed at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old where there are 750+ pages needing attention. User:RonBot normally deals with these but neither the bot nor its owner User:Ronhjones have edited since early-April and a backlog has grown. Nthep (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

All done! Maxim_(talk) 17:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrator account security

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our mass message sent to administrators regarding account security, in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee,

– Joe (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Administrator account security

Nedim Jahić

Please have a look. Also in combination with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nedim Jahić and maybe Draft:Nedim Jahić Jonas. Somebody who knows how to deal with the process here should also help the new user how to solve it. Thanks a lot, --Fano (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Call for volunteers to be interviewed re: moderation of harmful content on Wikipedia

The Berkman Klein Center, with support from the Wikimedia Foundation, seeks to study content moderation practices by the Wikipedia community by interviewing Wikipedia content editors and administrators. We are looking for Wikipedia editors and administrators with a range of experience to be interviewed about the processes and guidelines for content revision, content deletion, and quality control of English Wikipedia. The interviews will particularly focus on gaining an understanding of the community’s approach and decision making about handling harmful content both on articles and talk pages.

The ultimate goal of the interviews is to help the Wikimedia Foundation identify the strengths and gaps in the community’s efforts to moderate harmful content and to improve the quality of content and positivity of conduct on the platform.

Our preference is to conduct the conversations through video chat or over the phone. However, we can accommodate the preferences of those who would feel more comfortable answering questions through email; we’d much rather communicate with editors over their preferred medium than not at all!

Our preference is to record the conversations for those who are willing. However, all the answers we receive from the interviews will be aggregated; no answers will be associated with specific editors’ names or pseudonyms in communications with the Wikimedia Foundation or public reporting. Any specific examples or anecdotes mentioned in interviews will only be included in the report with prior permission of the interviewee.

If you are willing to participate in a 15-20 minute conversation to help the Berkman Klein Center and Wikimedia Foundation understand more about harmful content on Wikipedia, contact Casey Tilton at ctiltoncyber.harvard.edu or leave a note on his talk page. Catilton (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sure. GMG^talk 21:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• IPs, too? 2601:1C0:6D00:845:5187:E876:C7C:9042 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Unban request from User:009o9

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user was community banned in 2016, and has requested an unblock. I am copying their statement below for consideration by the community. The original discussion leading to their site ban is here. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason for my block was WP:NOTHERE, as a volunteer and paid editor in good standing, I was regularly accused of "General pattern of disruptive behavior" for virtually anything I contested, whether I had a topic COI or not. My major crime was participating in a policy (Help page) discussion regarding maintenance templates. Removing a stale maintenance template would sometime become contentious and there is/was no good way to locate the owner, or determine what the article's problem is/was (sometimes years ago) when they did not leave a summary on the talk page. For my effort, I became a test case to determine if paid editors are allowed to participate in policy discussions.COIN-archive

The editor who brought the COIN against me was the now blocked Jytdog, as I recall, he was incensed that I did a BRD to a Help page,Diff an area where I have no distinguishable COI, all the while, he was making BRDs in areas of long held consensus to simply support his position. (change made to Template:Advert/doc)

Things got pretty heated, and with my contributions now being stalked and pruned for submission to AfD (note that a paid editor cannot edit in the article space) and the same pruners stalking my volunteer edits (editor cannot have separate profiles for paid and volunteer works), I had nothing to lose, but to see if I could get a ruling at ANI.[3] I believe that the compliant was canvassedDiff and closed in less than seven hours in the middle of the night, whereas, the Jytdog ANI was discussed from Nov 27 to Dec 4.

Yes, I am an advocate for paid editing, the labyrinth of rules and ever changing policies / guidelines require outside consultation. My current advice to clients is to avoid the Wikipedia at all costs, the times where stub articles were tolerated are gone forever, the Wikipedia article is a nightmare assignment for in-house personnel. As one who participated in the Foundation's paid editing discussion five years ago, I feel I have a valuable point of view to contribute -- I am a tough negotiator, but I am also a lone voice. Regards 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 10:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Unban me because I did nothing wrong" is a pretty easy oppose. Also, WP:NOTTHEM applies.--Atlan (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - disingenuous at best; nothing prevents him bending the Foundation's ear to his heart's content. Jtdog provided a valuable service to the community and his burnout and subsequent implosion is a community failure. Pointing to Jt's block should be enough to say no. His statement regarding his current advice to clients is also enough....is it going to be his plan to fight the improvements we've made in curbing PR use of Wikipedia? On a positive note, it's good to hear we are, on some scale, succeeding. Many of you know how strongly I feel on the subject of paid editing....I'm happy to oppose this.John from Idegon (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - tying 009o9's ban to Jytdog & using Jytdog's retirement/block/implosion to justify a request is both missing the point of the ban and inappropriate, opportunistic WP:GRAVEDANCING. Cabayi (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the original discussion leading to the ban, I think BrownHairedGirl (not pinging lest I get accused of canvassing) said it best with "However, the more I study 009o9's conduct, the more I am persuaded that they are engaged in a prolonged, systematic effort to stack the deck in favour of COI editing, and to undermine the work of those volunteer editors who give their time to trying to counter the people who seek to warp Wikipedia for personal gain (with minor copy edit)." We have a paid editor who has disclosed as required, which is good, but who is not content with just accepting paid editing policy but engaged in activism to make paid editing easier - putting their paid editing ahead of our only priority of building an encyclopedia. I see no recognition of the community's decision that that approach is improper, or any indication that it will change. Instead, all I see is an attempt to evade responsibility by 009o9 and instead pin it on Jytdog. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'll just add re: "the labyrinth of rules and ever changing policies / guidelines require outside consultation." That's not for paid editors to decide, it's for the Wikipedia Community and the Wikimedia Foundation to decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - a poor unblock request, showing nothing at all has changed. GiantSnowman 11:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The appeal reads 'not there', also, the appeal itself suggests an insurmountable listening issue, when the appeal is so off-topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Jytdog gone doesn't mean 009o9 back in. Still not here to listen and act accordingly. Lectonar (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Jytdog is gone? :( The things you miss when you're away. El_C 11:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose pending radical limitations - unlike much of the community I actually do normally listen to "I didn't actually do it" arguments in non-immediate unblock requests. That is less the case for community blocks but I had a look at it anyway. I felt the SNOW was a little quick, but more critically there are a bunch of issues bought up there that weren't discussed in this unblock request. Failure to at least show appreciation/awareness for these, coupled with the fairly aggressive style of this, I'm reticent to accept this. I'd only accept this if a prohibition on paid editing (PBAN) and a TBAN on discussing COI (outside his own contributions) were enacted for the first six months. He's said he did volunteer editing - let's see whether he can do that first. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Apart from the wrongness of trying to tie a return to Jytdog's fate, the absolute misrepresentation of why the ban occurred in the first place (categorically not because I became a test case to determine if paid editors are allowed to participate in policy discussions) tells us exactly what we'd be getting by rescinding the ban. Grandpallama (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• I see nothing in this request to indicate an unblock. However, there is a technicality; this user is now community banned due to the third bullet at WP:CBAN and such discussions "must be kept open for at least 24 hours" (emphasis in original); this discussion was only open for six or seven hours. I'm not sure what is the best way forward at this point. GoldenRing (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• That it stays open until c. 1100 hours on 10 May 2019 and then snow closed seems the simplest route. ——SerialNumber54129 12:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• GoldenRing is talking about the original discussion that lead to the indefinite block, not about this discussion, which has only been open for 3 hours. The 24 hour rule was made mandatory via RFC in 2018. I doubt it was meant to retroactively apply to all previous ban discussions.--Atlan (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry! I calculated the difference between the two dates without grokking that the actual dates were in 2016. Oppose unblock. GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• No problem both; thanks to Atlan for pointing it out. My density remains my own  :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Atlan: - could you (or anyone else) give the link for the RfC - I couldn't find it. I'm positive it's there (and not before time), but I clearly missed it at the time. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, here it is.--Atlan (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Unless he's willing to promise to no longer perform any paid editing, avoid all discussion of paid editing, and avoid all appearances of paid editing or supporting paid editing. But even then, he doesn't seem to understand why he was banned in the first place. That Jytdog was blocked is irrelevant, and a form of Other Stuff Exists. That he was blocked doesn't invalidate his ban. Rockstonetalk to me! 17:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from 009o9

(Copied from User talk:009o9#Response to WP:AN discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I was not trying to make it easier to do paid editing -- I was trying to prevent it from becoming even more difficult, and in turn making it more valuable.

What I came to discuss is the resolution of your PAID "problem" by suggesting the creation of a sister wiki for Org, Corp, Prod related articles. Instead of maintaining this ridiculous policing mess, and alienating users with COI accusations, why not create a host where these articles and editors are welcome? Editors could then clearly delineate between their volunteer edits and paid/coi edits by platform. As an incubator area, if and when the subject becomes notable enough for Wikipedia, the article could be moved via a request at AfC, or drafts denied, and pointing the editor to the more appropriate sister wiki. There are several glaring reasons why this needs to be fixed...

1. The Wikipedia has a stranglehold on access to the Knowledge base, ever since Google integrated (and closed) Freebase with WikiData. The search engines use the (WikiData) Official url to disambiguate the many similarly named topics with the topic that has taken the extra steps to achieve search relevance. Knowledge Graph Cards are still manually created by the search engines, but it is difficult to become discovered without the WikiData domain authority. This stranglehold, has very likely diminished innovation over the past decade.
2. If you know anything at all about SEO, it makes no sense to "spam" the Wikipedia, all urls are marked nofollow on the Wikipedia. (Humor the CEO and PR rep with a place to publish and the problem is solved.)
3. In the business world, there is a preference for the familiar Wiki style sectioned article when evaluating a company or product.
4. One instance where notable organizations tend to not meet WP:N is publishers of magazines, journals and newspapers. Nobody writes about their competition and specialty journals may not have any competition, yet they would be completely acceptable for WP:RS. Innovative products don't have a chance on the Wikipedia, because of all of the drama and notability inflation.

It should also be understood, that a COI editor who has the job of maintaining an article in the Wikipedia space, that they be treated like WP:SHEPHERD rather than pariahs. In these cases, the ability to maintain separate accounts is crucial. WP:WIKIHOUNDING Finally, it might be of interest that the en.Wikipedia has no compliant Paid Editing policy after almost 5 years. "An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page."Foundation TOU There has been no sustained RfC [4] for the paid editing policy and what is disguised as policy does not conform to Foundation's TOU alternative disclosure policy page I adhered to consensus about not editing in the article space, but then it became the draft space, then the user space, then being censured in discussing the policy space after so many years and concessions had been ceded -- to a policy that, to this day, still does not officially exist. Under the Foundation's rules in effect, disclosed editing in the article space is just fine. I am not interested in contributing until Wikipedia becomes a friendlier and less obsessed place, it seems a sister wiki might be a step in the right direction. Thought I should share this idea. Later, 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 01:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• You're saying you have no interest in contributing at the moment, so your comments presumably won't make any difference to the unban discussion, but I'll offer a few thoughts of my own in response to your numbered points...

1. Regarding the "stranglehold" Wikipedia/Wikidata might have on knowledge searches, I think there's a good possibility that that has come about partly because of our strict "no marketing, no advertising" model. The world is awash with claims that Wikipedia is not reliable, yet people know that it is a resource that is (relatively) free from the corrupting influence of advertisers and marketers. To me that is clearly one of our strengths, not a weakness. When you talk of diminished innovation, do you mean that that Wikipedia is not open to marketing and advertising innovation? That you can't leverage our assets (isn't that one of the things you marketers say?) to boost your own profits? That is by design, and a very good thing.
2. I do know a bit about SEO, and "nofollow" or not, Wikipedia usually comes up top on searches for companies (I know that because my job has me searching for company information almost every day), and having a Wikipedia article is a very desirable thing for a company from a marketing perspective. So suggesting that the "nofollow" thing renders Wikipedia useless for spammers, marketers and advertisers seems naive at best.
3. Wikipedia is not a company or product evaluation platform. People in the business world are free to use whatever format they like in their own publications.
4. I don't know anything about publishers of magazines, journals and newspapers, but Wikipedia is open to policy changes regarding specific notability criteria - we just require that such moves are driven by the needs of the encyclopedia, not the marketing ambitions of companies and their paid editors.

I see no "glaring reasons" there at all for why "this needs to be fixed" other than because it would make Wikipedia a better place for marketers and advertisers. All of what you are saying reads like it is coming from the perspective of someone who wants Wikipedia to become friendlier as a marketing platform, and if you think that is likely to happen any time soon then you are very much out of touch with the Wikipedia community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• 009o9's comments are entirely irrelevant to an unban request. Time for a WP:SNOW close anyone? Cabayi (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Live event, have wp:event coordinator, unable to make accounts?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T189362

I am in a live event and I have WP:Event coordinator events but am unable to make accounts for people. If anyone can share insight into proper procedure, then I will document the recommendation for the next person. Thanks. I recognize that this general forum is not the best place for this sort of request but I am hoping for a faster response. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Just as a note, @Bluerasberry: I moved your post from ANI to here, as it's more appropriate at AN than ANI (though there may be a better place as well). Also, I removed the post at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Event coordinator as that page is for requests only, not general help (for others, here's the post in question). SkyWarrior 17:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am at an event with 70 librarians at the United States Library of Congress. I am already an event coordinator.

I am getting a message which says the IP is blocked - 140.147.236.152. Of course this is a busy public library but we need access to make accounts.

Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Virginia/Program for Cooperative Cataloging May 2019

"Account creation from this IP address (140.147.236.152) has been temporarily restricted. This is probably due to persistent vandalism from the IP address you are editing from, which may be shared by many people if you are connected to the Internet via a proxy server (used by most schools and corporations and some Internet service providers) or dial-up access.

To request that an account be created for you, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request a username. We recommend that you first search in the list of all users to ensure that your desired username is not taken. For all other inquiries, fill out the form provided by the Unblock Ticket Request System using the information provided below. We apologise for any inconvenience caused to any innocent users.

Information about the block: account creation from this IP address (140.147.236.152) was blocked by DeltaQuad, who gave the reason {{checkuserblock-wide}}."

I expected that as an event coordinator I would be able to get around this block. Can anyone advise?

Fortunately, 60 people made accounts in advance. This is not super urgent, but it is urgent and I want the event to go well for anyone who showed up without registering.

@DeltaQuad:? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"The request an account process is severely backlogged. If you submit a request today, you can expect a response in approximately 3 months." - Wikipedia:Request an account. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick ping for @DeltaQuad:. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

DQ looks to be offline. I've pinged another CU to take a look here, and @Zzuzzz: is a CU too. Not sure if they'd be willing to act before DQ gets back online. Unilaterally undoing a CU block, even temporarily, is a big no-no for mere admins, so you'll need CU help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. repinging @Zzuuzz:. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, knowing the details that others might not, I'm very wary. I'd really like to hear from DQ. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I've already unblocked temporarily in order to allow Lane to proceed with the Wikipedia event. @Bluerasberry:, do you know approximately how long the event will be? I can restore the block as soon as it's over. If Amanda (or another CU) believes this was a Very Bad Idea then go ahead and undo my unblock. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC).

Wait. So blocking account creation from an IP will prevent event coordinators from creating accounts? Interesting. This seems unintended, and I wonder if this issue has been caught before. If not, perhaps it needs a Phab ticket. Another question: if EVCs are granted IPBE in this situation, would that resolve the issue? Also FWIW I think Ponyo made a good call by decisively unblocking so that the event was not ruined, rather than dithering about nervously. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: The only rights that event coordinators have are: noratelimit ([5]) and the ability to add confirmed ([6]). Thus, the restriction imposed by account creation blocked applies to them as well. I'm not sure IPBE would fix that - the issue isn't a lack of access, but a lack of account creation. I see 2 potential changes: not block account creation from existing accounts, or add a new right to override the account creation block. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This was most recently raised and answered at WT:IPBE. IPBE is not a solution. A bug report has been lodged (a year ago). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Briefly: from what I've been told, not even stewards can override account creation blocks, so there would be no permission to devolve. We also usually do intend to block account creation from individual IPs. For ranges, it is worth considering the impact, but many times the specific intent of the block is to block account creations while allowing logged-in editors to edit. The solution if there is an issue here such as this is to contact the blocking administrator/CU, or if they're not available, someone else who can help assessing the damage and possibly lower the block. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is correct. See my response below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Swarm - The "block account creation" option on an IP block applies to everyone. All user accounts (including administrators and stewards), regardless of their confirmed status or any local or global user rights they have - cannot create accounts. Any attempt to create an account while behind a blocked IP or range with this option set will be restricted by the MediaWiki software. I found this out after running into this and performing some testing with this block option. No account creation from an IP block really does mean no account creation. I remember creating a phab ticket about this, but it was met with replies from developers asking what the problem was and stating that nothing is broken. Obviously I disagree with this, but official policy does not explicitly define exactly which users would be overridden in this situation. You'd think that IP exempt accounts, admins, account creators, event coordinators, or Stewards would still be able to... but nope. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Weird. So if I'm editing from a library or school or something that's subject to a routine vandalism block, I would be completely and utterly exempt from the block, except for account creation activities. I am forbidden from ACC, because that particular aspect of the block is inviolable, without exception. It's kind of humorous, because I am fully authorized to just unblock account creation, but my account can't just ignore it. How can a dev say that's not broken? It makes absolutely no logical sense, and it becomes a lot harder to say "what's the problem?" after you see this real life situation, in which an outreach event could have been completely ruined. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That is quite weird and I share your thoughts on it, Swarm. Should another phab ticket be opened requesting some sort of a change given this recent event? It would make sense at the very least for admins and stewards to be able to override it, if not also event coordinators. What do you think Oshwah? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor - I think it's a great idea, but after we've come up with a plan. What user groups should be exempted will be subject to some debate, but getting the conversation started is a move in the right direction once we know what should be different. To me, blocking a user would obviously give us the option to disable account creation as normal. But when blocking an IP or range, this is where it gets a bit tricky. At first thought, I want to say that existing accounts should be able to create accounts and edit as normal, and hard IP blocks preventing logged-in users from editing would also apply to account creation - unless you're IP-block exempt. But, its more complicated than this. Existing accounts being able to create accounts and edit behind a blocked IP (lets use a school for example) could just result in someone creating accounts to give out to others to use maliciously. Now we have sock and meat puppetry issues to deal with on top of it. Disabling all account creation eliminates this possibility, and I'm sure this is why things are where we are today. It would be nice if we could set different levels of account creation restrictions for blocked IPs (such as "allow all", "allow only existing users", "allow no account creation", etc) and where IP-block exempt users (hence, admins, etc) would be exempt from such restrictions. This may or may not be a perfect idea, but it's what makes sense to me as I sit here and think about how we'd resolve this, and make sure we have the ability to fully adjust restrictions to cover the different situations with IP blocks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think opening another bug report will help much, other than to poke the devs. The problem is that there is no way to assign rights - as it stands the new account needs to have the ability to create itself before it's created. Assigning rights to uncreated accounts doesn't work, and assigning more rights to the other creator is not going to get around this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Zzuuzz - I edit conflicted with you while I was expanding and stating my complete thought in my previous response. We shouldn't run to a ticket right away; that won't accomplish anything but have he devs tell us what they said last time. We'd need to come up with a full plan and idea of how we'd change this and get the community's support before we go to the devs with a phab ticket... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

T189362 remains open and needing triage. Until that's dealt with I don't see how a community opinion will matter much. However don't let me stand in your way. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Zzuuzz - Hey you found it! :-) I remember working with SQL on this and figuring out the restriction with our tests. I agree; it unfortunately feels too large of a giant that we can't defeat. A ticket did nothing, and community opinion won't matter... where do you even start? Surely, we have to figure this out and come up with something... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, The old ticket is still open - see T189362 SQL^{Query me!} 14:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ponyo and Zzuuzz: Go ahead and leave it unblocked for now. I can't see all the data from when I ran the check (as some seems to have expired), but it doesn't seem to be much of an issue for now, and we can reblock if needed down the road. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks, Amanda.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad, Ponyo, Zzuuzz, Oshwah, TheSandDoctor, Swarm, TonyBallioni, and DannyS712: The event was great. Thanks to everyone who attempted to help. I was anxious and overly dramatic here. 65 people edited as reported in the dashboard.

I have been active in documenting how the EventCoordinator userright works. My follow up to this will be to make notes there on best practices and limits of the tool. I might want little changes somewhere, but overall I am willing to work within the bounds of our security standards and really respect our userright permissions process. I am so thankful for everyone who stepped in.

I had relief on a few fronts - this was a savvy crowd and 10 of 70 present could connect to virtual networks back at their universities. That got more IP addresses in the room. Of course people had phones - I feel silly about that. Of course people can register on their phones.

Practically everyone stayed for 3 hours. Everyone had fun, great event. Thanks and I will catch some of you on meetup / outreach coordination documentation pages. I will respond more to some of your messages next week. I sincerely appreciate all the attention but in hindsight I was squealing too loudly and should have chilled out a bit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry - Awesome! I'm glad the event went well and that you enjoyed it! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I am glad that the event went well, Bluerasberry! Thank you for bringing this issue to our collective attention as I don't think a lot of us were aware of this problem . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy regarding the Arbitration Committee's power to authorise deletions

Note

I am requesting feedback about a proposed amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy regarding the Arbitration Committee's power to authorise deletions. This discussion is not a formal petition to modify the policy.

Background

An administrator deleted User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles with the rationale "Arbitration enforcement action under gun control DS". The term "gun control DS" refers to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions says:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

The dispute is whether "any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary" includes the deletion of a page as part of the discretionary enforcement process. The Arbitration Committee at a recently closed clarification request did not decide whether pages can be deleted under "other reasonable measures" as part of the enforcement process. The Committee instead passed the motion:

All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

There is further discussion about the motion on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard here.

Current conflict between deletion review and arbitration enforcement

Both Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24#User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement reviewed User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles.

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24#User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles was closed as "The clear consensus is that this deletion should be overturned per the deletion policy. It now requires arbcom to sanction this." At a parallel review of the deletion at the still open WP:AE request titled "Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave", there is currently no "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE" to undelete the page.

Why is a change needed to the Arbitration policy to prohibit deletions under discretionary sanctions

Without a change to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy:

• Administrators will be desysopped if they temporarily undelete a page deleted under discretionary sanctions for non-admins to review.
• Non-admins therefore cannot review pages deleted under discretionary sanctions.
• Wikipedia:Deletion review does not have the authority to review the page deletion. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment are the only avenues for appeal.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators requires "the clear and substantial consensus" of participants to overturn a discretionary sanction, whereas DRV does not have such a high requirement overturning speedy deletions. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews says, "If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion)."

Petitions

As noted here, the community cannot directly amend Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions because it is an Arbitration Committee decision. Limiting the scope of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions requires modifying Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification and amendment says:

Once adopted by the Committee, this policy will undergo formal ratification through a community referendum and will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this policy is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing.

Here are different petitions that can be submitted to modify Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to prohibit discretionary sanctions deletions:

Proposed petitions about the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction over authorising deletion, undeletion, and redirect of pages

This paragraph of the "Policy and precedent" section of the arbitration policy:

The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated.

is amended to add the underlined text (each petition is a possible separate amendment):

Petition 1: The Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, or redirection of pages in any namespace.

Petition 2: The Committee does not have jurisdiction over authorising the deletion, undeletion, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace.

Petition 3: In its dispute resolution and user conduct role, the Committee does not have jurisdiction over authorising the deletion, undeletion, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace.

Petition 4: In its dispute resolution and user conduct role, the Committee does not have jurisdiction over authorising the deletion, undeletion, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. In its role of handling private information, the Committee may delete pages as privacy violations or under child protection. (The "privacy violations" and "child protection" wording is from Wikipedia:Office actions.)

Petition 4a: In its dispute resolution and user conduct role, the Committee does not have jurisdiction over authorising the deletion, undeletion, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The Committee may delete pages it deems unsuitable for public view based on private information it has received.

Notes on each petition:

Petition 1 is the narrowest amendment and only prohibits discretionary sanctions from authorising deletion and other related actions.

Petition 2 is the broadest amendment in that it prohibits the Arbitration Committee from authorising deletion and other related actions.

Petition 3 is a narrower amendment than Petition 2 in that it prohibits the Arbitration Committee from authorising deletion and other related actions in only its dispute resolution and conduct role. It takes no view on whether the Committee can delete pages after receiving private information that makes Committee members want to delete a page.

Petition 4 is the same as Petition 3 except it explicitly authorises the Arbitration Committee to delete pages as privacy violations or under child protection after receiving private information. The adding wording was based on feedback here about why banning the Arbitration Committee from deleting pages could be undesirable.

Petition 4a removes is the same as Petition 3 except it explicitly authorises the Arbitration Committee to delete pages unsuitable for public view based on private information. The adding wording was based on feedback here about why banning the Arbitration Committee from deleting pages could be undesirable.

I am inclined to submit petition 4 to the petition process. If discussion here indicates that petition 4 is undesirable, I plan to submit petition 3 to the petition process. If discussion here indicates that petitions 3 and 4 are undesirable, I plan to submit petition 1 to the petition process.

I also welcome feedback about whether a different petition wording is preferable over the four petitions listed here.

Thank you, Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs), BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs), King of Hearts (talk · contribs), Levivich (talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), and Xymmax (talk · contribs) for your earlier feedback about the proposed petition to amend the Arbitration policy.

Cunard (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Cunard: If you do submit petition 4, please amend it to read "based on private information" rather than explicitly enumerating private cases in which ArbCom can act. There's a few reasons for this. First, what comes through our inbox is unpredictable, and using narrowly-defined cases rather than the somewhat broader (but still tailored) umbrella of "private information" risks us discovering a situation not covered by those narrow cases and being unable to act without drawing attention to a private situation. Second, the narrower the use cases, the more information we're giving by simply marking a deletion as an ArbCom action, which frustrates the point of having a body able to act on information that must be kept private.

  Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, no part of ARBPOL should explicitly put child protection on ArbCom's plate. That is the domain of the WMF, or should be, anyway. In reality, we may have to step in on a child protection matter if it is urgent or the WMF fails to act, but we should not make that routine. I would be very uncomfortable with explicitly writing this out as a role of ArbCom in ARBPOL. In fact, I would resign immediately, as I wouldn't consider myself qualified to hold a role that deals with child protection as a matter of routine. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Also, as a side note, I'm attempting to come to a compromise on wording of the discretionary sanctions procedures that would limit the ability of admins to delete certain pages as AE actions. If you could hold a bit to see if that bears fruit, I would appreciate it. I expect the idea I'm trying to hammer out would address the concerns of most people. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), thank you for explaining how to improve petition 4's current wording. Would this work: "The Committee may delete pages it deems unsuitable for public view based on private information it has received." To BU Rob13 and the community: Would the "pages it deems unsuitable for public view" wording be too ambiguous or broad? Is there a better or more narrow wording than this one that would not enumerate all the private cases in which the Arbitration Committee can act?

      I would prefer that pages including those like User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles be taken off the table for discretionary sanctions deletions since it is bad to have Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24#User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles reach a clear overturn conclusion and an AE appeal for the same page likely to reach a no "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE" to overturn because the two venues have different standards. I believe that the DRV standards should be applied to page deletions rather than the AE standards. I am willing to wait to see whether your work on the discretionary sanctions procedure will bear fruit. Thank you for your work on this.

      Cunard (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

      • Cunard, the difference between DRV and AE is not merely the standard applied, it is also the question considered. DRV looks at whether the page should have been deleted, whether there is a policy-based justification, etc. AE looks at whether the action is within administrator discretion under DS. An AE deletion is endorsed even if every admin who comments says "I wouldn't have done that but I can see how it is a possible conclusion to reach and so is an allowable exercise of discretion." It is true that AE can also say "looking at the page, the deletion decision is unreasonable / goes beyond allowable discretion" but the process as now enforced does not mandate that there be a consensus in favour of the deletion for it to be upheld, it merely requires there to be no consensus that the decision was outside of discretion. Whatever Rob is trying to achieve (and I hope it is positive), the Committee's decision not to decide on AE deletions but to strengthen the protections around them nonetheless proves that we have a problem that requires change be imposed by the community. EdChem (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• The policy and precedent section should be strengthened by including a clear statement that the Committee is bound by policy, something like:

All operations of the Arbitration Committee are bound by policy adopted by the English Wikipedia community, overruled only by WMF actions and the Terms of Use. In particular, the arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. In creating or modifying its own policies and procedures, the Committee may not act outside the bounds of English Wikipedia policy nor delegate powers beyond its own.

The adoption of a clear change to the deletion policy to clarify that no deletion power is held beyond in the privacy-related cases of provision 4 can then be implemented. I do agree with Rob that that reserved area of authority should be drawn broadly to handle the variety of circumstances that might arise, and that we should do nothing to imply child protection is anyone but the WMF's responsibility. I also think that the power to delete in such cases should be the Committee's alone, and not delegable to AE or via DS. EdChem (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, EdChem (talk · contribs). I would strongly support this wording change to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy and precedent in conjunction with the change to deletion policy. I support your taking the lead on proposing these changes if you are open to doing so. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Responding after Cunard's ping: I agree there's a problem that needs to be solved, but I disagree with all four of these proposals. I believe administrators should have the ability to delete pages as needed as part of required sanctions. The issue here was whether the page violated WP:POLEMIC, directly related to the user's sanction. Upon review one of the administrators concluded the page did not violate WP:POLEMIC, and the other administrator recommended deletion review. Procedurally, I think this played out exactly the way it needed to, but the procedure itself isn't quite there, with threats of desysops and the like. I would be in favor of: if an administrator makes a public deletion of a page under discretionary sanctions, the deleted page may be submitted to deletion review after an appeal is filed and an administrator responds. Once properly submitted to deletion review, any administrator may close the DRV/undelete page history/undelete the page without fear of sanctions. Office actions are obviously not reviewable. That policy, or something similar, would be my preference - otherwise, you run the risk of a page needing to be deleted that doesn't get deleted for a week or two while the community decides whether it needs to be deleted, and considering the majority of these will likely be MfDs, which are poorly attended anyways, I'm in favour of a firm administrative fist. SportingFlyer T·C 08:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • SportingFlyer, can you suggest a situation where no CSD criterion would apply but a page needs deleting urgently? EdChem (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @EdChem: I don't think "urgently" is the correct term. I think the situation is similar to the one here, where the arbitration committee concludes deletion is an appropriate sanction, which, let's be honest, should be very rare or at the very least a unique situation. Let's hypothetically take away the ability for the arbitration committee to delete pages in this scenario: the page gets sent to MfD by the arbitrator, users who not necessarily aware of the conflict !vote on it, and the MfD outcome may be inconsistent with the arbitration sanction. If we give the arbitrators the ability to delete pages in this manner, but we also allow deletion review to check to make sure the deletion was consistent with the arbitration sanction, we effectively shift the deletion burden from the arbitrator (who must convince the MfD voters the sanction is appropriate) to the editor under sanctions (who must convince DRV the arbitrator deleted a page outside the scope of the sanction), and I'm very, very comfortable with that. SportingFlyer T·C 01:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• A word about why BuRob13 wanted to avoid mentioning child protection--arb com for many years has worked very hard to get the WMF Trust and Safety people to take over this extremely difficult and sensitive area; about 5 years they finally agreed to, and have been dealing with it every since. I, and I believe the others of us in some way involved, are of the opinion they have met their responsibilities here quite well, and certainly better and more consistently and more professionally than we could have. You will almost never see actual cases referred to on-wiki now, but they handle it as needed, and they do keep arbcom informed to an appropriate extent. We needn't and shouldn't specify anything here about this.

Similarly, we need not really be concerned about the need to make explicit provisions to react to emergencies and dangerous vandalism and clear privacy problems. We have checkuser and oversight blocks, and even for an ordinary admin blocking for these reasons and specifying it, no admin is going to revert (when necessary, the practice is to convert an ordinary admin block in these areas to oversight or checkuser blocks).

The purpose of these proposals is to nto prevent admins from taking needed action, but from overreaching. No admin will fail to take really needed emergency action, but there is a certain temptation to overreach. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have stricken petition 4 and replaced it with petition 4a to remove the child protection mention. Cunard (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't want to let ARBCOM make decisions based on private information as it's going to leave vast arguments about "why is the private information, which obviously can't be so clearly disputed, given extra authorisation to encourage deletions?" The WMF should be handling risks to health and child protection ones. So why didn't I go for petition 2? - because hard cases make bad law, and I can see situations where ARBCOM might need to delete pages. Thus, this is a firm support for proposal 1. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that the petition 1's narrow change would be the most likely to achieve consensus. Cunard (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I would support any of the four petitions, but I'd rather have different language. It seems to me the important point is that all deletions are reviewable at DRV. If Arbcom wants to authorize deletions as a DS sanction, and have such deletions reviewed at AE under AE standards, that's all fine and well... but the outcome of that process, like any deletion process, gets reviewed at DRV. So, I'd be in favor of a one-sentence addition to ARBPOL and/or DELPOL (e.g., "Deletions authorized by the arbitration committee are reviewable at DRV like any other deletion."). As practically applied here, that means that even if the Firearms articles deletion is upheld at AE, that page would be undeleted because of the outcome of the DRV. My logic is that Arbcom and AE can evaluate an administrator's conduct in deleting a page, but DRV evaluates the content of the page and determines whether the page should be deleted. Thus, a proper exercise of DS discretion may result in a page that is nevertheless undeleted at DRV (if AE determines it's "within discretion", but DRV determines the page should not be deleted, which seems to be a possible result in the pending Firearms articles case), and an improper exercise of DS discretion may result in a page that stays deleted anyway (if AE determines it's not within DS discretion, but DRV determines that the page should be deleted anyway for some non-DS reason, e.g., a CSD criteria). Leviv ich 15:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

• Can we leave this as no petition? The struggle ArbCom had over the past few months agreeing on wording themselves shows how complicated this is, and any amendment is likely to be extremely divisive and controversial for something that happens maybe once a year. I think starting this petition would be a net-negative for the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: - while there is some merit to this argument, it is in effect an agreement to sacrifice some portion of the encylopedia for the sake of our internal coherence. That's an even more inimical argument that the one that underpins GS, which sacrifices a calmer route to protection and blocks in order to protect the articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Except based on a scan of WP:AELOG, you’re trying to write a policy to fix something that has been done exactly twice over 7 years. This is not needed and I would personally consider any attempt to change the policy disruptive in the sense that the discussion itself will likely not achieve a clear result, users will likely retire, and as a whole figuring out the wording here will have significantly more cost than it has benefit, even if I was a raging ARS inclusionist (which I’m not.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: It's more extraordinary than once a year. To my knowledge, the AE deletion by GoldenRing was the first deletion that has been carried out under ArbCom authorization ever. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

BU Rob13, yeah. I checked the AELOG after posting it, and it happened once before in 2012 (Timotheus Canens was the deleting admin.) If anything the length of times between the deletions makes it even less of an issue than if GoldenRing’s was unprecedented, because it shows it’s happened before and didn’t start a trend. Outside the divisiveness aspect, the real issue with both of these proposals and the discussion above isn’t that they threaten admins’ ability to use DS: that’s virtually never used. It’s the trend towards writing IAR out of the deletion policy that is being discussed along with it. I’m sure ArbCom receives things that need deletions discreetly on occasion, as does the oversight team, as does even the SPI team. There are very legitimate grounds to apply IAR to deletion in some cases, and moving towards getting rid of that concept based on moral outrage of someone using deletion as a DS for the second time ever isn’t helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Adding wording to bar discretionary sanctions deletions should not be divisive particularly since discretionary sanctions deletions happened twice ever. The Arbitration Committee had a motion here to add three words to instruct administrators that discretionary sanctions should not be used "to delete pages". If that motion had passed, this would not be needed.

  I am fine with IAR deletions where the circumstances warrant it (example here). I am not fine with discretionary sanctions deletions where an admin who did a temporary undeletion for non-admins to review could be desysopped for violating WP:AC/DS#sanctions.modify and where WP:AE standards and practices apply rather than WP:DRV ones (EdChem explained why that is undesirable here).

  Cunard (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• That it's only happened twice, and at least one of those was overturned at DRV, kind of proves that we don't need DS deletions, doesn't it? Leviv ich 15:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Having looked over these discussions, I can see both sides of the issue, but I also see that this is an issue that has arisen only rarely. At this stage, given the degree of controversy caused by the AE-based deletion, I expect that admins will delete pages based only on an arbitration remedy, if at all, very sparingly. As such, I'm not convinced that the issue warrants the degree of community time and attention that a series of RfCs or an ArbPol amendment proposal would necessarily generate. I suggest that the issue be put aside at this time and allow some time to pass to determine whether there is a practice issue here as opposed to a mostly theoretical one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see this as theoretical: the practical dispute or "test case" is already here: User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles. The deletion of that page has been overturned at DRV. If the appeal of the page's deletion at AE is declined, what will happen to the page? If it's deleted, that would be a problem that needs addressing, and the only way to address it would be a policy clarification. Leviv ich 17:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Compromise reasoning - there seem lots of concerns, perhaps justifiably, that the debate itself could cause major issues. I can understand that petitions 2-4b are major alterations and could cause severe disputes. On that basis, I've firmed up my pseudo-ballot !vote above, and think that if we are going to have a petition (which I encourage, others obviously disagree) then the logical compromise is 1, above and beyond its "direct" pros for it as a choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is this here

The fox asks, "Why do you think the proper venue is WP:VPPOL?? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This seems like the worst place to have this discussion, 1) It's not where we change policy 2) These issues are about communally curbing admin claimed discretion (or reigning in abuse of discretion), so it makes no sense to have them on this board as the issue is for all Wikipedians. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I started the discussion here since this is a highly visible board. Feel free to move this to a better venue. Cunard (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarity

At the moment ArbCom have not authorised deletion. The Committee could not reach an agreement on that, so nothing has changed on that matter. What the motion that did pass say is that if there is again a deletion made under authority of ArbCom, the matter needs to come first to AE. The motion was merely clarifying where the discussion should first take place, and that the action should not be undone until the matter has been discussed. The Committee are divided on the exact power of ArbCom to delete. My personal feeling is that a deletion which is ordinarily allowable under deletion policy can and should be allowable under ArbCom protection in order to prevent an action which violates an ArbCom sanction being protected from being reversed. For example, if ArbCom have banned User:Foo from creating articles related to feces, and Foo creates an article on I Flingdung a notable gong farmer, then such an article can be deleted under G5. If such a deletion is contested by User:Foo, it could then be undeleted while DRV discusses the matter. What the new motion has done is clarify that the deletion is under the protection of ArbCom, so the matter is first discussed at AE, and if the deletion is agreed to fall under the sanction, and the deletion is within policy, then it remains in force.

While I do feel that the community should be gradually winding down ArbCom, and taking over all dispute resolution, until that formally happens I would be uncomfortable with a petition which weakened ArbCom's special status as being the only elected body which can make final and binding decisions. I feel that any action which is within policy and which is done to enforce an ArbCom sanction must be allowed. If we start to eat away at ArbCom's powers of enforcing a sanction we weaken ArbCom. Today it's deletion, tomorrow it's page protection, next week it's site banning, next month it's desysopping. Fine if we want to talk about disbanding ArbCom, but while we still have it, we need to make sure ArbCom keeps its ability to enforce sanctions.

So, I am not in favour of ArbCom being able to delete outside of policy, and I don't think there is consensus in the Committee for such a step. But I am in favour of ArbCom being able to delete within policy, and for challenges to such deletions being first handled within ArbCom's arena. So I would not be in favour of any petition or motion which explicitly bans ArbCom from deletion within policy in order to enforce a sanction. SilkTork (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, if we don't stop them now, today it's page deletion, tomorrow it's permabans, then site-wide General Sanctions - in this aspect, the slippery slope argument is completely legitimate...in both directions. Editors may make of that what they will. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"if there is again a deletion made under authority of ArbCom, the matter needs to come first to AE" is not a clarification. It is an amendment to long-standing policy and practise. This creates two different sorts of deletion. The difference between a deletion taking under normal admin discretion and a deletion "made under authority of ArbCom" is that the latter cannot be reversed under normal admin discretion, and if it is challenged, the community does not get to decide on the outcome – that decision is to be based on whether the deletion could be construed as possible, not that it is a good idea.

ArbCom has provided no reasons why creating this protected-class of deletions would improve the encyclopedia. If we had a slew of cases where an "ArbCom authorised deletion" (AAD) was overturned by individual admins, under normal admin discretion, I might be persuaded to see some point in having a protected class of deletions. The fact is that we have exactly zero cases where an individual admin has made a decision to contradict another admin and overturn their AAD. There's simply no need for ArbCom to change our normal deletion policies and procedures. --RexxS (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Allowing the type of deletion which prompted this case would set a very bad precedent. The issue involves an admin who decided to summarily delete a userspace page for violation of the userspace guidelines. While that is in principle a valid reason to delete pages, and therefore "within policy", the admin would normally have been required to open a deletion discussion and get a consensus. ArbCom wasn't able to agree that allowing this was a bad idea. Logically, if this was allowed, it would extend to other reasons for deleting pages which are usually settled through discussion, such as notability. Admins would be able to delete articles on topics they think are non-notable, without consulting anyone, as long as they said the magic words when doing so. This only applies to areas covered by discretionary sanctions but that's a huge scope. The BLP sanctions alone apply to almost a million pages. There is a very strong consensus that admins are not allowed to delete pages for reasons like this on their own judgement.

Furthermore, I don't see why ArbCom is trying to legislate in this area. ArbCom is supposed to stick to rulings about conduct and leave content well alone. They wouldn't be able to order that a certain paragraph must be removed from an article, for example. It follows that they shouldn't be able to rule that the entire article should be deleted. G5 is a red herring here, G5 deletions are authorised under the community's speedy deletion policy, not an ArbCom ruling. This is an area where the community has plenty of longstanding rules and procedures, and ArbCom shouldn't be trying to get rid of them for a large chunk of the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 18:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a general challenge, henceforth to be known as Marshall's Challenge:- Please provide any example of a page that needs to be deleted, but can't wait for an XfD, shouldn't be oversighted, shouldn't be an office action, and has no applicable CSD. If you can provide any example of a page like that, then I'll agree it's appropriate for Arbcom to arrogate to itself this new power.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billie Eilish's cjunt TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Note: the deletion of the page (log entry) gives G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: WP:DENY as the rationale for the deletion. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

For users who can't look at it, it was a totally unnecessary SPI request for three already-blocked accounts with synonymous usernames.

I'm comfortable with calling the page speedyable vandalism, for much the same reason nobody bats an eye about deleting redirects created from reverting page-move vandalism, despite both being deliberately created in good faith by non-vandal users. —Cryptic 20:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it was a good deletion on my part, and we get crap like that all the time at SPI. I called it G6, you call it G3, but in reality, it is a page that most reasonable people would agree should have been deleted and I deleted it as an IAR G6. My point here is that OMG deletion must be totally exempt from IAR and nothing that isn't strictly within policy mantra that we're getting because of this ArbCom case isn't exactly applicable when you get into some of the more sensitive behind the scenes areas of the project such as SPI, oversight, and much of the stuff that I'm assuming goes to private arb email. I've also deleted pages where people request OS where I don't think suppression is appropriate, but keeping the page around or sending it through an XfD aren't really good ideas either (I think I may call them U5 to avoid questions, but they're also really IAR.)

I don't really have an opinion on the whole AE deletion drama, but I absolutely do not like the direction this discussion is going over the moral outrage on deletions that don't fit perfectly with WP:CSD or whatever policy.

The simple facts of the matter are that most administrators do not want to get involved in content issues, but in some complex cases the deletion policy doesn't fit perfectly. In those cases, we do what is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I usually do my best to do it subtly, which AE never is, and rewriting policy based on two cases in 18 years is a horrible idea if such a rewrite could have ripple effects. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why that couldn't have waited for an XfD, if you'd happened to be inclined to follow the process.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Have a little think about why you're wrong and get back to us when you work it out. Nick (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, Nick, but I've reflected on it and I seem to be too stupid to work it out. Perhaps you could give me the reasons?—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

does it serve any benefit to the project to keep it? No. Praxidicae (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

“IAR G6” is a contradiction. I have long supported giving SPI clerks and admins authority to deleted SPI subpages at their discretion. It seems they do anyway. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Look, reasonable people can disagree whether or which csd criteria are applicable to a particular page, or whether it's more harmful or not to publicize the page on MFD for a week. What has people so upset is that, ordinarily, when they do disagree, and there isn't a consensus at DRV that the deletion was correct, it gets restored and sent to MFD or AFD or wherever. That's what community-written policy and practice has evolved to say. Now we've instead got a body which, while professing not to have the power to overrule policy, authorizes individual admins to set the much higher bar of requiring a positive consensus that deletion wasn't even arguably correct. Plus, all you peons without the deletedtext right? Your input doesn't matter, because any admin who tries to temporarily undelete the material to let you have a say does so under explicit threat of desysop. Once you can look at deleted pages, it's very, very easy to forget that, to those who can't, there's no completely uncontroversial use of the delete button. —Cryptic 21:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Propose giving ArbCom the ability to write policy, so at least when they do it, we can call it what it is, and subject it to community review. GMG^talk 22:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The biggest problem in my throat are:

(1) AE deletions by self-selected "AE admins" as the ArbCom Policy, de facto, and with these out of process deletions being unrevewable at DRV, a perfectly functional community-engaging respected forum, until AE review procedures as defined by ArbCom de facto policy are exhausted. This is stupid. DRV is a respected coonsensus based, widely engaged process; AE review is admin-only, and only frequented by drama board enthusiasts;

(2) ArbCom get to Vote on interpretations of the scope of their own powers, and are sliding into more expansive less well defined boundaries.

What is the community response? Some are saying, there should be no discussion, let alone response, because AE deletions are rare.

I think there is an easy response:

* Deletion is not in scope for AE. You may block the user, blank and protect their userspace, delete anything covered by the myriad of CSD criteria. WP:POLEMIC is not a CSD criterion if it falls short of CSD#G10. You may risk rejection of your wish to delete by making your case at MfD. However, if you delete while citing AE privilege, thus invoking ArbCom's protection of you from community review and abuse of policy (WP:DEL; WP:CSD), then, unless you have an IAR-worthy reason, you should be WP:BLOCKed for WP:Gaming the system. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review

I think petition 1 is the most likely to achieve consensus since it is narrowly tailored. Taking into account Levivich (talk · contribs)'s great suggestion ("It seems to me the important point is that all deletions are reviewable at DRV."), I would like to include language requiring allowing deletions to be reviewable at DRV in the petition.

Here is what I plan to propose.

This paragraph of the "Policy and precedent" section of the arbitration policy:

The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated.

is amended to add the underlined text:

The Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The Committee must not disallow deletions from being reviewed at deletion review.

Levivich suggested adding "Deletions authorized by the arbitration committee are reviewable at DRV like any other deletion." The arbitration policy currently does not say the committee can authorize deletions, so adding a sentence like this could be interpreted as allowing the committee to authorize deletions. The sentence "The Committee must not disallow deletions from being reviewed at deletion review" achieves the same purpose but makes no statement on whether the committee is allowed to authorize deletions so is more likely to achieve consensus.

I welcome feedback from the community about this revised proposed petition.

Cunard (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Belated response to ping. I agree that the discussion here indicates that only the most narrowly drawn provision has any viability if offered. I'm prepared to be persuaded to the contrary if a compelling argument is presented, but my feeling is ArbCom has no authority to delete articles outside of what its individual members already possess as admins + oversighters + IAR. This is why their current compromise of requiring claimed DS deletions to go to AE is troublesome - without prior consensus, it presumes ArbCom has this jurisdiction, and proposes to limit the established community process to address deletions.With respect to the proposal, I am not certain that the clarifying language helps. If the original sentence means that ArbCom, assuming they have the authority to delete, may not delegate it as part of DS, what deletion is being limited to DRV review? Presumably there would be no DS deletions to deal with, so does this mean if ArbCom itself authorizes a deletion it would go to DRV? I think that would be a difficult proposition to pass because the community first would have to grapple with the underlying issue of what ArbCom itself can do. As an aside, if you do decide to keep this provision, "must not disallow" is unwieldy. Double negatives in general invite confusion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) noted here that the Committee is still discussing discretionary sanctions. I will hold off for awhile on starting the petition.

  Cunard (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cunard: Go ahead with whatever you wish to try. I'm convinced whatever reasonable steps we take to ensure discretionary sanctions do not target content will not satisfy you, because the dispute seems to have become a territorial one surrounding DRV rather than an actual quabble with whether ArbCom is infringing upon matters of content (which, again, did not happen in the single instance in which this has been used). I will note that specifically enshrining deletion review in ARBPOL is unwise, because if that venue were ever to change, be renamed, etc., we'd need an entire amendment process just to correct the outdated reference. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, and procedurally - note that such a petition is not an RfC, since it isn't a discussion, isn't subject to consensus, and opposition is irrelevant. I'm not sure what you would call it - probably just "petition" - but it shouldn't be labeled as an RfC, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you all for the feedback. Based on the feedback, I have excluded the sentence about deletion review since it likely is unnecessary. I have started a petition at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions. Cunard (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it safe to write down the password on Haveibeenpwned.?

I am talking about a recent circular. I tried to find in the message the discussion page link, but could not find one, so asking here, please move this message to the relevant talk page, if needed.

I know I am using a unique and long password for Wikipedia. I also checked the suggested website earlier when it came to the news. I was afraid to enter my unique password there. Now, as it is suggested in the circular, my question is is it safe if I check my password in the site? Many thanks, --Titodutta (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Have I Been Pwned? is a well known site by established security researcher Troy Hunt, so entering your password there is about as safe as entering it anywhere online can possibly be. That said, I'd never do so myself: I know my Wikipedia password is a long random string generated by my password manager, so there's nothing that website could tell me that I don't already know. Use long random passwords, unique for each site (at least for each high-value site - email, banking, and so on), and you won't need to worry about whether your password was breached. ST47 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

See User:Johnuniq/Security. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Good advice, especially if you'd prefer not to enter your password @ HIBP. Tho, if I feel I need to check my password there - I should probably change it. SQL^{Query me!} 02:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Safer than Facebook certainly. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The question may be relevant to the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10,000_most_common_passwords It could be updated to address these questions. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. HIBP uses the k-anonymity algorithm to check your password. Only pieces of it are transmitted, not the whole thing. Additionally, the password by itself is not immediately useful without the username. Jehochman ^Talk 04:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Admin bot trial for unblocking pre-2009 IP addresses

Hello, to implement this RfC an adminbot task has been requested at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 6. A proof of concept trial has been approved. If you have any questions or feedback on the bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Exploit in the DISPLAYTITLE behavior switch involving html tags

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T221887

I've discovered an exploit in {{DISPLAYTITLE}} that allows for page names to appear different than what they actually are. I made a page that shows an example of this, which, at first glance, appears to be the Bureaucrats' noticeboard (ignoring the redlink), but is actually a different page.

Now, how does this exploit work?

• Start with a page called "Man in the Pagan Temple".
• Next, add the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} switch, getting "{{DISPLAYTITLE:Man in the Pagan Temple}}".
• Then, add <span> tags with the CSS style set to "font-size:0;", getting "{{DISPLAYTITLE:Ma<span style="font-size:0;">n </span>in <span style="font-size:0;">the</span>Pag<span style="font-size:0;">an templ</span>e}}".
• And now, the page title is displayed as "Main Page", because, in effect, characters were removed from the title by making them have 0 size.

InvalidOStalk 15:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You make delicious beans. Not that I expect this will be a big issue anywhere. --Izno (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought that was the point of the DISPLAYTITLE template? Natureium (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say so. Feature not bug (or exploit). Or rather, unnecessary artistry - just change the input for the template to "Main page" for the same effect :[] --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a "feature" however one that likely shouldn't be enabled when displaytitle restrictions are purposefully enabled. I've opened phab:T221887. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No issues with BEANS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.146.133 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:POINT Invalid^OS (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Discovering an exploit, documenting it carefully, and then posting it to AN is hardly disruptive behaviour. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Exploiting it on one page which isn't a BLP and reverting it soon after (you can still see the effect in views of the relevant revisions of thew page) may be reasonable; exploiting it on 2 BLPs and 3 other articles, and leaving them vandalized, is definitely not. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the exploit is being used - Special:Permalink/894627822. Maybe the discussion should be moved? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Note for any technical solution: {{Hidden title}} and the unused {{Icon namespace}} use DISPLAYTITLE...font-size:0 legitimately. Certes (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

As it's actually been exploited, this looks like a job for an edit filter. Certes (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit filter requested at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_13#Non-confirmed editors changing the display title of a page --DannyS712 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just reverted similar exploitation by 37.26.146.172 and 37.26.146.192. An admin may wish to consider further action. I don't believe any other pages are currently affected, except a few innocent uses in user namespace. Certes (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Legitimate uses

Vandalism aside, is this approach something we could consider for pages affected by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)? Consider WP:Mersh, for example; it's at Project Mersh because the proper Project: title puts it in Wikipedia space. Or maybe we could use this for DK Jungle Climber, whose proper title, if linked, goes to the Danish Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend, with the exception of spaces and underscores, DISPLAYTITLE won't let you add/modify characters. Basically all you can/should do is modify the formatting of the text - adding italics, converting the first character to lowercase, etc. It's why we have {{correct title}} and {{technical reasons}}. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, now I see: it's merely hiding certain characters, e.g. Sami Shalom Chetrit becomes "Shit" because "ami S" and "alom Chetr" are hidden. I thought it was letting you add characters, but in the middle of explaining why you were wrong, I discovered that I entirely misunderstood the situation. Thank you for correcting me. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries, always happy to help! Primefac (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Should Twinkle warn after CSD deletion? And default behavior

Right now, when using Twinkle to place a csd tag, it can leave a notification for the creator, but it cannot leave one upon deletion. That is, if a sysop deletes a page that has not been tagged, the creator has not been notified of either the tag or the deletion. Instead, sysops have the "Open user talk page on submit" option, the idea being that we can thus add a custom message, in either case. From a cursory look, only a few sysops have customized the list of criteria for which this occurs, mostly to reduce or disable the feature entirely.

There have been a number of requests for an option in Twinkle to leave a notice for the creator upon CSD deleting a page, and I'd like to enable this. My plan is to basically mimic the behavior of the notification upon CSD tagging: send a notification if criterion is in preferences and box is checked. Assuming this is desirable, this would be a noticeable change to sysop CSD behavior, so I'd like to get some input on a few specific questions:

1. If there is no deletion tag on the page, should the box be checked by default, as is the case for tagging notifications? (I lean yes)
2. What should the default criteria be on which to provide a deletion notification? This would be customizable. Right now, the default set of criteria for tagging notifications is:

   custom, g1, g2, g3, g4, g6, g10, g11, g12, g13, g14, a1, a2, a3, a5, a7, a9, a10, a11, f1, f2, f3, f7, f9, f10, u3, u5, t2, t3, p1, p2

   while the default for the current "open user talk page" option is:

   custom, g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, g10, g11, g12, a1, a3, a7, a9, a10, a11, f3, f7, f9, u3, u5, t2, p1

   (I lean toward something like the latter but with G13 and G14 added and G6 instead of G5)

3. Should the "Open user talk page on submit" option remain (I say no)

Answers on these should enable the code and template work to go forward. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I don't have the sysop toolset, apologies in advance for what could be a really stupid thought since I don't understand the mechanics. Is there anyway Twinkle could check to see if a notice about the CSD was already present? If yes then it would leave one kind of message post deletion and if not it would leave a different (longer) message? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle already checks for dupe CSD tags, and notifying is not compulsory. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll also note that I intend for the tag notification and deletion notification to differ. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• 1: yes. 2: I'd prefer the second set plus g13, g14, a2, a5, f1, f2, f4, f6, f7. 3: no. But your best bet may be to just do it and take feedback afterwards. GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• I wonder if this shouldn't use the Notifications software in MediaWiki by default. "Your page has been deleted; see here." (where here is some interesting help-like link). --Izno (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Izno: The only way to guarantee such notifications (I believe) is through a talk page notice. They next best thing would be to ping the user in the deletion summary, but I'm not sure that it would be wise to do that. If Twinkle were an extension, it could invoke echo notifications all it wanted, but because its just a gadget the options are more limited --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  No, I'm imagining a setting in the actual Notifications preference page that allows someone to say, "yes, I would(n't) like to receive a notice about a page that I created which was deleted". --Izno (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  Not that they're going anywhere, but that'd be phab:T56532 (see also phab:T123866). It's offtopic, but talkpages notices such as provided by Twinkle are useful to other editors as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange pattern of vandalism on David Benioff and D. B. Weiss

Hi all. The articles David Benioff and D. B. Weiss have been attracting vandalism from numerous IPs/accounts. The strange thing is that all of the vandalism is similar (e.g. 1, 2), and there are even established accounts participating. Could someone familiar with this sort of abuse please review? Thanks, FASTILY 04:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I have warned Coherbia (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing; they can be blocked if they continue. In the meantime, lets see if your semi-protection suffices for now. I suspect it may need to be extended for another 2-3 weeks and perhaps even upgraded to ECP, but lets cross that bridge when we get there. Abecedare (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding widespread fan criticism of the showrunners (Benihoff and Weiss) of the Game of Thrones television series after the last couple of episodes. The meme is spreading elsewhere, but is inappropriate here and should be handled like any BLP. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It'll probably die down in the coming weeks as people vent their frustrations. I vandalized the pages once and am content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coherbia (talk • contribs)

So vandalism is okay on Wikipedia if it's about a popular TV show and people are venting frustrations. Noted. What a place we've arrived at.--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me state unequivocally that Wikipedia is not some back-room internet forum where disenfranchised trolls can attack creative professionals for daring to create content that doesn't suit your opinion of how the show should go, or whatever other utter nonsense you subscribe to. Anyone trying it should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. @Coherbia: Abecedare's warning is the only one you will get. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to tell if Coherbia was messing with us - I mean, why come onto AN and state your vandalism? Weird.

Hence my comment. Wikipedia doesn't tolerate "just a bit of vandalism", for any reason. Vandalism = blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean, vandalism is never really ok. Wikipedia is a great project that I wholeheartedly believe in. If I thought that vandalizing a page would permanently alter it's content, or be harder than a few clicks to revert I wouldn't do it. I posted to confirm that I think it'll be a few weeks before people stop trying to vandalize their pages, or related pages. But now that Ivan and Walt's decided to inflate their own importance and get holier than thou, I've gotta anger them just a little more. I believe in the mission, and I know doing this is wrong. I chose to anyway. I'm not attacking anyone's work, it seemed just fine and informative. You guys need to differentiate between me affirming that this is going to continue for a bit as a source from the fandom, from me vandalizing the page because I hate a vast repository of free information. That's obviously false. I've tried doing some stuff here on Wikipedia before, I've donated for the past two years. I just did it for the lulz, and now I'm posting this because Ivan and Walt are insufferable, but primarily Ivan. Anyway, go ahead and ban me or whatever.

As a side note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Local_Embassy If Local Embassy is going to continue to be a complete useless page, then delete it or actually make some effort to help multilingual editors/writers to translate works between languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coherbia (talk • contribs)

vandalizing, attacking others, "I just did it for the lulz," and "go ahead and ban me or whatever" sounds like someone who doesn't need to be here. So,  Done. Blocked per their disruption and their repeated request to do exactly this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Sims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't know the format for this or if this is the correct page for third-party "fresh eyes" examination, but several users (first IPs unambiguously bashing the BLP subject, but now long-term users) have been, in my eyes, pushing the limits of several policies at Brian Sims. They are adding undue weight, using non-NPOV language, using sources identified as deprecated (even reinstating them after they were removed pointing to that reason), creating and re-creating "controversy" sections, favoring a recent news item to a hugely disproportionate share of the article, using weasel words or otherwise "gamey" tricks of the language to make the BLP subject of the article sound condemned in Wikipedia's voice, etc etc. It needs a neutral tone to discuss the event objectively and neutral eyes to oversee it. Note that the article is protected due to the spate of IP edits and that that protection ends in about ten hours. Thanks for any thoughts or input! JesseRafe (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is likely a better venue for discussing BLP-specific article concerns that aren't outright vandalism.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Huldra

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have blocked Huldra for advocating violence against civilians (diff, diff). I am further proposing a site ban, at least until this editor can convince us they don't support violence against civilians. Although this topic is under discretionary sanctions, neither an indefinite block nor a site ban are available sanctions under DS and so I am bringing it here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course she doesn't advocate violence against civilians. She was raising a point of international law to refute a claim that a particular living person is a terrorist. And she twice pointedly limited herself to armed foreigners in a country that didn't invite them (i.e. not to civilians). That exchange was a good illustration of why we have NOTFORUM, but it isn't reason for banning one of our best editors. Zero^talk 13:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What Zero0000 said. Awful block. ‑ Iridescent 13:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

And how exactly do you interpret And shouldn't Ssettler [sic] thieves be legitimate targets as armed foreigners in a country that didn't invite them? GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well you could have noticed that she immediately changed it to "armed settlers" rather than just linking to the first partial edit. [7] Zero^talk 13:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And when I read the whole discussion...I see it as a pure argument, playing advocatus diaboli. I do not support this block. Lectonar (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, what, violence against civilians is okay, so long as they were armed they were asking for it? I'm absolutely staggered that there are editors defending this. GoldenRing (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The sic alone already is a strong indication of what was intended here Lectonar (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What does that mean? The "[sic]" was added by Goldenring. Zero^talk 13:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It means I am too stupid to read; still a bad block, though. Lectonar (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

If armed Americans in, say, the late 18th-century "New World" had accepted English armed settlers as civilians and not as "legitimate targets", the world would be rather different, for a start... ——SerialNumber54129 13:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: When one country sends its citizens into another country with guns against the will of that other country, with the purpose of taking over that other country, why should we call them "civilians"? You can have your opinion on that, but yours is not the only opinion that is reasonable and international law is against you. My opinion is that you are overreacting. Zero^talk 13:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is to help identify targets for attacks, regardless of if they are armed or not. A comment like this seems deserving of a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What a silly comment. Zero^talk 13:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think there are two problems here. First is that Palestinians, rightly or wrongly, do not regard the settlers as civilians, but as armed invaders. Secondly, Huldra was trying to present the argument of another person accused of supporting terrorism by two editors, one since blocked and the other TBanned. And, of course, we could have done without the entire thread. I don’t think a block should have been applied without further discussion as it's hard to see this as personally advocating violence. O3000 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000 Either someone is armed or they aren't. There can be no such things as regarding all settlers as armed. By the way, I think internal law, so unfortunately mentioned by Zero, would agree with me on that. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with GoldenRing and Mr Ernie. I have know Huldra for many years in the WP:ARBPIA area, where she has a distinct POV agenda. However, these last remarks show or bring out a clear radicalization, which can not be tolerated here. I would like to add that IMHO Zero should be be ashamed for trying to defend Huldra based on international law. Debresser (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I always laugh aloud when you accuse someone of having a POV agenda. Personally I'm pretty much a pacifist and even the concept "legitimate target" gives me shivers, but I'm not ashamed to point out what is generally accepted by the international community, namely that people under occupation have a right to resist it. Zero^talk 14:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well to be fair, the T-ban came as a result of that needless thread also. It's possibly a compromise that the topic ban is rescinded and the block is undone, with both parties advised to avoid such lines of argument. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to come down in the middle on this one. First of all, these are very clearly not threats or advocations of violence against people, either in general or in the specific. Huldra has advocated nothing here, merely using analogy to make her point. Come on now. THAT being said, I do see a clear battleground mentality, and possibly some ARBPIA violations. In other words, a block may have been needed, but the rationale is absolute bullshit. If the block had been made for other reasons, it would be easier to support. I'd probably come down on lifting the block on strict interpretation that the rationale is bogus, but in doing so I would caution Huldra that the lifting of the block is not an exoneration, and that they need to tone it down a LOT because they are toeing the line on being disruptive generally. --Jayron32 13:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - referring to "armed settlers" does not make the comment any better - the vast majority of adult settlers are eligible for a gun permit and many of them have one. Per Population statistics for Israeli settlements in the West Bank there are 800,000 Israelis living over the green line. I will also note that some discourse (e.g. used by Iran and Hezbolllah) refers to all Israelis whose ancestors immigrated after 1948, 1918, or some other date as settlers (which is most of the Jews in Israel). We have Wikipedia editors who are settlers, and most Israelis have family and friends in settlements. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• We have an article explaining the political philosophy behind the idea. ——SerialNumber54129 14:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• About Huldra. I'm pretty sure that no editor in the history of Wikipedia has contributed so much high-quality text to articles in the I-P area of the project. Very few editors are so dedicated to getting the facts right by tracking down the best possible sources, even if they take considerable work to obtain. I'd be surprised if anyone else comes within a factor of two. If we lose her because of this, it will be a catastrophe. Zero^talk 14:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Bad block Whether or not Huldra has a battleground mentality or engages in POV editing, it's clear that she was articulating the rationale behind a position. I don't see her actually calling for violence, and discussing a widely-held western principle that, as SN54129 points out, is so fundamental that we have an article on it and that it's a part of the origin of the US, is not something that should have resulted in punitive action. Grandpallama (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  One can find justifications for many actions. Does it help us to build an encyclopedia to have an editor state that are a large civilian population are legitimate targets? Not in a on-topic content discussion mind you, but in an off topic forumish discussion? An editor that then goes to an opposing user's talk page to continue to argue the point? notVoting - "Oppose, resisting occupation is legitimate" - not based on coverage in sources but on personal beliefs. How are editors who are settlers or have loved ones in settlements supposed to work together here with Huldra? This is not an abstract question - she mainly edits topics that Israeli editors edit as well.Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  I would say that it doesn't help us to build an encyclopedia when we block people under (what seems to me) a clearly fallacious argument that they were genuinely advocating violence against civilians. Discussing the principle of armed resistance to invaders, who are armed, is a controversial topic, but it's also a basic principle of international law, as multiple editors have pointed out. I could easily also ask how people who have been pushed out of their homes, or who have had loved ones pushed out of homes, in order to accommodate settlers can edit alongside those who advocate a clearly pro-settlement viewpoint that includes violent action against people who protest? The answer is that we discuss, and compromise, and don't weaponize blocking against people who hold viewpoints with which we disagree. The fact that Huldra is advocating for a particular understanding to be considered legitimate is not the same as advocating for violence, and to treat it as such is a false equivalency. Grandpallama (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Grandpallama: The text of one of those diffs includes I would look upon any armed American in my country (who wasn't there by invitation of an legitimate government) as an legitimate target... The emphasis is theirs, not mine. How do you go from there to "the principle of armed resistance to invaders"? This is literally someone who has said that any American in another country who is carrying a weapon is a legitimate target for violence, unless the government of that country has asked them to be there. GoldenRing (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  This is bewildering. How is an armed American who is in a country, not at the invitation of its government, or any other legitimate government (which you quoted, but seem to have ignored), not an armed invader? Beyond that, what are you arguing, that Huldra advocated violence against imaginary armed Americans? She is clearly--CLEARLY--explaining her viewpoint. To call it a call to arms to perpetrate violence against people is simply incorrect. This was absolutely a bad block. Grandpallama (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Grandpallama: I dunno, a tourist with a stick? "Any American" means, as far as I can tell, any American. I read their comment as saying that Americans overseas are fair game for violence and, having just re-read it for the nth time, it still seems to me to be obviously what it means. GoldenRing (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  You are seriously suggesting Huldra advocated violence against an American carrying a stick? This block is not rooted in reality, and if you can't recognize the significance of the near snowlike negative reaction to it, I think you may be the real problem here. Grandpallama (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  The fact is that Huldra has always provided invasion or illegal occupation as the context for her sentence. I do wish she would state her opinion more clearly, but reading it beyond the context she gave every single time is a big mistake. Zero^talk 15:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  GoldenRing, I've examined this from scratch having not previously been anywhere near the subject, and it's blindingly obvious to me that Huldra was speaking in the context of invasion or illegal occupation. That you can't see that suggests to me that you might be having trouble stepping back from your own opinions on the subject and adopting an NPOV/AGF perspective yourself? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• A bewildering block. And proposing a site ban to boot? Isn't this the sort of thing where conversing with the editor about their verbiage would have been more prudent than going straight to the tools?--WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Dreadful block, based on a bad misunderstanding of Huldra's comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bad Block: The block rationale is tendentious, and please try to remember, talk before tools not only demonstrates respect but avoids mistake or worse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Terrible block. Huldra and Sir Joseph were engaged in a debate (NOTFORUM and all, but still) about a real geopolitical issue; there was no "advocating violence" against anyone going on here. GoldenRing, it would be very easy for someone to construct an argument here that you're using your admin tools to exert political pressure on an editor you disagree with, particularly with your own statements about American civilians walking around with guns in other countries. Maybe you should leave your tools outside this topic, per WP:INVOLVED. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  The WP:INVOLVED possibility crossed my mind too, and looking over it again I think it's dangerously close. At the very least, blocking someone engaged in a discussion on a subject in which you have a strong personal opinion is not wise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  On review, the "never use your tools to exert political control" thing is in the checkuser policy, not INVOLVED. But I think the point is valid regardless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  The further responses to me have led me toward that belief, too. Grandpallama (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, whether or not it's a technical violation of WP:INVOLVED, I think it's certainly a violation of the spirit of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reduce to time served, let off with a warning; and the warning should be about WP:NOTAFORUM more than about actual threats of violence. Huldra was wasting people's time and misusing the article talk page to discuss politics instead of discussing editing, yet, I don't see her comments as actually posing a threat to either people or Wikipedia. thank you, GoldenRing, for bringing the issue here for review --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• This was a hasty, bad block. Indef for at most a NOTFORUM violation?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Clearly I read more into the comments linked above than was warranted. I've unblocked and apologised to Huldra. GoldenRing (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  And for that you have my great respect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  I appreciate your willingness to rectify the issue on your own behalf.--WaltCip (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Huldra has just received a message that this is perfectly fine to use talk pages for supporting killing civilians, as soon as these civilians are Israeli. Is this exactly the message we want to be sent, and is this what we want to demonstrate to the outside world? For participation in the same episode, Sir Joseph, who did not advocate killing anybody, just got a 3-month PI topic ban. Am I the only one who does not view the whole situation as ok? Doesn't she deserve at the very least an admonishment for violating WP:NOTFORUM?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that she never "used talk pages for supporting killing civilians". There's consensus above that her comments do not represent that at all. Anything you base on that conclusion is thus invalid.. --Jayron32 16:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The above thread was only open for three hours and at the time of closing was clearly not in the SNOW territory. It is quite possible that, if it stayed open longer, consensus indeed could emerge, but right now it looks to me we are closer to no consensus. (Though I agree that there is consensus that an indef block was too much). However, realistically, I do not see any way to proceed with this episode.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The blocking admin undid their own block. I'm not sure why it needed to stay open longer. The admin who initiated the block started the thread to request a review of their own actions, got what they themselves thought was sufficient feedback to undo their own block, and then undid their own block. The entire purpose of the thread was completed when it was closed. There was nothing more to do. --Jayron32 17:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This is absolutely fine, and I do not blame you in any way. I just point out that, based on that discussion, we might have consensus that the indef block was too long, but I do not see consensus that Huldra did not call for violence against civilians, and there is certainly no consensus that her actions (the actions for which she was blocked, not some other actions unknown to the users in that thread) were acceptable. However, opening for example an AE request for the same actions would mean a double punishment, and I am certainly not going to do this. I have just remarked that the message which was sent by the whole episode to Huldra, and, to less extent, to other Wikipedia users and to the outside world, is, IMO, plain wrong. If someone can give her a warning please give her a warning. I can not do it myself at this stage, though I was clearly uninvolved four hours ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

10-11 people, among the 13-14 who commented, unambiguously stated so. That's a pretty good consensus. You aren't going to find many ANI discussions that would generate enough additional comments to swing such a consensus to clearly the other direction. If we left this open for days, we would not have changed the consensus. I do want to reiterate something I said earlier, however. If you have a different sanction you wish to discuss, then please start a new thread. On the narrow matter of GoldenRing's block for advocating violence, that block was undone by GoldenRing himself. That does not absolve Huldra from any other sanctions that may have resulted from inappropriate behavior. There's really nothing more to be gained from adding to this thread, if nothing else this meta-discussion has made this hopelessly confused. If you have a specific set of diffs that points to a specific behavioral problem and for which you believe a sanction is required, start that new thread separately from this one. I would recommend, regardless of your personal feelings may be, that you don't bring up the "threats of violence" angle however. It would torpedo your own cause, and result in any potentially needed sanctions for other reasons to get ignored. Just some free advice. --Jayron32 17:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, but I think I have had enough for today.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the indef block (and the proposed site ban) was a warranted response in this situation?--WaltCip (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, Ymblanter was the only admin to support the block itself. ——SerialNumber54129 16:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not. Actually, if I remember correctly, I never supported a site ban for anybody on this project. But now we have a situation when one participant of the discussion gets a three month topic ban, and another one, whose behavior was actually worse, emerges as a hero.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

If you think that another action was taken in error, you're free to start a new thread to tell us which person's sanctions need review. The fact that this block was overturned has no bearing on that. Also, I repeat that the notion that, as you say, she "used talk pages for supporting killing civilians", is not what happened. If you have different "behavior" that was "actually worse", then please start a new thread with that behavior highlighted in diffs. You may be right, but unless you tell us what other behavior she has had, we can't comment on it. --Jayron32 16:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

If I had been the one to close this (I would have, if Golden Ring had not demonstrated a great deal of self-reflexiveness and reversed their block), I would have left Huldra a warning about NOTFORUM. I still think any passing admin would be within the bounds of discretion to issue such a warning; there is clear consensus above that that guideline was being violated. However, it's also clear that "supporting killing civilians" is not what was going on here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur with that. I can't read the comments above and think that anyone said that Huldra was entirely blameless in the dispute. On the narrow issue of the block for advocating violence, however, (and only on that narrow issue), consensus was clear that she wasn't doing that. --Jayron32 16:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I think you need to drop the "emerges as a hero" hyperbole and get a sense of perspective. Seriously. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Whatever Huldra meant, Sir Joseph's comment on his own talk page making a connection between terrorism and the stalled peace process was not nearly as bad. That Sir Joseph is sanctioned for this - while Huldra walks - is a travesty of justice.Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph also made this edit[8] which I think should be rev-deled. O3000 (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Let me repeat it again for clarity: If you think that another action was taken in error, you're free to start a new thread to tell us which person's sanctions need review. --Jayron32 17:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It’s beyond my understanding how Sir Joseph’s comments warrant a topic ban, but Huldra’s comment, stating that certain people are legitimate targets for killing, is fine. Joseph’s topic ban should be rescinded, immediately. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me restate it a third time, in case you missed it the other two times I said it: If you think that another action was taken in error, you're free to start a new thread to tell us which person's sanctions need review. This thread is not the correct place to request a review of another set of sanctions on another user. Start a clean thread, lay out your case using diffs and rationales, and see where that thread goes. Gaining a consensus on a thread of a different topic is unlikely to result in what you want to happen. IF you want to recind a sanction against Sir Joseph, THEN you should start a fresh, clean, new thread where you lay out your case for that. --Jayron32 18:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32, we are discussing it right here. Please tell me how it’s ok to say Jews are legitimate targets? Legitimate targets for what? I really don’t understand. It’s a horrific comment. Do you feel Sir Joseph’s comment deserves a sanction but Huldra’s does not? You seem outspoken in your defense of the latter so please help me understand the difference. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nobody said: Jews are legitimate targets. This is not a good place to make personal attacks. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the diff. Help me understand who the “settler thieves” comment refers to. Thanks. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Look. You're confounding 3-4 entirely different issues, and unless you can extricate them from each other, and deal with each one separately, you aren't going to get anything done.

1. On the issue of GoldenRing's block; he's undone his own block based on feedback he received in the thread above. That's a done deal.
2. On the issue of Huldra's comments: It doesn't appear that other people largely agree with your interpretation of the meaning of Huldra's comments. Of the 13-14 people who commented above, at least 10-11 did not read the intent of those comments the same way you did. For me that is mostly a non-starter now, but the discussion was closed above, I suppose one could technically make the case that the issue was not resolved, and that there is a chance that a shit ton of new comments could be made to swing that consensus. That should still be a new discussion, however, because the discussion above has mostly resolved itself; on the narrow issue of GoldenRing's block, he's self-undone himself, so that's pretty much over. My advice, however, is that you don't persue this angle. It will lead to nothing useful; i.e. you will NOT get any consensus to sanction Huldra for advocating violence. There will NOT be a consensus happening even if we do. Just don't. It would be a bad idea, and would torpedo ANY chance you have for a clean discussion that may result in sanctions for other reasons which may be deserved.
3. On the issue of Huldra's general behavior in the area of contention, many editors above agreed that Huldra behaved poorly, and may require sanction. If you think Huldra should be sanctioned, start a new thread and lay out your diffs. In my opinion, reading the consensus above, there's at least a chance of that happening. I can't tell for certain if such a discussion would result in any blocks, bans, or other things, but at least that's a path forward that would have a chance to succeed, if that is your goal.
4. On the issue of Sir Joseph's existing sanctions, if you have reason to believe those should be lifted, start a new thread about that. I would HIGHLY recommend you argue that only on its merits; in my experience every single time, in the over decade-long history of Wikipedia, every single arguement ever made where someone said "You have to lift this sanction against person X, because person Y wasn't punished" has always, 100% of the time, been shot down. I guess you could win the lottery on that one, but I wouldn't count on it. Instead, without reference to the unblock above or anything to do with any sanction against Huldra, you should argue the Sir Joseph case on its own merit. That is your only path forward there.

That's my advice on how you can get done what you want to get done. Complaining here, in this thread, will not cause anything at ALL to happen, however. --Jayron32 18:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That's some of the best advice I've seen here in a long time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I’d add is that starting a review could conceivably result in a tougher sanction. O3000 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Not disputing any of the advice but as Sir Joseph's topic ban was an arbitration enforcement he's the only one who could open an appeal per the relevant policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please create Caillou Pettis article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greetings. I was aiming to create an article on Caillou Pettis, but was informed that only administrators can do this. He is a notable actor, screenwriter, director, and film critic. Additionally, he has had roles in several high profile films: Shazam! (2019), Avengers: Endgame (2019), Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019), and Joker (2019). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVideoGameGuru (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi TheVideoGameGuru! This noticeboard isn't the place to request articles be created. If you need help, please see Wikipedia's new user tutorial, this wizard to help you with creating an article or (recommended) this project to help you create an article draft. You can also request this article by visiting this page. These locations I've linked you to are all available and will help you with what you're looking for. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, the issue is that the title Caillou Pettis is salted, so admin help is needed. VideoGameGuru can you give some examples of sources you want to use to establish notability? If yes, maybe an admin here can restore, or you can ask at WP:DRV. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman closed

An arbitration case regarding Enigmaman has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

Enigmaman (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeated misuse of administrative tools and the administrative logs, inadequate communication, and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 13:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman closed

6-month topic ban (appeal)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to appeal the community ban, that was imposed today. I clearly see a consensus among several editors, but this is quite ill-based. The main accusations were: forumshopping (not even a single evidence was shown; though, there may be some in 2017, but definitely not in 2019), sockpuppetry (investigation wasn't conducted, two previous ones couldn't prove me as sockmaster) and disruptive editing. Wikaviani (talk · contribs) was the only one who tried to support the latter accusation, appealed for this edit [9]. The edit was, as the one can see, well-sourced and Wikiavini failed to explain what was the disruptive in this edit. The edit was reverted by HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) and normally discussion would proceed — unfortunately, I was banned. What I ask:

• As community failed to explain my misconduct, consider my edits on pages Nader shah, Iraqi Turkmen, respective talk pages and DRN of the latter and check whether they are disruptive or not. If they are, please explain what is wrong and what I should do instead, so I can start from the new scratch when I'll return 6 months later. If they are not, reconsider the ban.
• Resumption of old discussion on the talk page of Qizilbash article was considered as disruptive, but this time with explanation. I regret, if it is disruptive, but I think, presence of the big amount of sourced statements, analysis and appeal for discussion clearly show my good faith.
• On the whole, recall, reduce or uphold the ban on the basis of, how many of these accusations proved to be true. Give recommendations of how I should behave after I get "released". John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• One more. Whatever the result for topic ban is, I ask to remove restriction for ANI, 3O and etc. as it makes impossible to contribute to the project even if editing pages, that don't relate to the restricted topic. John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You acted in direct contravention to your page ban by making a new section at ANI. Presuming it was a mistake, I have moved it over to AN (as was stated in the closing summary). --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Appealing a community ban when the discussion was posted on one of the ANs and lasted at least 24 hours, even considering the relatively low level of participation, seems destined to fail. Maybe in a bad way for you. (It was a 6 month topic ban rather than an indefinite topic ban or site ban.) I would strongly suggest you withdraw this ASAP, but if you don't want to, it's your funeral I guess.

Note that the community doesn't really owe you an explanation of why your behaviour is problematic. We generally try to help people learn how to edit here and when and why some of their behaviour may be a problem, but editors also need to be willing and able to learn, and are also to some extent expected to read and understand themselves. And importantly, just because we try, doesn't mean we take well to editors demanding an explanation. (To put it a different way, if you want help, politely ask for it at WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse or somewhere appropriate or from other editors. Don't demand help.)

BTW, the point about "read and understand for themselves" seems to be particularly pertinent here since the boomerang topic ban came about after you complained about "such ill-explained deletion is prohibited in WP:TPG." in relation to someone deleting a comment you posted on their talk page. This is despite the fact TPG clearly says "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." (Again if you'd politely asked somewhere "are people allowed to do that?", maybe someone would have pointed out the section of TPG or UP that deal with it. If you open up a pointless ANI thread expect the response to be different.)

You also failed to notify the person who the thread was about, mentioning something about the Russian wikipedia when this is the English wikipedia and things may operate different here. And the big template at the top of the page and when you edit the page says in big letters "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."

Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It is hard to notify people, when they say that if I make another edit on their talk page, they will demand by ban).

So, as I understand, if I am not satisfied with the result, harsher punishment should be imposed? If it works that way, well, I will withdraw it, but I feel that it is inhumanly harsh to deprive someone from appeal and reconsideration. But also I'll be very grateful if you will still look on my edits (I don't demand, just ask, as I really want to be better 6 months later). John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but note that JFT wrote the above before I posted this) I would like to echo Nil Einne. By far the most likely outcome of this request is that you are banned by the community, especially as you violated your topic ban before Nil Einne helpfully moved this discussion from WP:ANI to WP:AN. I strongly suggest you withdraw the appeal before someone officially suggests a WP:CBAN. Note that my statements are without prejudice. I don't see a compelling argument to overturn the unanimous consensus of the community, but you may possibly have a compelling argument. The topic ban placed on you was instead of a broader community ban, but as you are now challenging that topic ban, all options are back on the table. --Yamla (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I apologized for this mistake. It was unintentional and I just misunderstood it. I don't see the reason why I can get CBAN. If community will do it in revenge for my appeal — well, I withdraw it, as I don't wish to be banned forever. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• I call back my appeal, as was suggested by comrades. But I still find the topic ban as unjustified and harsh. Also I personally ask users Yamla and Nil Einne consider my edits on their own and help me improve. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

One final comment. Remember that the point of the topic ban is the community feels it would be best if you stay away from certain areas because for some reason your behaviour there is particularly problematic. There are still vast areas of the English wikipedia you can and should, edit if you want to learn the norms here. This is what should prepare you to return to the banned areas in 6 months. Note there is rarely a need to start an ANI thread for normal editing. In the rare cases there is a need, it will be very uncommon you will be the only one who notices it. In fact it's quite likely someone with more experience will open a far better discussion at ANI then you will. Likewise while 3Os and RfCs are useful and sometimes necessary to resolve WP:content disputes, if they are needed, this implies there's at least one other editor involved. So if these are likely going to be useful way of resolving the dispute, someone else will can and probably will do it, and maybe more effective then you. (Remembering though that you need to try and resolve the dispute among existing editors first.) Again observing when and how others use these tools should help you learn when and how to do so useful. If you refuse to edit anywhere else on wikipedia, then you're right you probably won't learn and we may be back in 6 months. It's you choice, the community in this instance has given you ample opportunity to learn. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Questions, because I'm confused in two ways. (1) What's the point? I can't remember the last time I heard of a ban being successfully appealed so soon after it was enacted. Someone might appeal the close (i.e. the closing admin marked it as "ban" when it should have been "no ban"), but it doesn't sound like you're meaning that. (2) Why would an appeal at WP:ANI be a ban violation if an appeal here isn't? For topic bans, WP:BANEX makes an exception for ban appeals. The point of prohibiting new ANIs, 3Os, and RFCs sure sounds like it's inspired by the boomerang ("you're starting bad-faith discussions"), and if ANI were the normal place to put ban appeals, it would be absurd to sanction a user for appealing a ban in the proper place. We shouldn't go sanctioning someone merely because he accidentally or ignorantly appealed a ban in the wrong admin noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Preventative Explanation - The editors above are strictly speaking, correct, in saying the community isn't obliged to provide an explanation. That said, it would be in breach of our own rules on bans being preventative not to. Asking the closing admin to explain the close is the logical first port of call. The accusations of a further ban for incorrect posting are unjust per Nyttend's comment. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Strongly disagree with the reasoning. If the community feels an editor is causing problems, they are fully justified in banning them to prevent such problems. If the editor is unable to understand from the discussion and previous warnings why they are causing problems, we are generally willing to try to help. But we don't owe it to them, because the ban is still preventing them from causing the problems the community found with their behaviour.

    Ultimately if the editor is unable to understand why their behaviour is a problem, and keeps at it, we will site ban them to prevent them causing problems per WP:Competence. Again, we will generally do our best to help the editor understand why this is necessary, but it's not required to prevent a problem. By definition if the community finds a problem with someone's behaviour and sanctions them in such a way to prevent those problems, we are preventing problems from that editor no matter whether the editor understands why it's necessary to sanction them to prevent problems. It often helps if an editor understands, since it is generally more preventative. But there's a limit to amount of time volunteers are going to be willing to spend to help someone understand why their behaviour is a problem and why we may need to sanction them to prevent problems. Again competence is required to edit here, so if you are really unable to understand by yourself with some help from the community, we need to prevent the problems you cause some way or the other and that may not involved spending many hours getting through to you what's wrong with your behaviour.

    Don't get me wrong, I myself have often spent a fair amount of time trying to explain to editors why their behaviour is a problem. Frequently this comes to naught as the editor is site banned or often simply indeffed because they don't understand despite my best efforts. And I see this a lot from other editors too. Heck I've even spent some time here trying to help this editor understand.

    But if you demand an explanation, don't be surprised if you're told to fuck off. Again, as I said before, if someone wants help understanding how to edit, it's best to ask for it politely. There are many places this can happen. The administrative noticeboards aren't one of them. It's fully logical if people have told you your behaviour is a problem, and you keep repeating it whether because you don't care or you don't understand, you shouldn't be surprised if you we try to prevent problems by sanctioning you.

    Acting high and might, that you deserve an explanation rarely gets anywhere. Since instead, in the end the ultimate sanction, the ultimate fuck off may be necessary i.e. site ban. We don't do it to punish, we do it to prevent. We aren't required to explain to you why you're being told to fuck off. If we understand from the discussion that there is legitimate reason for you to fuck off, to prevent problems, that's perfectly adequate. Again, we will normally try to help you understand what must be obvious to everyone else (otherwise no cban), especially if you ask politely. But we don't owe you shit. If you come to wikipedia with the mentality that we owe you anything other than to treat you fairly and act in good faith, you're not likely to get far.

    Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

    • Also I will once again emphasise what I said above. The best solution since this is only a topic ban, is to concentrate on other areas. Just waiting 6 months to return to the topic area without editing will almost definitely be a mistake. Probably 90% or more of the editors who try that just get themselves in trouble again. (I admit, that's just a figure I pulled out of the air.) And if you do start to find yourself in trouble in other areas, slow down and politely ask for help. There are plenty of avenues for it, and generally plenty of people willing.

      This editing experience elsewhere is what is likely to give you the experience necessary to avoid whatever problems it is that caused your sanction. If you do it right, there's a good chance in 6 months or even less, you won't need someone to hand hold you with lengthy explanations of what was I assume obvious to everyone else in the discussion i.e. why it was necessary to topic ban you to prevent you causing problem. You will understand why your behaviour was a problem and will hopefully even agree you needed to be kicked out of the area to prevent problems.

      Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

      • One final point I'll add since it's IMO relevant both to the topic ban discussion and future editing. Normally we don't consider edits 2 years ago so relevant, we're mostly interested in recent behaviour. But there are exceptions especially if the old edits are part of a pattern that has persisted. If you cause problems 2 years ago then disappear and come back and we see the same or similar behaviour from you, it's quite likely the 2 year ago edits will be seen as evidence of problems with your editing.

        This is where it gets into my earlier point. This was only a time limited topic ban. But if you don't do anything for 6 months then come back and edit the area again, there's a very good chance you're just going to repeat the behaviour that got you in trouble in the first place. When the community sees that, sees your historic behaviour 6 months ago and 2.5 years ago, there's a good chance they'll take action again to prevent further problems from you probably going further than last time in a preventative sanction.

        It's your choice whether and what you want to edit provided you don't violate any sanctions or norms. However while we normally do our best to help people become better editors, you have to do your part as well. And if you have problems in one area, that normally entails editing in an area where you don't have problems. I don't know the specifics here, but frequently this arises because you are too emotionally involved in some area and so can't see why your editing is a problem.

        Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent vandalism by possibly same person with various random IP across the world (UK, Algeria, Bangladesh)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can you please protect Antonio Valencia and Al-Sadd SC? Thanks. – Flix11 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Protection applied by Favonian. Nthep (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators preventing me from having RfC about an Administrative action

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On Talk:STEM_School_Highlands_Ranch I started a discussion as to why "Revision 11:18, 29 April 2019" was deleted. I was advised it was deleted per RD3 by GorillaWarfare, this was confirmed with the reason being it is a threat.

I started an RfC as I do no believe RD3 criteria has been met. However, Jorm removed RfC stating in the edit summary "We are NOT having an RFC about administrative actions."[10]. I subsequently reverted this edit, as there is no policy ground preventing me from challenging administrative action [11], this was again reverted by Drmies threatening me in the edit summary stating "Reinstate that and I will gladly block you" [12]. And then he left me warning on my talk page falsely accusing me vandalism. [13]. This is totally unacceptable, I should be allowed continue with my RfC to gain a consensus from other editors whether that administrative action is consistent with WP policy, and the RfC was made in Good faith, the deleted revision contained to threats, it was a question. I should be allowed to put this argument for community consensus. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 01:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I got nothing and care nothing about this except that <redacted> here made some pretty sexist comments to GW and probably deserves a block.--Jorm (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the circumstances that ensued, it was properly removed. Given the comment noted above that you made to GorillaWarfare, you should step away from this issue. RfCs (and this noticeboard) aren't meant to be a means of bludgeoning the discussion when you've failed to convince other editors that your idea is correct. And don't remove other editors' comments. Acroterion (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• CommentThis is a straw man argument. I already removed the comment that Jorm was referring to in less than 3 minutes, and nobody noticed it, except for him. I didn't fail to convince other editors, all that I am asking for is to allow the RfC to continue to gain a consensus. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 01:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's relevant, and I've noticed it. It's what drew me here. You asked for admin attention, and you're getting it. You're warned for removing the note that Jorm added above. I strongly advise you to drop this, you're making a deeper hole. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive, but that comment to GW is so over the line that a block might be called for anyway. That has nothing to do with her status as an administrator and everything to do with your conduct. Mackensen (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Acroterion and Jorm. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Expect Drmies isn't exactly a saint with this abhorrent personal attack. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 02:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• And this, from 2012, is relevant to the present discussion ... how? I mean, apart from the fact that you're treating this as a personal battle, where you have opponents who must be discredited. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, not one of my best moments, and I paid the price for it. EngMBandara, did you actually have anything substantial to say? Cause if you don't, and all you got is that kind of stuff, plz don't ping me anymore. I got things to do. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Acroterion Drmies You see the problem with turning this into a circle jerk of character assassination and straw man's arguments is that nobody is perfect. It will go nowhere and is entirely unproductive. I didn't start the strawman argument. This ANI is about whether administrative actions can be challenged through an RfC. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 02:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah whatever. Don't ping me anymore. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Unfortunately for you, it's become a discussion about your conduct and your treatment of Wikipedia as a battlefield. I've already told you what I thought about your original complaint. Please stop digging holes. And stop pinging Drmies, like he asked. Acroterion (talk)
• This is less character assassination and more character seppuku. Rarely have I seen someone so undermine their own credibility and trustworthiness in so little text. I am a complete nobody, but Mr. Bandara, if you told me the sky were blue, I would quadruple check and then agree only hesitantly. I honestly implore you to take the advice which has been offered: move along. Best of luck to you in your future endeavours. Dumuzid (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Best advice for the OP would be to email ArbCom, as this involves revdel'd info. An RfC about anyone's conduct is not appropriate. We did away with that several years ago. Before doing that, you'd be well advised that they have a supply of boomerangs too. John from Idegon (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• This is a normal revdel, not suppression, so it can be reviewed here. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Eng.M.Bandara: Wow. Just as a heads up, I still get the notification if you make a comment and then remove it, so "nobody noticed it" is not true; I still got to see... whatever that was. If you want to discuss the revdel, fine, but next time you think about making a comment like that to a woman online (or anywhere, for that matter...), maybe don't. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Eng.M.Bandera: 1) we don't have formal RFC's about admin actions but it's ok to open a thread here as you did, if you want to get an action looked at. As a matter of style though, it's much better to just neutrally say what the issue is rather than ranting about character assassinations. 2) I can't see the deleted revision but if your description of it is accurate then it's reasonable to ask for another admin to review it, either here or at WP:DRV (but we're already here, so don't go to DRV now). 3) I'd agree that your repeatedly reinstating that post wasn't vandalism per se, so Drmies should have chosen a different template to put on your talkpage. I.e. while not vandalism, it was disruptive edit warring which is still blockable. So don't press your luck. 4) yes the post to GorillaWarfare was inappropriate and clueless. She's an admin/arbitrator/CU/etc. because people here recognize her as a longtime and knowledgeable contributor with consistently good judgment, and who keeps cool under pressure. You can get to be like that too with practice, but please consider that at the moment you're doing the opposite.

If you just wanted a review of the revdel it would have been enough to post a 1-sentence request asking if it the revdel was necessary (after calmly discussing the issue with GW), since (according to you) it didn't actually attack or threaten anyone and it might have been misread. Give a diff to the deleted revision so admins can check it (non-admins won't be able to see the content). The "RFC" and the repeated reposts were out of line. Regards, 67.164.113.165 (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• This is the revdel in question --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 06:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• • Oh it was in the article rather than the talkpage, so by your description of the contents it was probably vandalism. Yeah maybe it could have just been reverted, but it's not exactly a precious artifact. I wouldn't worry about it. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I am minded to agree. It certainly wasn't appropriate in the article - either a sick joke or an actual threat - and needed to go. However, I am pretty certain that we don't hold RfCs on article talkpages when challenging an admin action; we first ask on the user talk page of the admin in question and then either at WP:AN or WP:DRV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that the diff in question was inappropriate for the article and deserved to be reverted, but it didn't meet any of the revision deletion criteria. I don't think Bandara was "out of line", he was acting in good faith and questioning why an admin did something that didn't make sense and wasn't backed up by policy. As to the slur they made against GorillaWarfare to warrant the response of "next time you think about making a comment like that to a woman online - I think they were simply trying to say "I am disappointed to find someone in your position can act like a jerk" which is simple observation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Bandara made no attempt to justify or correct the comment that they made (which they immediately deleted thereafter, by their own admission), and so I took it - as GW likely did also - at its face value. I respect your judgment, Ritchie, but glossing over the attack with an "I think what he meant was" is pretty short-sighted. I know many women have complained about the sort of editorial environment that exists on Wikipedia, and this doesn't exactly assuage their concerns.--WaltCip (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea how you interpreted their comment on my talk page that way, Ritchie. Also, are you (or Nil Einne) saying you think I acted like a jerk, or just that you think that's what Eng.M.Bandera was trying to express? If the former, I certainly didn't intend to. They said they didn't think it met the revdel criteria, I said I thought it did, they asked which policy justified the removal, and I linked WP:RD3. If I did something jerkish in there I don't see it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Same; calling that a "simple observation" is utterly absurd. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I've met genuine misogynistic assholes in the real world, because they drop their guard with me thinking I won't find them offensive, sexist and pathetic. But I do. And I don't think this case is comparable, because this looks more like somebody throwing toys out of the pram. They shouldn't have made that abusive content towards GorillaWarfare, but I don't think it was made because they're an actual misogynist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A completely unprovoked attack in explicitly sexist terms on the only woman involved in the issue, despite her doing nothing wrong except maybe the original revdel and certainly nothing hostile, while leaving alone the other (presumed male) editors who actually did the blanking and whetever else they're objecting to? That doesn't just happen in a vacuum, regardless of where they're throwing their toys; a sexist tantrum is no less sexist for being a tantrum. I would say that if they choose targets like a duck, use specifically-demeaning language like a duck, are unrepentant like a duck, etc., then just call them a duck, but apparently YMMV. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus While I agree the revision wasn't appropriate in the article at that time (it certainly did not meet the criteria for revision deletion), the relevance of that revision emerges from this article, which is supported by WP:RS. While we're not in a position to assess whether it actually constitutes a threat without WP:ORIGINAL being applicable, within WP policy we have jurisdiction to make an assessment on whether actual revision was considered a threat. In my opinion, the answer to that is No. It was a question. There were no specific threats that were made in actual revision to warrant revdel, and given the alleged notability of the revision, it ought to be reinstated. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what I said above, I think the best thing to do here is just to drop the issue; it's not massively important. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The revdel was fully justified imho, so a hint to the Op: just drop the schtick and stop wikilawyering please. Lectonar (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC) The edit that set this off was bad, the revdel was justifiable, and the OP's attempt to make a major case out of it was ill-advised. Please, can we wrap this up before the hole gets any deeper? - Donald Albury 11:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't see how it met the criteria of RD3 and everyone repeatedly asserting "but it does!" isn't helpful, but anyway.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't see the deleted material and frankly I don't give a damn. I'd support a site ban of Eng.M.Bandara based on that extremely sexist comment. I find it difficult to interpret the comment in the way Ritchie333 did. Their comment did not come come across simply as "I'm surprised someone in your position would act that way". It didn't even come across as "I'm surprised a girl/woman would act that way" which is still sexist, but not enough that I'd call for a cban based on a single comment. It came across as "I'm surprised that a girl gets all the tools, when they dont even let me be a fking template editor." At best, perhaps it was intended in the form of "I'm surprised that someone who behaves as poorly as you did gets all the tools, now that I know you're a girl that explains it since they dont even let me be a fking template editor." but that's barely better. Eng.M.Bandara to their credit seems to have recognised that they were out of line since they deleted it but they've offered no alternative explanation. In fact, instead of apologising or at least recognising how out of line they were here, they've instead tried to tell us it was irrelevant. No, your behaviour is highly relevant when you open an AN thread since we will always consider whether sanction is justified for any parties to a dispute. Your extremely poor behaviour doesn't excuse poor behaviour on the part of other editors, but if you behave so extremely bad, don't expect us to really care about whatever minor complaint you have or whatever minor wrong may or may not have happened. Expect the focus instead to be on whether you should be sanctioned. If you don't like that, don't make such disgusting comments. Deleting it soon after doesn't change the fact you said it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• You had a point. But now no-one cares. Move away quietly, and keep your head down for WP:BOOMERANGs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Query This is an odd one. User:Eng.M.Bandara was blocked indefinitely in December 2014 as a sock of (still) indefblocked User:Distributor108 (SPI) They were then unblocked in 2015 on the standard offer (User_talk:Eng.M.Bandara#Blocked_as_a_sockpuppet) This seems a bit odd - unblocking a sock (but not the master, who was blocked for edit-warring and harrassment). Just an observation. Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Ban user, restore revision - the revision in question doesn't look to me like a threat, or like anything else needing RevDel; the fact that the user is correct doesn't justify personal attacks against the admin in question. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I noticed the post and it is why I removed even the re-factored version. Comments like that have no place here or the outside world. I lived through the GGTF case and I don't recall even seeing anything to that nature. I have serious doubts about the OP ability to contribute here in a meaningful manner. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment from deleting admin For what it's worth, I have no strong opinion one way or another on whether the revision remains deleted. I do still think it meets RD3 ("Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, links to any of these, but not mere spam links."). I've also never seen the argument that revisions should be undeleted because they've been discussed offwiki, or that that makes the revision itself "notable". GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Good revdel, I might have used WP:RD2 for it being grossly offensive and of no encyclopedic value, but it was well within discretion anyway. It was well over the line of "ordinary vandalism". It does not need to be visible just because some off-wiki websites republished it as a news item. If it becomes important to encyclopedic coverage of the attack then we can do what we always do and write in encyclopedic coverage of it based on reliable sources. It still won't need to be visible. As for OP's grossly sexist remarks, I would have blocked if I saw it earlier (it's been about 15 hours now) so I'll just say I support banning them and their sexist views from this collaborative project that WELCOMES EVERYBODY. And Ritchie333, next time you see an editor literally whining that a well-respected member of our community only achieved their status and respect because they are a woman, and that a woman in a position of authority is a reason that they can't have nice things, if your impulse is to defend that comment, maybe just don't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Good RevDel The deletion was 100% appropriate; the text removed, while short, was rude and inappropriate and rises above and beyond normal vandalism. --Jayron32 15:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I can understand why it was deleted, and have no problem with the action; although I'd be tempted to leave it visible so the true character of this editor is equally visible. It is a character, incidentally, which we may well wish to consider the value of maintaining in the community: his slurs and provocatory comments follows swiftly on the steps of other pointy behaviour such as filing AfDs solely in order to to test Wikipedia deletion policy despite having been advised by e.g. Iridescent that it could be seen as intentionally disruptive. ——SerialNumber54129 15:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, this is the revision deletion in question—it's an edit made by an IP editor to STEM School Highlands Ranch, and Eng.M.Bandara is of the opinion that it should not be hidden. This discussion has splintered a bit to also discuss Eng.M.Bandara's sexist comment towards me, which was removed from my talk page but not revision-deleted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  Apologies, I was of the impression that EMB had made that first comment too (invisible to me of course). Thanks for the clarification; I suppose it makes them slightly less of a net-negative than before.

  But not, I think, by much... ——SerialNumber54129 16:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• (responding to ping above) Completely valid revdel, Ritchie333 have you lost your mind?, and I wouldn't object to an indef. Based both on my limited interaction with Eng at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting, and on his (I think we can safely assume that anyone whining about Wikipedia allowing those pesky women to hold advanced permissions is a "him") recent contribution history which could be reasonably summarized as "wandering around trying to pick fights in random areas and having tantrums when asked to stop", Eng is pretty much the embodiment of the term "net negative". ‑ Iridescent 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Boomerang for this sock who promised we wont have any problems? Cabayi (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Indef Block wouldn't be unreasonable. Sock of a still-indefblocked editor (see my comment above), pointy creation of AfDs when they didn't get their way on another issue unpleasant and now rev-delled edit on that article, and misogynist attack against GW. Doesn't sound like someone we really need here. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  Again, the rev-delled edit to the STEM School page was not made by Eng.M.Bandara. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Least of the issues, to be honest though. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support revdel I support the Revdel, although like Ivanvector, might have gone for RD2 rather than RD3. I can accept the good faith editors might see it differently. Many editors feel that transparency is a laudable goal and believe that being able to view the history of an article is useful and should only be interrupted for the most egregious of incidents. I can imagine someone thinking that this was merely in poor taste and not worthy of removal. However, if someone is thinking that the only time this would be seen is if someone happen to be walking through the article history for some reason, that's not why we rev Del. If that material were left in, some malicious person could create a link to that ID, and pretend it is the actual link to the article. Something coming across that link would be offended. I think it is worth removing. That said, I'm not opposed to an editor wishing to challenge the removal, but there are proper ways to do it but an RFC sounds like a suboptimal option.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Good revdel with either criterion and I'm inclined to show timesink editors like EMB the door, at least temporarily. Miniapolis 21:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Based on EMB's description of the revdelled'd edit, I saw it as a cynical or skeptical comment on the suicide prevention effort but not a threat. I had thought it was on a talkpage in which case it would have been FORUMmy but not even revert worthy. E.g. President Trump's proposal to combat school shootings by issuing guns to teachers got a mixed and partly skeptical response,[14], as did a report that some Netflix program being broadcast resulted in a 30% spike in youth suicides.[15] There were similar claims about the the song Gloomy Sunday and the 18th century novel The Sorrows of Young Werther (see "Cultural impact" section). I'm somewhat preservationist so (unless the edit's wording was meaner than EMB made it sound) I would have reverted rather than revdel'd, but meh, we won't miss it.

  EMB's post to GW is somewhat mitigated by his self-reversion but still, EMB, please drop the stick. We are certainly approaching block territory if we're not already there. Could an admin check whether EMB's description of the edit didn't misrepresent the content or the tone? If it did, that's another point against EMB. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment about the comment Since the discussion has appears to have revolved around a comment that I made which lasted on Wikipedia for less than 3 minutes, and I have been asked to explain it, I'll weigh in on that now (I have tried, as hard as I can, to keep this on the topic until now).

The comment was not intended to be an insult towards the user. I was expressing my dissatisfaction at Wikipedia for not giving me the voice I felt was deserved despite the many positive contributions I have made. This is in stark contrast to my experience off-wiki, where my contributions are appreciated and rewarded. This contrast was what made ME feel that Wikipedia was being sexist. After making the comment I realised placing that on user's talk page not the appropriate place to bring up such an issue, which is why quickly removed the comment on own accord. I support that comment be revision deleted, because ever since that comment was made no good has come out of it. That one comment has been used to turn this ANI into an all-out assault against me, bully and harras me, and I have no doubt it will continue to be used in such a way. It has been blown way out of proportion and undermines the many positive contributions that I made improve Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare I am sincerely sorry for that comment was made, I take it back, it was never intended to be an insult towards you. I felt that you were being hostile towards me, by not responding to the genuine concerns that I held that particular revdel, that it didn't meet the RD3 criteria. I should not have responded to this the way I did on your talk page. Also, I don't appreciate this comment " next time you think about making a comment like that to a woman online", it seems like the start of an unfinished threat.

• Comment about the Sock I have consistently denied that that account belongs me, and this is the only account that I use. The only evidence that was used in the SPI was highly apocryphal behavioural evidence. In any event, as per my understanding, those accounts have been blocked and this was from more than 5 years ago.

• Comment about my contribution to Wikipedia Lot of editors are happy to point what they believe to be 'negative contributions' from me, when in fact all those 'negative' contributions are me simply challenging the relevance of some content, which is intended to improve the quality and validity of Wikipedia articles. While at the same ignoring many positive contributions I made such as at 2018 Sri Lankan Constitutional crisis and 2019 Sri Lankan Easter bomings among many others.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 23:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Fine either way. I probably wouldn't have RevDel'ed it, but is is borderline case that is clearly within admin discretion, and if in doubt, using RevDel is fine because it can easily be changed and every admin can easily view it. It could have been politely brought here and it would have been reviewed in full within 24 hours, drama free. That said, Mr. Bandara (and I assume Mr. based on the misogynistic comments) should probably just drop the stick as I'm genuinely tempted to block him myself for WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:DE, and each new post only makes that case stronger. I don't care what others have done in their past, I'm more concerned about what YOU are doing now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Claims they are the victim after making an unacceptable misogynistic remark, then casts further aspersions against GW by insinuating that she's threatening him? NOTHERE in my opinion. WaltCip (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• 100% this. To quote the 'threat' but elide "maybe don't" is either willful bad faith or verging on WP:CIR territory. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I will drop the stick this discussion has gone far enough. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 00:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks EMB. I'm satisfied at this point. I can't speak for others but I'd be happy to see the thread closed. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Standard Offer requested by User:SwagLevelHigh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is requesting an unblock under the Standard Offer.Text of unblock request follows.

I was punished to not edit Wikipedia for 6 months and my 6 month punishment finished on 9th of may 2019, so please unblock my account and give me my chance so I can edit wikipedia. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose unblocking. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_97#RfC:_"perceived"_or_"characterized"_as_racist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an uninvolved admin please assess consensus and close this RfC that has automatically slipped into the archives. Thank you. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Closing (this report, that is). El_C 02:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bhimavarapu007 slow-mo edit warring and adding WP:ELNEVER links despite warnings

Bhimavarapu007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user keeps adding links to a website that hosts and displays pirated and copyrighted material which WP:ELNEVER makes clear shouldn't be done as a form of contributory copyright infringement. They seem to be doing so in order to direct people to copyrighted material based on this edit summary [16]. They have also been re-adding this content for weeks ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]) despite multiple users reverting the changes. This led to the page getting PC protected. When I saw an edit in the PC queue, I reverted and gave them a level-4 warning for edit warring [32] because while they had been warned in edit summaries they had never been warned for edit warring. The edit warring warning was the third warning (first, second) this user received regarding their conduct at this article. Some higher protection and/or a block may be in order as pending changes is no longer effective as the user has recently been autoconfirmed and their changes are auto-accepted. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 19:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• This user appears to be adding links to 123Movies to the 123Movies article. That is standard practice per The Pirate Bay, Sci-Hub, Wikileaks, YouTube, etc. Now I don't have a legal degree (do I need one here?), but to my way of thinking, telling someone that there is a 123Movies or a Sci-Hub is far more useful in helping him to find it than anything that follows, while the distinction we draw in policy is between having a link where clicking it inexorably brings the user directly to downloading (including "viewing" or "streaming") pirated text, versus giving him information that might help him research out pirated text by, for example, knowing where a site that hosts it can be found. Note that judging whether a site 'purely' hosts pirated content, or hosts a lot of pirated stuff, or hosts too much pirated stuff, or hosts pirated stuff with poor oversight, or whatever boundary you would draw, is not our job. This is why the ELNEVER policy says "...This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright." Clearly the policy does not conceive of blocking all links to those sites, just the ones directly to unlicensed copyrighted material on them. Wnt (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• The problem is that these links aren't in line with other parts of the ELs standards. We have lots of other links being added, e.g. [33] adds https://123movies.dj, https://123movies.to, https://123movies.is, https://123movie.cc, and https://123movies.st, and none of them are put in the appropriate section for ELs. (The original site appears no longer to exist: the intro says it was shut down a year ago.) Clones are not generally appropriate, especially in situations like this where more than one is provided, and the express goal. Adding an official link is acceptable for such a website, but Bhimavarapu007 is not merely adding individual links. One of the diffs demonstrates that the user's goal is not to provide background information for the encyclopedia reader — its generating only 1000 visitors per day, why cant you keep the link, atleast those 1000 visitor are able to watch Movies. I'm about to block this user for spamming. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Nyttend: The other articles I cited put the links in the same position: the "url" field of {{infobox website}}. If that is the wrong place for external links, you should take it up with the maintainer of that template. Your argument about clones may carry more weight, since in that case they would not 'really' be the site mentioned, and you could make a copyright argument over the front material. We have cases like that (Encyclopedia Dramatica, which was put back up online after the original maintainer destroyed it), and there we have a URL but it is not given as a hyperlink presumably to avoid the risk of literal contributory infringement. In this case I haven't researched if the site is genuinely "cloned" (by unrelated persons) or is simply evading DNS censorship. Certainly the proliferation of links is common where individual users are encountering URL censorship or where the domain names are unstable, and is common with many of the sites I described before. Last but not least: a user cannot be guilty of spamming who only adds links to a site to one article. It's a logical contradiction. Please don't make a bad block like that. Wnt (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• When a site is shut down by government authorities, at most you put up a single replacement link, not five at once while removing others. As noted by someone else, "URL field in and infobox is for one official website, anything more is considered promotional". See WP:ELMIN; we should almost never provide more than one official link, and then only if there's something particularly significant about the secondary link. Five links, expressly done to allow 1000 visitors to watch movies, is promotional, regardless of the copyright status of the movies in question. And finally, it's quite common to block people for spamming if they persistently advocate something on one article; if you want to see someone immune from sanctions who only advertises on a single page, I suggest that you go to WP:VP/Pr and propose that such a thing be permitted. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• If the sites are clones, then there may not be more than one link to any given site. In any case, the intent of the links is clearly not to make a "directory" as described in ELMIN, a policy that does allow for loopholes. If there is consensus on the article talk page that ELMIN applies and this editor is defying it then you could consider a block, but certainly I see no such consensus on that page. Templating an editor is not a discussion and does not create a consensus! True, I see that might makes right here and you've blocked anyway and that is the end of that discussion (and that attempt of Wikipedians to link to something "subversive"). We are all just pretenders here; the omnipotent corporations rule over all everywhere. Wnt (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Another de facto block script

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheBetrayedOne/SuperRollback.js. Previous discussion here: § Twinkle Meganuke. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Just another piece of Flooded With Them Hundreds stupidity, page duly deleted. ‑ Iridescent 08:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ulster Hospital

Hi - An IP, who seems to be trying to "out" a line manager who was criticized in an industrial tribunal, keeps adding a bare url link to the industrial tribunal database at the end of the penultimate paragraph of the Ulster Hospital article. I have tried engaging with the IP without success. The media has published several articles on the tribunal case but did not name the line manager. It seems to me that continuously inserting the bare url link may potentially in breach of WP:BLPNAME, WP:BAREURLS and WP:ELNO. Thoughts welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I have now hidden 7 edits in which the IP added problematic information about a living person. I have also blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit warring. I invite review of these actions by other admins. - Donald Albury 19:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Range block

Can somebody do a range block on user:2600:1017:b80f:b7c3:fc25:a670:814e:22ef and user:2600:1017:b80f:b7c3:b04b:1068:f2aa:8247. Those were both used to make terroristis threats. CLCStudent (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a note to any passing admins: please don't indefinitely block IP addresses, especially if they're allocated to a mobile network operator. These are recycled very quickly, and an indefinite block will just cause lots of collateral damage while doing nothing to stop the disruptive person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with NinjaRobotPirate. We should generally never be indefinitely blocking IP addresses or ranges. If one of those extremely rare circumstances call for one, a discussion should be held first. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Pharos: Just FYI the notes above. @CLCStudent: Why are you taking vandal IPs directly to random admins? —DoRD (talk)​ 02:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Vandal IPs are routinely reported to random admins at WP:AIV, and there's nothing more random about bringing them here instead. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend - I think DoRD was asking CLCStudent why he was messaging admins directly instead of bringing the matter to a noticeboard, not why he brought the matter to this noticeboard. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct. I was referring to messages such as these to random admins rather than here or AIV. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thank you for helping me understand better. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, here is the deal. I got into a dispute with an admin yesterday at AIV. You can see it here here. In a nutshell, I am trying to only use AIV when I know my reports meets all criteria in the header. CLCStudent (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call it a dispute, but rather a discussion at ANI (here) about an issue with AIV reporting and his actions thereafter. It was hoped this would lead to better AIV reports and not avoiding the proper forum. NJA | talk 12:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I noticed the third criteria says that there must be reason to believe the reported user will disrupt in the IMMEDIATE future. I was not sure that criteria was met in this case. I know the criteria at ANI is much more relaxed than that at AIV. CLCStudent (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but random admins' talk pages isn't AN(I), and no offense to the admins above, but many people aren't familiar with IPv6, and we may end up with the wrong solution to the problem, such as the indef blocks of mobile IPv6 "accounts". —DoRD (talk)​ 13:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting talk page access limitation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:RFPP

 – I added it for you, see Special:Permalink/897471676#User talk:Johannes Maximilian. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hereby I request write access limitation to my talk page so that only extended confirmed authors can edit it. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Johannes Maximilian: I added this to the page for requesting protection. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review of protection at Mistake

Samsara indefinitely protected Mistake using pending changes for "Persistent vandalism". The page has had no edits to it since 22 March and only 10 edits in 2019. There isn't persistent vandalism, there isn't any recent disruption on the page. I asked for it to be unprotected on their talk page The answer was to have it further reviewed so I am bringing it here for further review. I do not believe it needs to be protected. ~ GB fan 23:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Digging into the history Oshawott 12 requested the protection so I will info them of this thread so they can add their thoughts as well. MarnetteD|Talk 23:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I just found that a discussion has been going on here User talk:Samsara#Mistake. My apologies for not finding it before I made the above post. MarnetteD|Talk 23:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggested to GB fan to post this at RfPP as is standard procedure. Samsara 02:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, since nothing's happened at RFPP I'll comment here. After looking through the history, I believe 23 February 2018 is the latest edit (aside from yesterday's two protection-related entries) that's neither outright detrimental nor the reversion of such. That was 14 months ago. Since then, the page has had almost sixty edits, and every one of them I believe deserved reversion or consisted of reversion. This is a disambiguation page, after all; it's not something that routinely needs to be updated. Protection may be applied when a page experiences basically nothing except vandalism, even if it's not all the time, and the fact that it's disambiguation, not content, contributes to the sense that this is an appropriate protection. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, ~ GB fan 13:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Does your ‘OK’ signify that we can close the discussion, or does it mean you agree with him? Anyways, it was a suitable page protection, and it was put in the right place. The only thing that was wrong was my wording usage of ‘persistent’, so I believe we’re pretty much finished here then. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 16:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

My OK, is acknowledgement of what Nyttend said. ~ GB fan 20:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I obviously don't understand the protection policy. I have two admins telling me that it is within the protection policy to indefinitely protect a page that hasn't been edited in almost a month, 10 edits in the last 3.5 months and less than 100 edits in the last year. ~ GB fan 10:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Fwiw, I would not have protected...the disruption is way under any threshold for any kind of protection. In olden times we would have said: just watchlist and revert. Lectonar (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

As with most decisions of this sort, it's a tradeoff between how much effort the protection saves by preventing vandalism and how many useful edits are prevented by the protection. Yes, sixty vandalism or vandalism-related edits in 14 months is a relatively low level of disruption. But also yes, zero useful edits in 14 months is not a lot of useful editing that is prevented by the protection. I'm not seeing this as a Big Deal either way. Do you really want to pursue this? Or can it be closed? GoldenRing (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the big picture, the page is clearly a target for persistent vandalism, it's just that instances of vandalism are sporadic and slow-going. So, it's actually a perfect candidate for long-term PC protection, and I don't see anything wrong with implementing it here. That said, Protection policy does say Indefinite PC protection should be used only in cases of severe long-term disruption. I don't think I would call the disruption "severe", so it should probably be converted to a year. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

We should revisit that part of the policy. If memory serves, it was considered important at the time to limit PC1 in terms of time as it was thought we might end up in a situation where progress is limited by availability of reviewers, i.e. changes on low traffic pages remaining unreviewed for longish periods of time. Our subsequent experience with PC1 has not yet borne this out, and it now seems it likely never will. Looking specifically at Mistake, it's had the described pattern of vandalism since 2007. Limiting PC1 to one year does not seem in proportion with the duration of the disruption. At the risk of lecturing the choir, in page protection, it's often useful to to ask if pages are being attacked by specific users or groups thereof, in which case, protecting for a definite period may lead to the disruption abating, or whether a page invites general attention from unrelated attackers simply because of the subject content or the name of the page. There may be grey areas between the two, but this page is a very clear case of one that will continue to attract negative attention because of its title, so protecting for a definite period is not a reasonable remedy imo, especially when the period is short relative to the observed disruption. If a compromise is needed, I would suggest setting it to five years - PC1 has the advantage that its necessity and performance can be continuously monitored, even from watchlists, saving us a lot of micromanagement, which given occasional backlogs at RfPP, should be given some thought. Samsara 15:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If the page is being edited that infrequently then it shouldn't be protected. Protection is for vandalism happening too fast to keep up with. Occasional vandalism should just be reverted when it happens. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear...Lectonar (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Admins, what do you think?

Admins, esp. those of you who deal with BLPs frequently, what do you make of Me Too movement (India)? I am not surprised that I just had to drop a rangeblock for BLP violations: these articles seem to me to be like trashcans where every allegation and conviction of sexual harassment can be dropped in. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The article was previously semi-protected, which expired on 2 May. In the light that every non-confirmed edit since has been reverted, I've restored the semi-protection to save everyone's "revert" button from being worn out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Another IP hopper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is jumping between user:2605:e000:1609:85f:1d66:7925:7118:58fb and user:2605:e000:1c0a:e0eb:848f:2ae5:cf55:8e8 and vandalizing. CLCStudent (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

CLCStudent, please take this to AIV. Thanks. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensual outing

Is it appropriate and not a violation of our harassment policy to out another editor with the consent of the outed editor? Although I didn't see anything about this in WP:OUTING, WP:COI#Avoid outing has the following language (bolding for emphasis): When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes.

In this particular case, I've accused another editor of having a COI and violating WP:PAID, based primarily on off-wiki evidence of the editor's identity. The accused editor has demanded that I present the evidence. The specific question is, may I post the evidence of their identity if the accused editor gives me express permission to do so?

Apologies if this is the wrong forum for this. I can post this at WP:COIN, WT:COIN, WT:COI, or wherever if that would be more appropriate. R2 (bleep) 18:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Mail it to any sysop. Yunshui and TonyBallioni are two names, that spring to my mind. ∯WBG^converse 19:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer to post the evidence at WP:COIN so that the community can weigh in (and the accused editor can defend themselves). Of course, I wouldn't do that if it would violate WP:OUTING. Hence the question. Though I do appreciate the referrals. R2 (bleep) 19:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not outing if the subject is okay with disclosing their identity. But this kind of situation is why [email protected] was set up. If you email the details there admins authorised to handle private information can handle it. – Joe (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If they are giving you permission to "out" them, why don't they just out themselves so there's no question about whether it's proper? Natureium (talk)

Joe Roe and Natureium, it is not yet clear whether they are giving explicit permission. I think R2 is, correctly, treading carefully: if someone says "show me the evidence", it is not certain that this means "publicly post information linking my account and real world identity". --JBL (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Besides the paid-en-wp email, seems to me that the best course is to post the evidence minus necessary details, i.e. explain exactly what you have without giving any personal information. "Hello, User:Soandso, I found someone called "Soandso" at such-and-such.com, and that account was explicitly linked to someone with such-and-such a name who lived at a certain address and had such-and-such email address. That person has written several paragraphs about this same topic on that website, and your writing here sounds identical in style and vocabulary to what Soandso wrote on the other website." As long as you don't say what website you're talking about, literally all you're saying is that the username exists somewhere else, and the user here can always reject a connection. Either the user will tell you to post the details, in which case you definitely have permission, or the user will be satisfied without saying to post them, so you won't need to do it. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I remember a vaguely similar situation with John D. Haynes House. Someone claiming to be the owner repeatedly removed location information saying "Don't post the address of my home", even though the local government's GIS website provided the owner's address and said that it was something like 700 miles away. So we had someone claiming that his personal information had been posted (but not because it was his personal information, but because the location was relevant to the house article, and he was the only one claiming that it was his information), and the only way to disprove him was to provide the owner's actual personal information. In the end, we basically ignored his complaints, since the address was sourced to reliable government documentation, and any building's location is obviously significant enough to include in an article about that building. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Honest words, outing anyone for anything is not worth the trouble. Genuinely. Even if the editor has a COI, it is an area that is so muddled that you'll never know what you're ending up with. Share private information via private channels only, there is no value in arguing a consensual disclosure, at the end of it, you might have to face the schtick for it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Just confirm with the person that they really consented when they said "present the evidence". Ask them something like: "do you really mean post my currently offline research, that contains what I believe is your real name, affiliation, etc."? If they say no then don't post it. Since it's private info, send it to a checkuser, not a regular admin. If suspected COI editor asks you to send the info to them privately, refuse to do so-- there's no use helping them cover their tracks; and anyway, if the info is wrong it could compromise the named person's privacy. Once the CU's have the info, leave further disclosure up to them. Also don't post identifying info (even if the editor consents) unless you're pretty sure that it's correct. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Outing someone, even if they give you permission to do so, isn't a good idea and could put you into a very bad position of having to defend your actions from being met with appropriate sanctions in response. You should instead have the user out themselves on Wikipedia so that there's no chance for ambiguity or debate in that aspect, or whether or not what they said really was consent and approval for you to publish the editor's personal identifiable information onto Wikipedia. Plus, you don't really know for sure if the person truly is who they say they are. No one does. I would not mess or dance around in that area at all. The policy on outing is taken very seriously, and those who violate it can face very severe sanctions (such as an indefinite block) - even for a first offense. Don't risk it. Take the advice that others have given to you here and take it to the appropriate noticeboard for an investigation. If they disclose things on Wikipedia that can be used as evidence against them, then that's the appropriate time to mention those details. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• That doesn't sound, to me, like the other editor is consenting to being outed. Be aware, that WP:OUTING is in balance with WP:COI and it isn't cut and dry that one can violate WP:OUTING merely to aid in the investigation of WP:COI. Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing is useful here, if only reminding us all that there is some nuance in these things. The ArbCom has itself issued a response to the above statement. Be aware that the local community has generally come down in favor of a stronger WP:OUTING policy over exposing WP:COI editing, and editors have been sanctioned in the past for going too far. Tread carefully. --Jayron32 16:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Help needed at the helpdesk

There's a minor dilemma at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Merge_to_a_draft_-_what_to_do_about_redirect? involving redirects to draft, copyright attribution, and parallel edit histories. I don't know how to solve it, and neither does the other administrator who is trying to help. Please comment there. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Post RfC notice?

Hi,

There is a RfC on an article involving an extensive AN discussion from several weeks ago. Is it appropriate for me to post a neutral notice of the RfC here? BC1278 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC) I don't know if it affects the determination, but I will additionally note I am a disclosed paid editor. BC1278 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't a formal RfC so that discussion didn't need a formal close. I know another editor had tried pretty hard to get a formal close on that thread and basically the answer was "not every thread needs a formal close". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:This question is not about the RSN discussion. It's regarding a statement in a specific article about a company using the HuffPo essay as its source. I am asking whether it's appropriate for me to post a neutral notice about the RfC regarding the company article since the identical issues have already been discussed at length here at Admin Noticeboard. So far, the RfC for the company article has only one response, from an already involved editor. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 sorry I misunderstood the question. This details how you can permissibly publicize an RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock assist

Resolved

 – Range was blocked --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, 77Survivor has asked on my talk page if an admin could please look into blocking this range of IPV6 users:

• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:84A5:FE3D:5E83:B697 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:A0C0:4E61:BD7:7C07 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:C459:90B7:1A4A:DCDC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:9FC:45B1:33D7:A8E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The issue, briefly, is that this range is submitting a ton of unsourced film genres. Looking through their edits, I see a bunch of questionable stuff like "action-drama" here for instance, when most action films are dramas. Here we get "thriller drama" when most thrillers are dramas, here we get thriller drama again. Here we get "action masala" even though by definition, an Indian masala film combines a variety of genres including action, comedy, romance, drama. If any of you cook, "masala" is mixed spices. (Coriander, cardamom, mace, cumin, turmeric, etc.) So anyone going out of their way to expand these genres are just adding words for the sake of adding words. The general range identified thus far is 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70.*. If anyone can please calculate whether or not a rangeblock is possible in this area, I would be most appreciative, as it is not my area of specialty. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: A range that covers those is 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70:0:0:0:0/64 (2a01:e35:8a13:2f70:0:0:0:0 - 2a01:e35:8a13:2f70:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff) --DannyS712 (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb - What you're describing translates to an IPv6 CIDR range of 2A01:E35:8A13:2F70::/64, which I've blocked as you requested. Since this range makes a lot of edits, I kept the block to 36 hours. We can always extend it if necessary. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah and DannyS712: Thank you both. IP ranges are a tricky business for me and maybe I don't need to be as scared of them as I am, but I do appreciate the mind power you both donated, as well as the actual blocking that you did, Oshwah. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb - No problem! Always happy to help. :-) Once you have someone give you a crash course on ranges, how they work, and what the numbers mean when they're calculated - it's really not too awful. The main thing to know is that ranges for IPv4 addresses are different than ranges for IPv6 addresses, since IPv6 addresses are longer, use hex (base-16) instead of base-10, and other things. I have a response that I made awhile back for another admin that you might be interested in reading. Take a look at it here - it explains the difference between IPv4 and IPv6 ranges and goes over everything a little bit. If you're looking for a tutorial more like this, let me know and I can type one up. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Unicornblood2018 using IP

BLOCKED:

Indeffed by The Blade of The Northern Lights for email abuse. In a related note, 3X applies only when CU finds sockpuppetry on two occassions after an indef, OTOH there can be a WP:RECIDIVISM ban given the three indefs, but no consensus for that here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

175.36.91.0 (talk · contribs) appears to be an obvious sock of Unicornblood2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was banned for battleground rants on Talk:Falun Gong, user talk pages, and elsewhere. In addition to the recent IP contribs see [34], [35], [36] and compare 120.18.17.66 (talk · contribs) with the new IP. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a week after continuing to rant here (which I reverted). Sandstein 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• After looking at some of Unicornblood's rants and seeing his behavior escalate, particularly seeing that their behavior has gotten worse over the past month, I'd like to nip this in the bud and propose a community ban of Unicornblood. I don't see their behavior stopping anytime soon. If this is premature then feel free to ignore me. Rockstonetalk to me! 06:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with the ban. I've also removed Unicornblood2018's e-mail access after receiving more rants in the same vein via e-mail. Acroterion removed talk page access for the same reasons. It appears they're now spamming WP:UTRS with tickets... Sandstein 07:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, they've also been spamming #wikipedia-en-unblock with repetitive messages. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on Unicornblood2018

I know I proposed it above but I'd like to officially start the ban process officially and let the community have their say. Given that their behavior has escalated and become increasingly obnoxious, I propose a community ban of Unicornblood. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• User has posted a long, rambling message from yet another IP on my talkpage identifying as himself as a sock of him. I think, now that this is his third sock, that this qualifies under WP:3X. I'm going to mark his account with this template. Feel free to reverse if this is premature. (I know WP:3X generally requires a confirmation by checkuser before the ban starts, but it's very obvious that he's socking, so I'm ignoring all rules) Rockstonetalk to me! 04:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't exclude a situation where someone pretends to be the user, obviously. IAR is about improving content, not stifling dissent. cygnis insignis 09:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, but it's bleedingly obvious that this person is the same user as before. I'll make a checkuser request later. You are of course welcome to undo my edit to his userpage, I was being boldRockstonetalk to me! 21:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It would appear they agree when they posted on my talk page. A shame it came to this, I see evidence of a thoughtful individual who knows they jumped the rail. I asked a question of them and got a helpful answer, nice enough to me to declare my conflict. I had a mind to try moderating the discussion, but the ban smothered my enthusiasm. I got little traction in identifying concerns with the article myself, more PR than balance based on my own evaluation before reading what anyone had to say. Not the best use of my time, but I expect someone will come at this article from another direction and improve it. Please excuse where my intervention was unhelpful, if closing the door on the user was the better solution. cygnis insignis 11:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Confirmed sock per SPI, so user is banned under WP:3X. Can an uninvolved user close this? Thanks. Rockstonetalk to me! 21:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DbivansMCMLXXXVI community ban?

BANNED:

(non-admin closure) Due to unanimous support after more than a day, this user is banned per community consensus. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a result of this AN discussion, User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI received a topic ban from the history of Nazi Germany, noted at User talk:DbivansMCMLXXXVI#Community topic ban. At the time, they were already under a short block for personal attacks (accusing another editor of defending Hitler, under the bizarre notion that if you oppose a claim that a third party opposed Hitler, that's defending Hitler) - you can see their talk page. I revoked talk page access for doubling down the attacks with an accusation of "making pro Nazi edits" in their unblock request.

Then today I came across User talk:Cullen328#Hello Jim, can we talk about hounding of new members? and User talk:Binksternet#Your recent changes defending Neo Nazi changes to Albert Speer, making the same kind of accusations again (eg of "defending Neo Nazi changes"), attacking User:K.e.coffman again (someone DbivansMCMLXXXVI has completely misunderstood and egregiously attacked before), raising the same complaints about a source used in the Albert Speer article, trying to use Reddit as a basis for making accusations... and there are so many tells here that there's no doubt the IP is User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI. I issued a /64 block for the IP (see User talk:2600:100A:B01C:2427:186F:B1D0:2426:6261) and blocked the User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI account for the ban evasion.

It's also clear (topic, style, geolocation) that this is the same person (the revert of that edit is what led to the attacks at User talk:Binksternet), who also made these additions at Talk:Albert Speer. I haven't blocked these other IPs as they haven't been used since then, but I've reverted their TP comments as ban evasion.

I was subsequently asked whether I thought the IPs involved in WP:AN#Continuous disruptive editing/sockpuppeting by users Bilcat and Trekphiler are the same person, and they clearly are - same geolocation, same unmistakable tells in style, poorly-sourced edits, angry accusations when edits are reverted (including unwarranted accusations of socking this time just because two different editors reverted them - see edit summary here, for "Users have been sockpuppeting for one another to get around rules").

Had it just been the Nazi topic ban evasion, I think the block would have sufficed. But since I blocked, I've been looking again at this person's contributions and thinking we might need more. We're seeing an escalation of personal attacks including neo-Nazi accusations (on a totally ludicrous basis), and further lashing out (with socking accusations and AN reporting) in response to reverts of improperly-sourced edits. I think this is someone who simply can not work in a collaborative and consensus-based environment, and I think the topic ban should be extended to a full community site ban. What do people think? (I'll just go and notify everyone I've mentioned here, as required Done.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support full site ban as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, ban this guy for evading his block on multiple occasions. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  Got to point out he wasn't actually blocked until I blocked him today for evading his topic ban, so he hasn't actually been evading a block - it's ban evasion, and he has been deceptively editing logged out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support full site ban - Besides the topic-ban evasion, deceptively pretending to be a new user while editing tendentiously is a no-no, BITE not withstanding. (And I did make initial efforts to assume faith with this IP farm, though it quickly became apparent to me this was not a new user. I was in communication with an admin about the user, and preparing evidence against the IP, so I didn't present the evidence in the previous AN.) Now that I know who the master is, I can state that I believe they knew who I was from previous interactions in editing and warnings against edit warring on their talk page, and were more than likely pretending they did not. - BilCat (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support full site ban. I was pretty sure that the IP who posted on my talk page was a logged out user, and I thank Boing! said Zebedee for doing the detective work. This editor has highly idiosyncratic notions about the history of opposition to Nazi Germany, and lacks the competence to edit in that topic area. Their willingness to defy their topic ban by editing logged out is solid evidence that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per above. And basically block-on-sight advise for future suspected socks. Lourdes 03:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Topic ban evasion. Szzuk (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support No brainer. --Blackmane (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Blackmane, and per the statement at the top: this editor is here only to disrupt articles and harass editors. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• This thread is now eligible for closure. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Venezuela topics

Could we have more admin eyes on Venezuela topics per this reddit thread, posted to my talk? It seems to be having a recruiting effect: for example, a Move discussion at 2019 Venezuela uprising has received a lot of non-policy-based input.[37] Still waiting for my government paycheck. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: - me too! Not to mention being notified of our mass secret agenda. Maybe I need to enable 2-factor authorisation before they'll tell me? In any case, the reddit thread discussions, that there are several of atm on AN, don't seem especially co-ordinated at recruiting...they have a habit to wander off into attacking us and our Kafkaesque ways. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The biggest threat to neutrality on those articles is the "deprecation" of news sources, which has rapidly progressed from Daily Mail to TeleSUR,[38] and I suspect any other media outlet favoring the Venezuelan government's perspective would also be at risk. Our article about TeleSUR is not flattering and I doubt it is untrue, exactly, but in this day and age who would have more confidence in the BBC or any news outlet owned by some wealthy billionaire (and what other kind is there?)? Unless editors resist the calls to exclude these perspectives when there is no reason to doubt their veracity -- and administrators resist calls to censure editors who do so resist -- the resulting articles will end up reading like propaganda from whichever side has voted all the others off the island. Wnt (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

TBH this whole area could stand to be put under discretionary sanctions for a couple of years due to how controversial it is. Jtrainor (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Why can we not close "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing"

I have listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC, WP:3 and WP:DRN, but all of these requests have been reverted. I do not see what type of harm that closing this long standing discussion will have, so I am posting this here, to generate discussion about whether or not this thread should be listed at WP:ANRFC for closure. Two users, one being an administrator, believe that my request at WP:ANFRC was legitimate, therefore, I believe that my request should stay there until someone decides to close the thread. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bump - Bump. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• It looks to me like the thread (which has gone to archive) was closed on May 3. Do you want us to un-archive it, wrap it in a "no consensus" banner, and re-archive it? Sometimes discussions just end. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I'd request admins please be careful to distinguish between the separate sub-thread about prohibition of paid editing, and the original, main discussion about the HuffPo article. While declining to close to sub-thread on the policy of "Prohibition of paid editing", User: SoWhy, as an uninvolved admin, looked at the main thread and summarized consensus on AN Requests for Closure: "regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU." RfC. Any closure should reflect that finding (perhaps an uninvolved admin can take a fresh look to see if they agree.) The AN discussion's main thread was also used by an editor at ANI to find another RSN discussion of HuffPo was not warranted. "[A]s an uninvolved editor I gave a look over and opted against formally closing it since it seems a slight majority of editors think that RSN shouldn't have re-looked at the case." ANI. This outcome will be different, requiring a fresh RSN discussion of the whole HuffPo article, if it is implied the main thread has "no consensus." While the allegations in the HuffPo article have been removed from four articles I know of based on the AN discussions, there is now ongoing RfC about the use of this source on Facebook and Axios. It would be misleading and counter-productive to these discussions to imply all the investigations and discussion on main thread resulted in "no consensus." FYI, there was also a finding that "no consensus" would be inappropriate for the sub-thread because the "prohibition on paid editing" !vote violated the process for revising WP: PAID. RfC Thanks BC1278 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector and others: Would it be possible to at least formally close the main thread, about the HuffPo article, as already summarized above by SoWhy (or afresh, by any other uninvolved editor)? I ask because the same allegations from the HuffPo article keep getting used over and over again in Wikipedia articles, despite what SoWhy and Swarm have characterized as the consensus over at AN that they are B.S. No weight is being accorded the AN consensus. Like on Facebook. Going through that exhausting argument multiple times, with new editors at each article, is a waste of resources. BC1278 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Help needed for OTRS ticket

Wikimedia received a complaint about an article. ticket:2018112910001631 That complaint was received in November and has not yet been acted upon.

The article is in the Azerbaijanian Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, OTRS does not have a queue for that language.

The usual step in such cases is to track down a trusted admin with a working knowledge of the language and asked them to help. Can anyone recommend someone who might be able to help?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The entire azwiki administrative body is going to be removed pretty soon, so it's best to post it to a global sysop/steward. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: Sup with the azwiki cabal?! ——SerialNumber54129 11:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What cabal? Also, I realize I might have accidentally included a juicy nugget of information, so people can go to meta:Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki and know what exactly happened. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: Maaan...that is sceptic. Way to give the canalistas a bad name :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging stewards, @HakanIST and Mardetanha: who both have az included in their babel. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, Thanks. To the stewards: if either of you are willing to take it on my intended next step would be to ask if this is still an open issue given the timing, and asking for permission to share the email contents with you. As you probably know, OTRS agents cannot share contents of OTRS Emails without permission. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: Stewards have access to all info-queues. — regards, Revi 01:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, by the way, HakanIST and Mardetanha are both non-enwiki users and are unlikely to notice pings on this wiki. (I discovered this because I was looking around enwiki AN for fun wikidrama^tm) You may want to contact them via Meta where you are more likely to receive a response. — regards, Revi 12:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

-revi, good point S Philbrick(Talk) 12:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Mardetanha is already on the ticket actually! Stewards are more helpful than we give them credit for tbh. We sometimes ping non-enwiki stewards for global locks at SPI, someone usually comes by in a while. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, wow, that's great to hear. I was going to reach out personally but haven't had a chance so I'm happy to hear they are on it. It's quite a challenging ticket so this is great to hear S Philbrick(Talk) 12:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are these IP addresses currently blocked indefinitely?

I see that some IP addresses are blocked indefinitely. Some are blocked because they're used on Tor or it's an open proxy. However, the IPs that I'm listing here are not blocked under those reasons.

• 65.31.98.71 (Pre-2009 block)
• 66.91.35.165 (Just only one block)
• 67.53.130.69 (Pre-2009 block)
• 76.10.176.221 (School)
• 77.115.31.71 (Just only one block)
• 82.71.49.124
• 96.243.149.64 (1 month to indefinite)
• 164.127.71.72
• 178.36.118.74
• 195.194.39.100 (School)
• 199.216.164.10
• 202.93.8.68 (Just only one block, but it's a proxy)
• 206.15.235.10 (School)
• 207.99.40.142 (Hmm a more recent one)
• 209.80.150.137 (School)
• 216.56.8.66 (School)

Is it because the multiple long term blocks the IP get wasn't enough to stop the vandalism from those IP addresses? Thanks! INeedSupport ^:3 02:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Each of these were blocked because the administrator believed it was the right thing to do to protect the encyclopedia. Many are schoolblocks where, as you say, multiple long term blocks were insufficient to protect the encyclopedia from vandalism, some are IP addresses used by banned editors (most of which were proxies), there is another blocked proxy and an IP address used for vandalism only. Indefinite blocks are much less common today as they have become deprecated in recent years. There was a proposal just a couple of weeks ago (you are probably aware of this) to lift all indefinite blocks on individual IP addresses placed in 2008 or before, which was overwhelmingly approved so we should see many fewer indefinite blocks in total soon. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Hmm, so IPs can get indefinite blocks too if things gets too out-of-control. I was indeed aware of the discussion about the pre-2009 blocks. Thanks for telling me that! INeedSupport ^:3 19:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Help doing a mass revert

Resolved

 – All reverted --DannyS712 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought I had setup User:MinusBot bot correctly, but turns out I didn't correctly filter out the list of articles to edit. I'd like some help mass reverting these edits. Basically all Wikipedia namespace edits, done on 18 May 2019, by User:MinusBot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Thanks a bunch! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: No problem. It took a while, because I was rate limited, so stay tuned for a BRFA for rolling back bot edits (which would also avoid flooding recent changes with hundreds of reverts) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Was this really 977 rollbacks, with no edits to fix the initial edits? That really seems like it should have been left to a sysop, as it sounds like a perfect usecase for markbotedits. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: They original edits were marked as bot edits already. Only the rolling-back edits would have benefited from markbotedits, which can also be done by having a bot with rollback rights; hence the BRFA I filed, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 40 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

...Yes, which is why, barring a bot being approved for "oops," I said the 977 rollbacks...should have been left to a sysop. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Permissions change at Portal:Portal pointing to this page?

While doing some digging at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 11#P:A I stumbled on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Portal (3rd nomination) and Portal:Portal, which was deleted after the content was moved to Wikipedia:Portal:Portal. After that move/deletion, someone seems to have changed the permissions at that deleted page to be template protected (or some other change in permissions that I can't identify). Why was this done? (And by whom? - I would have reached out to them directly if this was noted in the page's log, but it is not nor is there any mention of anything odd regarding permissions at the info page.) I noticed this when trying to create a redirect to Portal:Portals (really Portal:Contents/Portals with {{Rcat shell|{{R avoided double redirect|Portal:Portals}} {{R to plural}} {{R unprintworthy}} }} to avoid a double redirect) but I was greeted with this permissions error when I attempted to edit the page:

Permission error

You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason:

(The latter bullet is why I am here; note I changed the link to point to WP:ANB instead of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard so that it displays as a link instead of being bolded.)

Am I missing something obvious about this? Am I in the right place? - Paul^T+/_C 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: Below the deletion log at Portal:Portal, I see that the title blacklist prevents its creation. Warning: This page can only be edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches the following title blacklist entry: Portal( talk)?:Portal( talk)?.* <errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-repeated-namespace-prefix> —DoRD (talk)​ 15:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@DoRD: I'm clearly missing something because I see no such warning. I've also checked when logged out. The permissions error is slightly different in that case, but there is still nothing about the warning you mention. Can you provide a link to the page with that warning? - Paul^T+/_C 15:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it when logged-out, either. Strange...but I don't really understand the technical wizardry behind the blacklist. If nobody else has a good answer here, WP:VPT can probably help you. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll wait a bit before posting there and/or hopefully someone else can chime in here as well. (Would you mind still providing the link where you saw that warning?) Regardless, given the error message's link to this page there has got to be some reason why it points here. - Paul^T+/_C 15:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I just clicked on one of the redlinks above to get https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Portal&action=edit&redlink=1. —DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Psantora, you're in the correct place. DoRD has noted the blacklist entry, which is there to prevent editors from creating a page with a duplicate namespace at the start. Those with permission to create the page (have the tboverride (Override the disallowed titles or usernames list) right: admins, template editors, and page movers) will see MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-warning instead of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-repeated-namespace-prefix. Those without permission to create pages (don't have the createpage (Create pages (which are not discussion pages)) right: those not logged into an account) see MediaWiki:Noarticletext-nopermission. I created the redirect. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Rox A

Hi,

Rox A (Singer, Music Director) and Rox A (Music Director, Singer) (likely the same person) are using their user pages as drafts or WP:FAKEARTICLEs about Arun Sharma a.k.a. Rox A. WP:NPOV without citation, those drafts or fake articles won't suit for the main space.

I have blanked the user pages but I don't know if it's the right practice on the English Wikipedia, and I don't know what message I could leave to explain what they're doing wrong.

Can some take a look?

Best regards --Lacrymocéphale 12:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser note: Roxarunsharma, Rox A (Singer, Music Director), and Rox A (Music Director, Singer) are all the same. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lacrymocéphale: The usual would be to tag it with {{db-spamuser}}. I've deleted both userpages as WP:G11 and blocked them both as socks of User:Roxarunsharma. If someone wants to block that account too, I have no particular objection; they haven't done anything objectionable as that account, but it seems unlikely they're here for the right reasons. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you GoldenRing for linking this to a previous account. --Lacrymocéphale 09:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Modification of sanctions

I would like to seek community input to loosen my active sanctions. In particular, I would like the following changed from User:Swarm's comment, which I am placing here for convenience:

Unban conditions

Hi. It appears there's a consensus to unban you, so congratulations. However, before unblocking you, I need you to indicate that you understand and accept that you will remain on a final warning status for disruption, broadly construed. Some examples of what this entails are: You will refrain from editing Wikipedia policies and guidelines You will refrain from unnecessary edits or participation in the Wikipedia namespace or in any Wikipedia meta-processes. Any such participation should be directly and unambiguously related to the uncontentious improvement of articles. You will refrain from any experimentation outside of your personal sandbox. Frivolous experimentation will not be tolerated. You will refrain from making unconstructive edits in your userspace (you may still personalize your user pages, but any such edits with negative effects will not be tolerated). You will refrain from creating redirects. If you think a redirect is needed, you will go through WP:AFCRD. Frivolous requests will not be tolerated. You will refrain from making any edits that are not in compliance with the content or behavioral policies and guidelines. You will refrain from creating unnecessary or frivolous pages of any kind. If you receive a complaint about your behavior, edits or actions from an established editor in good standing, you will immediately cease said behavior and self-revert prior to any attempts at defending yourself. You may defend yourself and pursue dispute resolution measures, but frivolous, excessive, or unconstructive arguing will not be tolerated. You understand that you have no say in what conduct will be considered "disruptive", "frivolous", "unnecessary", or "broadly construed". Should any admin feel that you have caused or are causing any sort of "disruption" whatsoever, within or outside of the above examples, they may reblock you for any period of time, or indefinitely, without further warning. If you abide by these conditions without any issues, you may request that this arrangement be lifted or loosened by community consensus, after six months, at WP:AN. Please let me know if this is something you are willing to agree to. Swarm ♠ 15:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC) — User:Swarm

Here are the changes to the sanctions that I want:

• Redirect creation is allowed, but cross-namespace redirects are prohibited without first consulting an administrator. Also, I am limited to a set number of redirects per 24 hour period (which can be increased as I make more needed redirects). Start with one for now.
• Policies and guidelines are edited only after seeking a consensus on the talk page. Grammatical corrections must be clearly marked as such ("typo", ☑ Minor edit).
• The expiry should change from indefinite to 1-2 years from now.
• Other than that, any series of actions deemed as "unnecessary", "disruptive", or "time-wasting" could still get me blocked as summed up by User:Swarm.

What I have learned from this experience:

• Edits that do not align with Wikipedia's pillars are disruptive, regardless on what policy says.
• Making policy-related edits is disruptive, as highlighted by users on this site and on wikiHow.
• What seems like a good idea at one point can prove to be impractical, as seen in this discussion. It is important to ponder the practicality of an idea before proposing it to the community.

Anyway, I have decided to wait until now since I have gotten more experience with inserting images and helped out more on the site and wikiHow. I hope to come back in a week or so to see what happens. Awesome Aasim 19:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

To add on, the reason why I was blocked back in May and August 2017 was for the repeated timewasting of good-faith editors, something that Iridescent, Tony, Neil, Aiken, Bishonen, EEng, and numerous other editors fell victim to. Yes, Wikipedia is not my personal sandbox (one of the contributing factors to my two blocks). I also know that for the time being, it is only a good idea to work on improving the encyclopedia rather than messing around with policy-related and policy-violating edits. One of the problems I had was with, rather asking kindly, persistently using a policy to justify why something is broken rather than actually showing something is broken until the end where I did provide a link to a screenshot, but the disruption was already done. It was more of a problem that I needed to mind my own business (since I had a white-on-black talk page and hard, contrasting colors), and not a problem of "this editor violated policy so keep on proving that it is a violation". This is what my talk page looked like when I was blocked the first time (May 2017), and this is what my talk page looked like when I was blocked the second time (August 2017), if you want to see all of the problems I caused then. Because I have not made that many edits now, I am asking for the gradual loosening of sanctions, not a full "I am free to roam the country" lifting of sanctions. Awesome Aasim 06:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Please disclose your former username so the community can judge. I have no view on this appeal, but did want to make that comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, that was fast. My old username was UpsandDowns1234. You can see my talk page for more details. Awesome Aasim 19:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• As one of the many people who had to clean up the train of incompetence and disruption that got you blocked in the first place, at an absolute minimum I'd expect any loosening of sanctions to be on the strict understanding that any fucking around—by our definition, not yours—will lead to an immediate re-banning from Wikipedia. From the above request I'm not seeing the slightest indication that you understand why you were banned in the first place; it wasn't a case of "Edits that do not align with Wikipedia's pillars", it was a case of your treating our website as your personal sandbox and creating pages with such content as "I dreamt that the article Elevator was deleted per one of the WP:XfD processes and SALTED. I was trying hard to try and get the article restored. Of course, I was dreaming, so it was not really deleted, but I was wondering where it went. I got this weird interwiki link to a different wiki that had an article on "elevator" but things when you are dreaming do not make sense. I sent an email to the deleting admin, tried to list a deletion discussion, etc. That was only one part of a longer dream where I was going to the California Academy of Sciences. I was trying to get the deleting admin blocked and desysopped. No one undeleted the article, and no one was blocked. Then I woke up after seeing an elevator in my dream.", and creating intentionally disruptive templates like Template:Tilt to assist your disruption of Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 20:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Consider an article FuelRod which this editor wrote recently. It has two sources, one of which is a press release and the other of which is the promotional outcome of a press release. Awesome Aasim, why are adding product promotional junk like this to the encyclopedia? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Do you know how much cleanup it would require to get it to Wikipedia standards? If it is too much, then maybe move it to userspace or draftspace so I can work on it more.

If it only requires a little fixing, then maybe you can move it to draftspace and tell me what needs fixing? Awesome Aasim 22:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I just came within a whisker of AfDing it myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Awesome Aasim, my advice to you is simple: Do not try to use press releases or content that clearly derives from press releases to try to establish the notability of businesses or products. That is both promotional editing and really bad editing. Why should we loosen your sanctions when you show that you do not understand the basic concept of notability and how to establish it convincingly? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• I can see no reason to remove these sanctions. They're not a block, they're not even onerous. Despite being unblocked back in August, you've only made a few hundred edits. This is neither enough to rebuild community faith in your contributions, nor do I see that these sanctions have been significantly restricting your editing. I'm not strongly against this removal, if others support it, but I'd want to see more editing before I pushed for it myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• No set timeline - This is not a statement on the other requested changes. However I specifically oppose a shift from the other limitations remaining on an indefinite basis to a set timeline. We've no idea what your editing activity level will be in the future - if this was implemented then there's the risk the editor could just "wait it out" without much involvement. I'm not fundamentally against time-limited TBANs (in fact I've !voted for one last week), but the extremely severe breadth and depth here makes me nervous to do so. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Can anyone explain this? [39]

Or, why has User:Awesome_Aasim been turned into some sor tof uneditable redirect to Meta:User:Awesome_Aasim? This shouldn't be happening. It shouldn't be happening with a joker like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

See meta:Global user pages. This is a feature of all Wikimedia projects. Awesome Aasim 00:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Calm down with the rhetoric, jeez. Global userpages are pretty common (see AGK), there's no issue with any editor having one, and there's no need to personally attack editors you have complaints with. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

MFD

WP:ANRFC#Deletion_discussions has a big backlog of MFDs. Eleven of them were opened over a month ago.

Please could some admins help clear at least some of them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I gave the RfC backlog a whack. El_C 04:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I should add that it wasn't that I found the MFD backlog particularly daunting (as in difficult to evaluate), but just kinda boring. By contrast, the RFC backlog (list) was of far greater interest to me. El_C 16:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I took care of the oldest 2 MFDs and will try to do more over the course of the next few days. At the moment there's approximately 19 aged MFDs sitting around, mostly for portals. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about outing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If a user has voluntarily disclosed their identity on another language Wikipedia, but not on enwiki, would it be OK for someone to disclose their identity on enwiki? If not OK, would such a disclosure be blockable for outing? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well that's an interesting turn of phrase: unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia (emphasis in original). So presumably es.wiki or de.wiki are fair game, but Wikidata and Commons are right out. GMG^talk 16:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• GreenMeansGo That interpretation of policy produces an absurd result and thus, cannot be correct. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, common sense probably dictates that this should be replaced with "on a public Wikimedia project". GMG^talk 16:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would be conservative and say that it means English Wikipedia. We don't write rules for other Wikis and while someone may have outed themselves on another wiki, it's not our job to bring that person's name into the English wiki if they choose not to do so. I would "err" on the side of until they release their personal information on this wiki, you can't do it either. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• That policy page should be amended to include Commons in "Wikipedia". Most of the time the information is included in the local versions of file pages anyway. I can recall at least one occasion where the disclosed-on-Commons identity of an uploader was discussed on en-wiki, without causing any concern. The discussion involved the removal of various images over licensing issues, and citing the Commons disclosure was uswful, if not necessary, to resolve the copyright concerns. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I can think of no reason any editor would be justified in posting another editor’s personal information anywhere at any time. Even if someone posts their personal information on the English Wikipedia there is no reason any other editor should be repeating that personal information on the English Wikipedia. It is irrelevant to what we do here. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Some people put their name on their talk page or user page, so they are OK with being "outed." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• How is an editor’s actual identity ever of any relevance to anything being discussed? Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bus stop This response of mine is off topic of MelanieN's original query, but the actual identity of users is often extremely relevant when, for example, discussing copyright status of their contributions (and their ability to release text and/or images under an appropriate license). It's also relevant when discussing issues surrounding COI and paid editing. Those are just two examples, I'm sure there are more. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• COI/PAID stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Both of these responses are right on target. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Those are specific exceptions. In light of such exceptions I would revise my position to assert that outside of such explicit exceptions the disclosure or even the mere mention of information pertaining to another editor’s real life identity should be strongly frowned upon. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Congratulations, you've rediscovered the idea of having an outing policy. --JBL (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Sir Joseph. I really need an opinion about other language Wikipedias, not so much the WikiMedia issue. This is not a theoretical question; I am looking at a case of this situation right now. My response was to redact and revdel the disclosure, and to warn the discloser not to do it again, but not to block them. They are now asking if they can disclose it at the COI board. Any other comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The letter of the policy says "Wikipedia". Whether that should be changed or clarified would be a good question for an RfC at WP:HARASS. Whether a local-only option is even technically feasible (it isn't) is a different matter. Whether users are regularly outed cross-wiki when they have outed themselves already on some other public Wikimedia project is simply a matter of fact. GMG^talk 16:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Clarification of OUTING GMG^talk 19:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I would always err on the side of caution: When in doubt, don't out someone. Unless someone is actively displaying their personal data on their user page currently at en.wikipedia, you shouldn't presume to do that for them. --Jayron32 19:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Building off ONUnicorn's comment, here's a realistic situation that I just came up with. User:123456789ab uploads a file at Commons, claims it as an own work, and lists the author's name as "John Doe". Here at en:wp, 123456789ab uploads a file, claims it as an own work, and lists the author's name as "Jane Smith". Obviously one or the other is wrong, and barring evidence of permission from an actual uploader, we'll need to delete both images on copyright-related grounds. The nominator's statement at en:WP:FFD would need to cite the Commons statement (otherwise there would be no reason to nominate it), and sanctioning the nominator for such a nomination would be absurd. The point of WP:OUTING is that you don't compromise someone's anonymity; if you've already publicly stated your identity, you don't have anonymity that can be compromised. But yet this isn't a "go ahead and do whatever you want"; our policies are fine with admins sanctioning users who repeat self-posted information in a malicious manner or for malicious purposes. I know someone else's real name from his first Commons upload, but if I just go around randomly saying "So-and-so's real name is X; here's the diff" without good reason, I deserve to be blocked for harassment. But if he starts saying "I'm a professor and my name is John Smith [link to a real Prof. John Smith's faculty page]" and starts convincing people to do a good deal of stuff based on those claims, it would be reasonable to link the Commons upload and say "When you registered, you claimed to be this other person". Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

PS, see Essjay controversy. A major factor in this incident was this talk page note, in which Dev920 said to Essjay "according to your Wikia userpage, you're 24 years old and worked for this company, but according to your Wikibooks userpage here, you're 30 years old and a theology professor". Dev920's block log is clear, but if self-posted items on other WMF sites are off-limits, she should have been sanctioned immediately, and given the profile of the case (it got major news media coverage), there's no way she could have been overlooked. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Why can we not ask this person for their consent instead a community discussion (without that person) or a mountainous policy debate? The whole point on having a harassment policy is to ensure people's privacy is protected -- which may very well end up protecting people we may eventually need to block -- but it reduces the possibility where someone makes a mistake and they do not have to live with those consequences forever. Mkdw ^talk 04:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

In the case I am dealing with, the person is strongly objecting to having their identity revealed here. And up to this point it has not been. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that answers our question about whether it should be done or not, if not from a policy point of view, for moral and ethical reasons. If this person is disruptive or in violation of our policies, we have other preventative measures that can be taken without further spreading their personal identifying information. Mkdw ^talk 16:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if the person strongly objects, that's significant — copying the statement from another project still isn't outing, but it's harassment if we don't have a very good reason. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly No. We are not here to "out" anyone. Even if an editor posts up personal information about themselves, no matter where they post it or to what extent is the information detailed, we are not here to amplify or facilitate the dissemination of such information in any shape, way, or form. Unless an individual has chosen to work in Wikipedia under his real name, the correct way to address that individual is by their chosen Wkipedia-pseudonym. Even if the individual posts up personal information with an explicit permission (or even a request) to use that information any way we want, we should strictly avoid using it: We're not here to promote anyone, either.

We are here to improve the encyclopaedic content of Wikipedia. That's it. The social interaction encouraged by the existence of user pages and talk pages, as well as the existence of community projects, often confuse people. Well, Wikipedia is not a message board. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Im going to steal your, Strongly No, and say that I'm definitely against behavior to search for dirt on someone by leaving the english wikipedia where the discussion originates. Those who try to reach their consensus by accusing other people should definitely be blockable. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• The situation is sometimes more complicated than this, there are cases within en.wikipedia where an editor has disclosed themselves, but has later stated that they do not want to be connected to that old name (even though that is sometimes easily doable). Although not strictly 'outing', that is the choice of the editor. Although there are cases where a real identity is needed in discussion (COI, copyright), in all other cases people should not (re-)disclose. And as we cannot know all that happened since on another project, we should be very careful with reproducing identification from that other project. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that there is now a formal RfC on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Clarification of OUTING. Comments might be better made there. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, MelanieN. Of course, this is a wider issue than plain harassment. We are at the threshold of sensitive personal data. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. WP:OUTING is a subsection of WP:Harassment but IMO that confuses the issue. It seems to imply that revealing such information is only against the rules if it is done with malice. Private personal information to me is a separate issue, and should be protected regardless of the motive of the person revealing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice: Converted redirects not appearing in New Page Patrol

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T223828

It seems that lately, recreations of articles from redirects have not been going back into the new page patrol queue, contrary to WP:NPPREDIRECT. Please see this discussion for more info. Admins and NPPers, please try to keep a closer eye on any articles you turn into a redirect, and consider watching any articles you redirectify until this bug is fixed by WMF. Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there an edit filter or querry that we can run so that any who are interested can still find and review these articles while we await a fix? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's duplicative, but I've added this: Special:AbuseFilter/992. It's track-only at the moment. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

(Never mind, it's duplicative. The removed-redirect tag works better.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Resignation of BU Rob13

After careful reflection, I have decided to step down from my position on the Arbitration Committee, effective immediately. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Resignation of BU Rob13

SleeplessNight12 CBAN appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here. Notifying everyone about this at their behalf. As I wrote there, it's a pretty good appeal, but it may be too early. As the blocking admin, I have no strong view, for or against, the appeal. El_C 20:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Decline unblock This looks like a CBAN from the blocking discussion. User was banned for harassment and bigotry. Due to the homophobic nature of the harassment, this is too soon for my liking, and suggest to wait at least 6 months per SO. Valeince (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support on very short ROPE. I fully understand, and can agree with, Valeince's concerns- yes, it is far too soon for a proper SO. However, I think they should be given one chance- unblock, and if they stray anywhere within a whiff of homophobia, reblock and no more appeals for six months. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I went back and forth on this. Sleepless's expressions of antipathy to homosexuality and atheism were inappropriate. But though I lean toward Valeince's view of "wait", I had to ask myself "wait for what?" Unlike some appeals where acknowledgement of the error has to be dragged out of the editor, Sleepless is fully owning the problem and promising that it won't be repeated. I don't think one or two or six months more will make them more apologetic. I do think they should be reblocked if any future statements (edit summary, talk page, etc) reflect on other editors rather than on edits. Schazjmd (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock/unban at this time. I note at User talk:SleeplessNight12#Indefinite block the comment "I sincerely apologize to User:Contaldo80 for saying stupid things I did not mean" (my emphasis). The apology is a good start, but have a read of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#SleeplessNight12 and ask yourself if the "I did not mean" bit really is honest. No, the religious fundamentalism behind those comments is clear, and the opinions expressed clearly were meant. SleeplessNight12 clearly did believe that homosexuality and atheism were driving Contaldo80's edits, and meant exactly what they said at the time. We should have very low tolerance for religous/homophobic bigotry here. I think the minimum SO period will provide time for SleeplessNight12 to properly think about how to interact with people from all sorts of diverse backgrounds, and I do think that time to think is needed. In my view, a future appeal should focus on a commitment by SleeplessNight12 to leave their religious judgment at the door when they enter Wikipedia. SleeplessNight12, I fully respect your right to your religious beliefs (as I do those of many people who work here just fine), but if you wish to edit here you will have to be able to interact in a non-judgmental way with people who think your religion is delusional nonsense, and with people that some in your religion would consider depraved blasphemers and sodomites. I'd consider welcoming you back once you have given that some serious thought and have considered, deeply, whether you can work in that environment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too soon and showed absolutely no acknowledgment for the issue when it was here just a couple weeks ago. In fact it was everyone but the editor in question that was the problem. However, I would support an unblock ONLY if an experienced editor was willing to act as mentor for a couple of months. NJA | talk 01:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Decline unblock This person deliberately posted multiple vile attacks on other members of our community over several days as part of a discussion of their conduct at ANI, which is rather a different thing from snapping and saying dumb things. This conduct appears to have been motivated by what are usually deeply-held beliefs. It's hard to believe that this won't reoccur, and I don't think that we should run the risk of other editors being subjected to such attacks. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Schazjmd above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my original vote on this. What, in the editor's editing history, is so valuable that it offsets the ugliness they brought? If they strongly want to edit here, they can take some time (like six months) and formulate a more genuine apology than "I didn't mean it" nonsense. Grandpallama (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Very weak Support, with a topic ban on all topics related to Catholicism, atheism, homosexuality, broadly construed. This would include mentioning any of those topics. Any violations would result in an indefinite ban, and the user would have to wait six months per our standard offer. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Upon further reflection, I think it's best if we give the user our standard offer. I understand that they are remorseful, but it's best to wait until they have calmed down. Six months, and if no further incidents and an illustration that they understand what they did was wrong, then I think it would be appropriate to let them back at that point. Rockstonetalk to me! 22:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose no evidence that the benefits of unblocking outweigh the known potential for disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, much too soon. @SleeplessNight12: I strongly recommend you to wait some months (preferably six) and to show yourself a good and thoughtful editor in the meantime, by constructive editing of one or more of the the sister projects . You're only banned from Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC).
• I have declined the unblock request and advised the editor to wait a few months — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support changing the block duration from indefinite to definite. Because the appeal has been judged as being too soon, the duration should be whatever is appropriate for a subsequent unblock appeal to be granted. It seems to me that an appeal at the right time would be granted, so I propose doing away with the bureaucracy of that process and simply auto-unblocking after some months. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk page can't be created

Resolved

 – page created, no comment on whether the warning would be appropriate. –xeno^talk 13:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Can an administrator please add {{uw-paid}} to User talk:Pawankumar1977. Apparently the username is on the title blacklist, so the user's talk page cannot be created except by an administrator. Thank you. Peacock (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@PCock: just a question: what are you basing the warning on? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe this user is a sock of a editor blocked for undeclared paid editing. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piyushbhat. Peacock (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought that might be why you were asking but it wasn't obvious to me. I've blocked them instead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

... without realizing that xeno already created the page. Well, no matter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A silly (me) MfD closing

Hi! I just closed a MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Game), I placed the {{subst:mfd top}} in the wrong place (below the heading), I then closed again, in the correct place (above the heading), but looks like I am still missing something as the wp:MfD page was displaying wrong (stoped rendering after this discussion). I really can not see what, though it probably be very very obvious... I commented out the inclusion, but then a bot undid it while cleaning up at 0:00... and now it looks fine, since there is another discussion above it. If anyone can check for whatever is wrong and tell me what to fix I would appreciate. When I wake up tomorrow... I go to sleep now... (it is 01:00 in Portugal... which is not helping, it seems) Thank you - Nabla (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh... I forgot to place the {{mfd bottom}}! It was silly... :-) and thank you to User:BrownHairedGirl who fixed it! - Nabla (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No prob, @Nabla. Easily done, and i have made that mistake a few times over the years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nabla: You might want to try using WP:XFDCLOSER for future closes which automates all that pesky template placement. Regards SoWhy 12:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy:, thanks, I will take a look someday. - Nabla (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Discouraged about backlogs

Color me discouraged.

Some of you may know that my Wikipedia activity was low for a few months due to family situation. I'm back, but feeling a little overwhelmed.

Readers often have issues with articles that they wish to bring to our attention. Not knowing how to navigate the Wikimedia world, they typically send in a query to a Wikimedia address which gets handled by the volunteers at OTRS.

I had been trying to keep the (Info English Wikipedia) backlog down to about 100, but when I returned, it had ballooned to 450, some of which were months old. With the help of other OTRS volunteers, the backlog is down to about 270 but there are still queries going untouched for weeks. If this was my only issue, I wouldn't be here.

My original hope had been to get the info backlog down to a manageable size and then tackle the permissions queue, where people send in licenses for images (and occasionally text). That backlog is over 2000 (all languages), and a brief glance suggests that there are many tickets over a year old that haven't been touched.

A few minutes ago I processed a ticket from someone wishing to create a username. In certain cases, A request sent to WP:ACC gets kicked over to OTRS. I decided to check there to see if it had been filed their first and I saw the notice at the top of the page:

The request an account process is severely backlogged. If you submit a request today, you can expect a response in approximately 3 months.

I do understand that the article review process is backlogged and arguably our main mission is creating articles so one could argue that's the most important backlog. However, I have no problem explaining to an editor that reviewing a draft article is a challenging task and waiting a couple months is not an unreasonable expectation. I have a much tougher time explaining why someone asking a simple question, wishing to donate an image to us, or asking for an account so that they can contribute, should expect to wait 3 to 12 months for a response.

There were only one queue, I might be simply pleading for some experienced editors interested in contributing in other ways to step up and volunteer to help tackle one of these queues, but with this many backlogs, I'm wondering if we need a more organized response. Maybe we need to develop a clear statement of the problem, and determine whether we simply bake for more resources and throw them at the problem, a whether we need to rethink the workflow.

This is not the right forum for an in-depth study but I'm hoping it's a good place to get some feedback on next steps.What--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing OTRS has no distinction of tiering (Data_center_management#Tech_Support)? Tier 1 for easy tickets and tier 2 for harder? --Izno (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Izno, I'm not intimately familiar with the software, but I'm not aware that it has automatic support for tiering. That said, I'm sure we have the ability to create new queues, and I have occasionally mulled over whether we should have a triage system, and move tickets into 1. Seems straightforward 2. a little work needed 3. buckle up queues. As anecdotal evidence, just yesterday I handled a five-month-old ticket that was very simple to answer. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Tickets are distributed among queues (you can only access when you are explicitly granted) and subqueues (which are automatically accessible if you have access to the queue), it's basically a free-for-all where agents can choose where they want to focus their attention to, so it's not tiering but separation of work based on supply-demand. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The OTRS software does support prioritising of tickets, the question is how to prioritise them. Nthep (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Nthep, Now that you mention it, of course you are right. I had forgotten it was there but I'm pretty sure no one ever uses it. If we were to conclude it would work we could try. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been giving a lot of thought to this topic myself as the New Page Queue is my primary backlog (TonyBallioni tells me I'm wrong about calling it a backlog but I see it is a potato/can't get your article in google sorta situation) and our queue has been growing. Over the last year there have been a few users who have done way more patrolling and far fewer users who have done a little bit of patrolling. I'd seen this in some other areas as well (including OTRS where I am one of the ones doing just a little bit of work). My conclusion, which I've though about writing an essay about but just hadn't though through all the way, is that we're near or just over a tipping point where we don't have the editor time to support the bureaucracy we've created but we also can't really pare back that bureaucracy because in most cases it's there for good reasons. I am a learned optimist so I don't like ending on this conclusion given the understandable feelings expressed above but those are my .02. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Has the idea of handing OTRS over to WMF ever been seriously proposed? It seems like one of the few things currently done by volunteers that might be sensibly done by paid staff, except insofar as direct substantive edits are required as a result. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_172#Failing_"request_an_account"_process and Wikipedia_talk:Request_an_account#Does_anyone_care? (courtesy ping Swarm and Bluerasberry) for perspectives on ACC backlog. It's a boring tedious task and I, for one, find writing articles to be much more lucrative. Extensive automation workflows have been thought out but they are stuck due to constraints of volunteer time (which's perfectly understandable) -- the entire software is managed by volunteers.

• For a starter, WMF needs to divert fund into developing these technological aspects rather than spend millions on stupid re-branding deals and/or hiring travel-managers. As Kudpung might allude to, we managed to convince them to minimally support NPP -- a basic maintenance suite after begging for years, which is sheer pathetic. As much as there's a general reluctance of the community to be involved in heavily bureaucratic workflows, there's no denying that the technology that runs most of our stuff are developed and maintained by volunteers and are often not suitable to drive the 5th largest website in the world. ∯WBG^converse 15:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• My own ideas of what needs to happen -
  • More small grants to Wikimedia affiliates, perhaps with a goal of 50 wiki community organizations receiving WMF funds of at least $2000 a year. The bar is currently quite high for receiving funds from WMF and for lack of this small amount of funding, many volunteer groups which could grow to be well organized are stunted. This is especially true in the developing world. I am not suggesting that we throw money at risky projects, but 1 WMF staffer costs ~$120,000/year and the opportunity cost is that we are not sponsoring coffee / cookies which would greatly incentive community organizations.
  • I favor administrative staff being hired but not by the WMF. We should groom community groups to manage an administrative process. Currently the philosophy is no administrative funding for groups before they become super developed. I would flip that and say start with administrative support, especially to do reporting of outcomes and accomplishments, because so many groups find success in accomplishing things but failure to claim the credit they deservce.
  • Get funding to OTRS, possibly by funding a staff administrator in a Wikimedia chapter or wiki-supporting community organization or university. I do recognize a need for staff; I do not think it should be WMF staff because so often the interest of the WMF and community are in conflict. The OTRS staffperson should help present regular reports of OTRS metrics, including estimating volunteer hours put into the program, surveying the community for what community conversations it wants, convening regular (probably monthly) virtual meetups to discuss the requested issues, and notetaking at the meetings to document progress and consensus. OTRS is a likely community to work as a user group because of volunteer enthusiasm for everything about it except the bureaucracy of administering it.
  • OTRS is going to be increasingly automated in the future. We need to convene conversation now to inject ethical and community review into this ASAP before we hit a wall. Some automation would be readily accepted without much conversation; some other issues we need discussion.
  • Personally, I am ready to support the individual with a Wikimedia user group / chapter affiliation who would request and accept US$25,000 to run a short term or part time OTRS community survey and documentation drive. If anyone could put in 10/hours a week at this rate then I expect they would get ready results as we have such a great need for administrative development here. Wiki LGBT is developing a similar but more ambitious "Wikimedian at Large" staff position because of its comparable extreme global multilingual backlog for documenting LGBT wiki programs and accomplishments.
  • Overall, recognize that volunteers are fantastic for making an impact and planning strategy, but cannot be recruited to do the administration which creates the environment for impact to flourish. People volunteer for the wiki, not for the conventional office work behind the wiki.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's not just OTRS. Requests for unblock has been struggling - the highest I have ever seen it, and it refuses to go down. But yeah, NPP/AFC/removing spam from mainspace is the worst - newbies/spammers/UPE clients often use WP:OSE to justify their junk. The mathematically astute would see a differential equation (dS/dt ~ kS) whose solution involves the amount of crap/spam increasing exponentially with time. I completely agree the WMF's failure to invest in software development for the community is a significant contributor to the problem. I'll go on the record to say that the admin/patroller toolkit is derelict from a software point of view. The Anti-Harassment team's work, while welcome, is woefully insufficient. (As an aside, bug bounties would help with the software problem.) Better software only buys a little time. What is needed is root cause analysis. Yes, that means pruning the bureaucracy where possible (e.g. devising processes that require less community time) and strategically retreating from areas which are not worth the effort. ACPERM is a start. We also need to be less tolerant with spammers, tendentious editors and other time wasters. In the long run, we need to focus on recruiting and retaining the right kinds of editors, which is not commensurate with the "growth, content quality be damned" attitude of the WMF. MER-C 19:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• The ACC backlog was particularly scary. There were some reasonable notes in those discussions that suggested the state of affairs is too bad for additional volunteers to resolve - we needed to stem in the influx. The same could be said for OTRS in some aspects. The corporate "we're told we can't paid-edit, so do this for us" comes in a mixed blob of work and unstated threat that has spiked upwards just in the last month or two.Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'd really, really not want to see WMF control in OTRS to increase, but I could see the necessity both in improving the workflow and aiding in the software. @Barkeep49: makes an excellent point that we are both stuck in the bureaucracy and yet we didn't create it just for our personal entertainment. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• The real killer of smaller number of people doing more is that becomes spectacularly dull for some of the more tedious workflows (ACC and routine permissions-queues come to mind) to do as their primary activity. With regard to UTRS - there was a suggestion made that the new admins of the last two years (who are generally very active) could be queried if they'd be interested. "Standard" vandalism seems fairly well handled - perhaps a campaign to encourage that 1500-4000 edit group to reach out to try alternate areas (NPP, AfC, etc etc)? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  Standard counter-vandalism is also one of our most highly automated areas between true automation with Cluebot and effective automation with Huggle. It is also an area that lends itself to automation more than something like OTRS/UTRS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Nowhere is the lack of interest in doing back office work more evident than at NPR , arguably the most important of volunteer tasks. After all, it's the very process that controls the growth of the corpus. The "growth, content quality be damned" attitude of the WMF (MER-C) is very real however, hence the years-long battle (and really a fight) to finally get ACPERM. Unfortunately the NPR backlog has now suddenly doubled in the last two months. The WMF claim their Executive Officer, "...lives in a metal tube in the sky". Perhaps if that massive travel budget were to be converted to software development or scholarships for volunteers to travel to conferences and meetings, the unpaid communities may be encouraged to do more on a 'get involved' basis.

OTRS is the victim of its own lack of success - it fires its agents for not doing enough, and is or has been riddled with paid editors abusing it for their own ends. That said, rather than handing OTRS over to the WMF, the community should be looking at ways of wresting some of the power away from that organisation instead of giving it more. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I did volunteer at OTRS years ago, but was criticized for some of my answers, and quit. I also have a history of letting my unease with the drama in Wikipedia lead me to periods of inactivity. Frankly, I don't see Wikipedia getting any better, so I am trying to find a balance that lets me continue to contribute without losing patience and going on another extended break. I think about volunteering for OTRS again, but worry about not being able to sustain it. Sorry, just ranting here. - Donald Albury 01:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Really basic question. I used to volunteer at ACC before I was an admin. Then when it switched over to the global accounts I was unable to create accounts (either that and I’m confused and I stopped accessing the login portal for it). Either way, I could help if I understood the current process better. I’ve dabbled a bit with OTRS as well. NJA | talk 01:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• I've been seeing the same problem with template and other more tech related tasks within the community for years and have warned about it repeatedly. You see, if people are not enthousiastic about doing things (having fun or believing in the cause), they seek out other things that are enjoyable (Wikidata for instance). By doing things that are enjoyable they build dedication and that is how they end up going beyond the line of duty for years and years without pay. It is the simplest of mechanics of volunteering. At Wikipedia we have so much focused on the quality, the rules, the status quo and the infighting that people are going to other places. And without people no content. This has been happening for years now, where the dedicated few have picked up the slack, but now they need to do ALL the boring stuff (going beyond the line of duty) and don't have time for the nice stuff, while the influx of new community staffing has been lackluster. We really need to fix that. We need to bring back the experimenting, we need to make it easier to do lots of boring tasks easily on your phone, which is where people reside nowadays and we need to encourage people to have fun, instead of only focusing on the work as the holy grail of everything. And yes we would be making mistakes along the way and yes WMF will fuck up all the time in this process because it is HARD, but without that we are slowly bleeding until we bleed out. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've just started my daily look through CAT:CSD. It's the usual list of spammers and socks who've been coached, through about six dozen previous unblock requests, to finally put the right form of words into their latest request. It's hard to say how discouraging I find this. On the one hand, we're supposed to AGF and I'm generally in favour of giving people a second chance; on the other, I have no expectation whatsoever that these accounts are going to end up productive editors. So I have three choices: (a) unblock them, in the near-certain expectation they'll keep causing trouble; (b) decline the request, in the near-certain expectation that even though they've jumped through all the hoops put in front of them in previous requests, they're never going to be unblocked because no-one's ever going to trust them; or (c) be a coward and leave the request for someone else to deal with. Spammers are the worst; I'm looking at a request now of someone who's been blocked for promoting non-notable figures in the entertainment industry. Now they swear they will only "be mentioning the entertainment industry's highs and lows and the working module in general which will be purely for information and not for any promotion or favouring any company or product, not defaming or tarnishing any images and not linked to anyone's monetary gains. This will be a total new talk/user/article page from a fresh prospective and not linked to any of the previous contents or edits. If I decline the request, they'll just make another one and I don't have the emotional energy to come up with a reasonable decline rationale today anyway. If I accept the request, I'd bet good money I'll regret it. What to do? Reblock them with TP access off? I usually get through two or three requests before the whole thing is so soul-destroying I go do something else. GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Tbh, if it's got to the point where it's got to the stage where it's causing a degree of personal discomfort of any kind, I think, yes, leave it to someone else; you don't need to take sole responsibility for the CAT:CSD flotsam and jetsam...or any other for that matter  :) ——SerialNumber54129 10:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: TBH that's what I often do. I'm not sure it makes the personal discomfort any better; I just feel I've been a coward as well as not dealing with any RFUs. I'd really value advice from others on how they handle these; if the answer is just "grit your teeth and switch TP access off" then so be it. I suspect such advice is unlikely to be forthcoming, though, because others are probably in exactly the same predicament I'm in, and that this, after all, is why there is a backlog at RFU. GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I bet you're right, hot potatoes are made to be passed along  :) but on a more serious note, I also wouldn't want you to feel cowardly. As you said, these characters are spammers and socks by the dozen: they've had a chance to prove their good faith and failed to do so, so your good faith need stretch no further. Personally, I wouldn't waste any of your time on 'em; make em jump through the hoops, four-five-six-seven unblock requests with the standard templated reply. If they're serious, they'll stick with it; more likely they'll get bored and (perhaps) leave. The bottom line is that the famous nuanced approach and articulation that got you the RfA should never be wasted on "socks and spammers", it's too valuable ELSEWHERE. Bugger them! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 10:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I don't think I'll take your last piece of advice, at least not literally, but thanks for the rest. GoldenRing (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Backlogs? So recruit some more people to assist in clearing them (as admins, junior janitors, or however you want to slice the permissions). Oh, but we don't have an adminship process, do we, we have the Jeremy Kyle show instead. Admins have built this situation, or at the very least, allowed it to arise. The more paranoid might say that was to reinforce the cabal, the less so because it just happened that way, but still nothing has been done to fix it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Maaan...did you have to mention that?! :D  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 10:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

ahem[40] Lectonar (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

He knew what he was getting into and should never have stood at RfA. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley, I have often noticed pleas for backlog clearing in this thread. In many cases, someone reports, often in minutes, that they're working on it and have cleared out most of the backlog. For some backlogs, that's the right approach. I have also come to this thread in the past and begged for OTRS help, which has often provided some temporary relief, but my approach this time is different because I don't think it is as simple as throwing a few more resources at it. As others have noted, we may need to do some more fundamental rethinking of how we approach some of these administrative tasks. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  So is the problem insufficient admin attention then? From your first comment, it sounded like a lot of the backlogs you were concerned about didn't require an admin as mentioned below, but now I'm unsure. Is the OTRS problem that too many of the requests do require an admin and there aren't enough dealing with them on OTRS? Nil Einne (talk)

Many of the backlogs do not technically require an admin to address the issue, although there are many situations (the need to review deleted content) that make it helpful to be an admin. I posted to this thread, not because I was simply begging for more volunteers to help, but because I was looking for insights on how to handle the broader problem, and this seemed like the best forum to reach out to experienced editors.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• A person doesn't have to be an administrator to work on some of the backlogs mentioned in this thread. That includes both OTRS (which does require OTRS permission set) and New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation. Recruiting more people is one obvious solution for sure, but are there other avenues that could be pursued? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  Would expanding CSD criteria and tightening up notability guidelines help with NPP And AfC backlogs? Also, more NACers might help free up admin time to tackle admin-specific backlogs. Leviv ich 16:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me know when you get the CSD criteria expanded—I'll put my name forward for pontiff. ——SerialNumber54129 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah Andy's comment just seems weird to me. I read their comment first, then went to the top and read what the issue was and I was thinking 'am I wrong, I thought most of these don't require someone to be an admin', was going to check but quickly re-read this thread and found your comment. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm probably overlapping somewhat between "admin" and OTRS et al., but the point is that they require raised permissions of some sort. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I keep asking this question, but I do not think I have ever got a satisfactory answer to it. Do we have a general understanding which areas (admin-specific, or even no necessarily admin -specific) are badly backlogged long-term? From my experience, at WP:RFPP we are generally fine, there are backlogs there but they get cleared very quickly. WP:AIV is typically fine. WP:CCI is really badly backlogged. But there are many corners of the Wikimedia Universe I have never been to and have no idea how things are doing there.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A parallel alarming problem is areas where one or two people are doing the bulk of the work, and their loss or temporary absence is practically catastrophic. This is the same problem that Sphilbrick noted when he was called away for an extended wikibreak due to an illness/death in the family: we are spread pretty thin in several important areas.
    • When he returned to editing he discovered that the backlog on the OTRS queue had ballooned from 100 cases to 450 cases.
    • Here is the leaderboard for CopyPatrol where you can see there's only two people working most days. I can do about 10-20 cases per hour. So 60 cases per day represents anywhere from 3 to 6 or more hours of work daily. I was able to keep up during Sphilbrick's wikibreak but it was stressful and hard and I would not be able to maintain that level of participation long-term without endangering my own well-being.
    • Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers shows that the bulk of the work is being done by two people. While it's not always been the same two people, this is not a new phenomenon. There's currently 7156 articles in the new pages queue. These date back to the beginning of March (10 weeks). There are also 3480 drafts awaiting review - I was unable to determine readily as to how many people are working that queue right now.
    • The bulk of the work at Wikipedia:Copyright problems is being done by just one person.
  • What this means is that if one of the core people leaves, there's nobody up-and-coming that is in a position to take over the task. That's all I have to say for now; I don't have any solutions to offer; I just want to build some awareness as to the scope of the problem — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

    Thanks, this is useful. May be someone should invest time in writing an essay about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

    • Writing essays is helpful, but actually working on the tasks even more so — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

      I do not think anybody can say I am not doing enough, but we are not just talking about working on backlogs, but also on optimizing tasks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, I'll share with you where I look when I want to see if there are backlogs. {{Admin dashboard}} is a great place to start, because some of the more important backlogs especially those that are time sensitive are in a nice box on the right-hand side. That page also has a section on administrative backlog. The box on the right has a link "click here to locate other admin backlogs". I think that covers most of them with a couple notable exceptions. Curiously, I don't see CCI (did I miss it?). The OTRS backlog isn't here for the obvious reason that it is an external tool, not part of en wiki. Copy Patrol is also an external tool, and not something I discussed in my rant above because Diannaa keeps it under control. (But I concur with her concern about having too much of the activity handled by one or two people) S Philbrick(Talk) 14:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks. I remember I user to look at {{Admin dashboard}} a few years ago when I was given the tools, but somehow I did not find it useful (at least not clicking through everything and figure out where the actual backlogs are). May be it can be improved though, for example, as GoldenRing suggests below.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  CCI is an ordinary backlog, not an admin backlog, and wasn't tagged as backlogged until just now. MER-C 20:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  MER-C, good point S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Is there potential to add more of these backlogs to {{Admin tasks}} which is transcluded at the top of this page? I've had a go at adding a count of WP:Copyright problems (currently refers to a sandbox module so needs use, but it's a start). Thoughts? Many of these are not technically "admin" tasks but rather tasks that are often done by admins. GoldenRing (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Many copyright problems require the use of (revision) deletion, so it is sometimes an admin task. That said, a manual count of the copyvio backlog gives me 67 items. MER-C 20:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the copyright violation count to not require a module dedicated just to it. * Pppery * _survives 20:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Pppery Thanks. I've made some adjustments to the pattern (and learned quite a lot about lua patterns in the process - weren't regex good enough???). I think the best that can be said is that it's now a closer approximation to the correct count, though. Curiously, using Special:ExpandTemplates to expand the text and then running grep -e '^ *\*[^*:] | wc -l' on the result gives me a 178 matches, while count = string.gsub(text, "\n *%*[^*:]", "") gives 174 matches; no idea what the difference is. Neither seems a very close match for a manual count. GoldenRing (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Just a comment that now is probably the best time to run for RfA in almost a decade (ignoring the January '17 surge). Candidates tend to pass in the 90s, and all but one of the serious RfXs that we have had this year have passed. I hate to sound like a broken record, but just encourage people you know to go for RfA and offer to nominate them. This doesn't address all the backlogs here, but it will help by giving more active users access to the tools that can help clear many of these backlogs.
  Also, I'll put in my by now standard plug that we need more patrolling admins at SPI to evaluate behavioural evidence in SPIs with CU results or where CU hasn't been requested since everyone is plugging their pet backlog . TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Sphilbrick:, I signed up for the WP:ACC team to help with the backlog. I had no idea it was that bad. I will point out that working on the ACC team is no small thing as it, like OTRS, involves access to nonpublic data as well as having its own set of complex procedures. Perhaps some streamlining of the process is in order, but I don't think anyone not on the team is in a good position to comment on the changes that may be needed. UninvitedCompany 21:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  UninvitedCompany, Thanks for signing up. I'm actually not very involved in ACC. Because I'm active in OTRS, and there is a tiny bit of interaction between ACC and OTRS in some cases, I offered to be the liaison between ACC and OTRS but nothing has as yet come out of that offer. We occasionally get tickets in OTRS from people who have been sent there from ACC, and we still haven't sorted out how best to deal with workflow. If you get active, we should talk. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive editing/sockpuppeting by users Bilcat and Trekphiler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The users Bilcat and Trekphiler appear to be making repeated disruptive edits on the article Vacuum distillation, as well as threatening users with bans for warning them. [41]

The edit history shows they have repeatedly removed information that is cited by textbooks, while repeatedly claiming the cites do not exist. The citation are clearly listed, and so it is clear that this is intentional disruptive editing. Not only that, but there are links to the main articles on the additional information, all of which are well cited as well. They have both been told this, yet continue to pretend that the citations and links do not exist.

Both of them have also repeatedly deleted the warnings on their user pages and insulted users who posted them. The users show clear sockpuppet behavior both on the article and on their user pages, where they assist one another in bypassing the revert rules and removing warnings.

A quick look at Trekphiler's user page shows he believes he is somehow being targeted for harassment and makes accusations against the admins, even though there is no indication of any harassment except users repeatedly asking him to follow wikipedia guidelines.

Both users show a total lack of respect for the guidelines, generally unstable behavior, and have knowingly continued to make disruptive edits using clearly false statements. I respectfully request that the admins take disciplinary action against both users.

Thank you for your time and all the effort you put into wikipedia. 174.234.11.61 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

They are both users in good standing. At a glance, it looks like they are removing your addition because, even though you provide two sources, not everything you've added has proper attribution. Please stop edit warring and realise that the onus is actually on you to discuss the changes on the article talk page. El_C 07:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article (but not talk page) for a week to end the edit war (I hope); both "sides" are asked to talk about it on the article talk page and help actually improve the content, citations, etc.

[Any administrator may undo or change as see fit etc etc., notification or documentation why appreciated KthxBai] Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

First off, the IP addresses are a thousand miles apart and not attempting to mask their location information at all, so they are not the same users.

Secondly, they are not in good standing and one of them even makes false accusations against the admins on his own page. This is not the kind of behavior that a member in good standing makes with absolutely no proof whatsoever against the admins.

Thirdly, neither of you has read the history or the citations, where they both claim sources literally do not exist before changing their claims to again falsely claim that the sources do not discuss the topic. Their reverts were clearly false and intentionally disruptive.

Read the history and the cited sources and it becomes 100% clear that they are being intentionally disruptive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 (talk • contribs)

Again, even only at a glance, not everything that you've added has citations attached. A user can be in good standing and still be a bit ranty about admin abuse. We can take it. El_C 08:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You have not read the sources and neither have either user before they claimed the cites did not exist AT ALL. Only after being repeatedly called out did they admit the source exist, then falsely claim they do not cover the information provided. Every single response here has not even read what is going on or the cited sources before judging them. How can you make a judgment about the information without even reading?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 (talk • contribs)

Because it's obvious there are portions of that addition that lack attribution. El_C 08:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Is all the bold text really necessary? Have mercy on our eyes. El_C 08:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As Ive asked already, how can you know if you have not read it? What are you basing your judgment off of if you have no read it? Both additional sections are cited, and the links to the articles agree and are cited too. What exactly is not cited? Show examples. Not one of you has listed a single instance of information which was not cited, you just keep repeating it without having shown any actual instances. What information are you referring to? If you have an actual example, why not post it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 (talk • contribs)

So much bold text. "[W]hich lowers the boiling point of most liquids" — no attribution. "[O]ften improves efficiency, and vacuum distillation of ocean water is considered one of the most efficient ways of Desalination" — no attribution. El_C 08:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe if someone had used tags or the talk section instead of throwing a massive hissy fit and edit warring, we could have clarified that information earlier.

As far as the statements you have challenged, not only is it cited repeatedly in other sections, there are multiple links where its cited in the links as well. In fact, its grade school level science and shown on many kids shows.

References

Perhaps if members do not have a grade school level science education they should stay out of scientific articles. There should be a minimum level of knowledge, just like the medical articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 (talk • contribs)

Please don't force everyone to sign your comments for you. Anyway, it takes at least two to edit war. Yes, tagging problematic portions with {{cn}} would have been one way to go. But once your content has been reverted, you should have gone to the talk page and figured out what's what there. Also, this the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (yes, that also includes medical articles), and that is not about to change anytime soon. El_C 17:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've been watching this developing for a while and have avoided commenting on the talk: page, where this belongs, because I know how much personal hostility it will engender from Trekphiler (WP:ANI passim, but whilst we might describe BilCat as "in good standing", that certainly raises an eyebrow for Trekphiler).

We have here a conflict between a new and inexperienced editor (or at least AGF suggests that), who chooses to use an IP address, and two long-experienced editors. None of whom are making particularly good edits, but that is surely a bit more forgivable for new editors, not old hands. The two established editors are doing nothing other than persistent tag-team edit-warring for repeated dogmatic reversions of added content. 6RR over a few days. I can see no attempt by them at discussing this, beyond a bit of boilerplate, certainly not to discuss any content issues.

The content being added here is uncontroversial. It's not rocket surgery, it's college-level basic description of vacuum distillation. No-one here should ever challenge the addition of "lowers the boiling point": if it's not already there, that's a glaring omission and needed fixing. If it needs sourcing, then source it yourself, don't remove it (because it's a glaring omission to not say that). If you don't know this already, then don't mess with this article, it's clearly not your subject and you're likely to make it worse. Yes, sourcing is always a requirement. But I don't see any sourcing being added here (well, there was some, and that got reverted too!). A lack of sourcing in stuff which borders on the "self-evident" (Everipedia would be encouraging this as "editor knowledge", although we don't work that way) is no excuse to 6RR edit-war against any other editor, especially not in such a disconnected and uncommunicative fashion. Talk to people – it's how we get a mess like this sorted out. Explain just what the content problem is, and encourage the provision of adequate sourcing.

The IP editor has not helped here. They're templating as much as anyone, and WP:DTTR never works out well. But still, new editors, AGF, what else can we do but smile and be patient? Edit-warring with a lot of WP:IDHT in response is no way to go.

Sadly this sort of dogmatic bulk reversion is characteristic of much of BilCat's editing. I know this well: I overlap a lot with both of them, and I also find myself in BilCat's position of rolling back lots of unconstructive new additions which really don't belong here. But look at Special:Contributions/2600:100A:B016:5BC7:4CE5:D69E:8D86:58B9: four good, albeit unsourced, additions to separate articles and BilCat rolls them back [42] [43] [44]. He leaves one, because it's sourced. Otherwise it's no different. But rather than building on that, with a discussion (not a template) about how that's what we need, the rest is just rollback and edit-warring. Now I'm not saying he's wrong to do that, but it's not a welcoming environment for a new editor, it's not a constructive change to WP overall, and when the situation gets "worse" immediately afterwards with an edit-war on one of those, then that is not the time to continue a dogmatic edit-war with a tag-team (surely innocently, but still the same effect) to avoid technical violation of 3RR! And have I really had to describe "inspiring an edit-war" as "better" than just driving a new editor away altogether?

This is seriously unimpressive editing. The only thing more unimpressive is when (please don't) they then use the week's semi-protection as a lever against an IP editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACKUSE—To revert obvious vandalism? (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff]) seems to be a common denominator, admittedly. ——SerialNumber54129 10:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but for better or worse, that's just not how Wikipedia works. We don't have enough experts around in all fields for even the purported self-evident to lack attribution. And it certainly ought to be sourced by the person behind the addition, not by the person seeking it. El_C 10:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Then they should use proper tags instead of throwing hissy fits and edit wars. Everyone keeps saying the onus is on new users to prove their edit, but how are users supposed to clarify something if the users like Trek and Bilcat wont communicate like adults or discuss anything? They just keep throwing fits and having edit wars and refuse to communicate!

If they refuse to tag disputed content or discuss what needs to be clarified, then their complaints are automatically invalid. It takes zero effort to add tags compared to the massive time consuming edit warring fits they routinely throw. They are experience users and should be expected to behave as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 (talk)

Sorry, no, that's not how it works. You don't get to set the rules by which people's complaints are valid. You don't get to ignore valid complaints because they were not formatted correctly. Also, above El_C has laid out additional problems with your proposed additions, which you have repeatedly ignored. --Jayron32 13:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't say I'm the slightest surprised by Andy Dingley's dismissive & insulting attitude, nor by his taking the opportunity to weigh in against me uninvited. Nor am I surprised in particular false claims of vandalism are treated as perfectly okay, so long as they're made against me; I can imagine the outrage had I made them. Nor, frankly, am I surprised false (& frankly incredible) accusations of sockpuppetry are apparently okay, too. I will offer no defense, since it's a waste of time, only invite anyone interested to examine the diffs for themselves. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• You mean an accusation like this? "i can't tell if this is vandalism or just stupidity, but i'm leaning toward vandalism"

An IP editor does something that you don't understand, so you revert it, don't discuss it, and then can't decide whether to call them stupid or a vandal? But hey, they're only IP editors, and your attitude towards them is obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Andy, a registered editor does something you don't understand to an IP, so you naturally side with the IP. You don't discuss it in a neutral manner, and you don't wait for the accused editors to defend and explain themselves. You simply attack them with comments "this sort of dogmatic bulk reversion is characteristic of much of BilCat's editing". That's really helpful in diffusing hostility. But hey, we're only registered editors, and your attitude towards us is obvious. There's a lot more to this situation than you know, but you don't even wait to find out what that is before passing judgment, and making an already bad situation much worse. Btw, you probably revert my edits more than any other editor reverts me, and you NEVER talk to me about it first. But I'm an old hand, so to heck with respect. If you run me off, too bad. How long does a new editor have to be on Wikipedia before you're free to treat them badly? Six months, a year? - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"You mean an accusation like this?" In the first place, it takes somebody practically stalking my every edit (like you, Andy) to even notice that.

You'll also notice the edit summary was equivocal, because it wasn't perfectly clear that was, indeed, not simple stupidity. (Seriously, calling the Fiat 500 related to the Type 1, a second time in a row, a good faith edit? You're kidding, right?)

Furthermore, I didn't slap the editor in question with a vandal warning, giving the benefit of the doubt. (I now await Andy's charges of personal attack on, or incivility to, the editor in question, or both, in yet another effort to have me blocked indefinitely. That the effort has nothing whatever to do with the charge originally levelled above is, of course, completely irrelevant.)

Add to that, Andy, is how you seem to be the very first editor to review any new page of mine & nominate for deletion or otherwise tag them, & I begin to think there's undue attention of my edits being paid by you.

Beyond that, however, I was thinking more of the repeated false claims in connection with Malta convoys. Unsurprisingly, you don't recall those, when they're made against me. Sorry they lost, I suppose? (I notice also my own complaints about those same false charges were, by all appearances, completely ignored, as I expect they would have been in this instance--had I bothered to bring it up.)

Somehow, this time it just didn't bug me. Go figure. You, Andy, are a continuing nuisance, however. Why don't you plague somebody else? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Folks, for the record, see User talk:2600:100A:B01C:2427:186F:B1D0:2426:6261. I blocked the /64 for evasion of the ban noted at User talk:DbivansMCMLXXXVI#Community topic ban. You might note that the OP here, User:174.234.11.61, geolocates to the same place, as do the other IPv6 addresses also used in this discussion. There are behavioural matches too (including making unsourced or poorly sourced edits, and complaining strenuously about other editors when they are reverted), so I reckon this is User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI for sure. They're not actually evading their ban here, as the ban was from the history of Nazi Germany, but whoever evaluates this should note the deceptive editing while logged out. (DbivansMCMLXXXVI is actually blocked now for the ban evasion, so any further edits here logged out while the block is in place will constitute block evasion.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2019

• Boing!, I have also blocked 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for evasion of the DbivansMCMLXXXVI block. They're obviously the same person, but I'm not sure it'll do any good — I tend to be a bit lost when it's not all one /64 range. (With a lot of GF, 2600:100a:b016:5bc7:4ce5:d69e:8d86:58b9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may possibly not even be the same.) Bishonen | talk 19:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: Well, he wasn't actually evading a block with 2600:100a:b012:52af:709e:28d:8bf0:3210 at the time as I didn't block until the 19th, and this report isn't an evasion of the Nazi ban. But there's no harm blocking it now he's site banned, though I suspect he has access to a range of /64 addresses at the same geolocation/provider. (And yes, it would need more GF than I possess to believe 2600:100a:b016:5bc7:4ce5:d69e:8d86:58b9 is not him ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, you're right, of course, Boing!; that IP wasn't evading at that time. But at this time we're trying to keep the person as blocked as possible, and that's him all right. And yes, I'm sure he has more IPv6's.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Bishonen | talk 19:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

• Comments - Now that the master has been officially banned, can this discussion be closed now? I am making an effort to be less bitey in general, even before this user began his disruptions, and did actually try to assume good-faith with the first IP initially. However, in this case, we weren't dealing with a new user, as he was actively trying to deceive everyone involved on that point. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki protocol regarding copyright infringement

Looking for some history/feedback/experience here. In the Game of Thrones Season 8 article, a plot summmary for the series finale was added about a half hour after the episode had finished. I reverted the plot summary out as I thought it was a copyright infringement (noting COPYVIO by accident). I did so because the episode (the series finale), while being aired in North America, was not available to the general viewing public outside the US. Even within the US, Amazon and iTunes wait a period of time before making an episode available for streaming/download. I think that posting the plot summary potentially deprives the makers of broadcast revenue internationally - a copyright infringement.
Meeting some resistance at the article and article talk, I sought guidance at Project: Television but couldn't get a bead on the problem of past instances of potential (or actual) copyright infringement. I'm not forum-shopping; no one seemed able to address the issue of how Wiki-EN handles these situations.
I guess I am unsure how we have handled this problem in the past. What's the precedent? As always, your thoughts would be invaluable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

COPYVIO is applicable is only if and only if an actual copyright is violated. So, no, unless the plot was published word-to-word by HBO, it's not copyright infringement. Most plots are written by Wikipedia editors who have watched the episode (read the book, etc.), and in more common or popular articles, they are sourced. Not exactly following policy, but that's how it is. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I was not arguing that the edit summary was plagiarized. My sole argument is that - by publishing the plot summary less than a half hour after the episode premiered in the US - it robbed the makers of the show dividends based upon the number of viewers it could obtain in foreign markets. Even Amazon and iTunes didn't offer the episode until three hours after broadcast (so I have been told). How much would it have broken the wiki to wait 12-24 hours until the episode had become available to the general population? Why were we in such a hurry?

The example I've used elsewhere is that of people standing in line at a bakery to get a highly anticipated, freshly-made apple pie. Let's say that you are standing in the middle of this line and someone comes out of the bakery, claiming that the pie tastes like rotten apples or moldy chicken feet. How likely are you to remain in line to buy a pie?

In allowing the plot summary to be published before people could view the episode (ie. when it became available for viewing), we deprived the "bakery" of its dividends. Its copyright infringement, and absolutely no different than someone who uploads a torrent for others to view a movie or tv show without paying. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Still not copyright infringement. Let's break it down for you, if you read a book before release (audience reads, movie premieres, etc.) and you write a review on it explaining the plot anywhere, it is not copyright infringement as long you attribute the author for the content. So, again, no, just because a plot summary exists does not mean: a) we are taking HBO's revenue b) that taking revenue indirectly (it's just your assumption btw) = copyright infringement. HBO does not own the plot summary because it is a audience rendition of the actual plot, hence, not copyright infringement. Torrenting a movie or TV show is classified as what is called an "illegal distribution of copyrighted material", which is a part of "copyright infringement", as owning the copyright gives you the right to distribute the content as well, and in the case of torrenting, is illegal because you are actually distributing the copyright content whereas here, it's merely a plot summary HBO has no rights to. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, copyright does not protect ideas, it protects the expression of those ideas. A plot summary is a new expression of the ideas it contains. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, this plot summary is probably original research (yes, yes, I know than 99% if film articles are doing exactly this, including some I have written, but still...)--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

OR isn't good, but primary sourced is fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about the "not available outside North America" argument. It's available in the UK, and has been since 02:00 Gricehead (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

WP-custom is that when it is released it's "up for grabs", this goes for Marvel-films released in Europe before US etc. WP-custom is also that this will annoy someone [45].Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding plot summaries, they are their own, separate animals. THey are likely the only things that don't require sourcing but instead rely on group consensus for inclusion. That's made for some pretty annoying Lame flame wars, but it ends up being kinda beautiful when everyone finally agrees on a final version; to me, that's the second best part of Wikipedia.

Gricehead - Uk is part of the world, but it isn't the whole of the world (don't believe those silly BrExiteers). The ep wasn't immediately available to other places, like Indonesia and FarEast Asia.The Wiki-EN is read by English speakers in those places as well.

So, I am too narrowly interpreting the views on copyright infringement? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It would appear so.--WaltCip (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"posting the plot summary potentially deprives the makers of broadcast revenue internationally". I don't think we generally care even a single bit about the studio's profits (or lack thereof) are affected by WP:NPOV encyclopediac content. Same as we don't polish or hide negative details of movie stars, or corporate shenanigans that affect their sales or stockholder value. It's analogous to WP:SPOILER. Definitely not copyvio (as others have mentioned).DMacks (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Rest assured, our posting plot summaries and other details of television shows helps, not hurts, the studios' bottom lines. I'm sure they're very grateful for our comprehensive, up-to-date coverage of their products. – Levivich 18:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input. I see the points each of you have made; I disagree with them somewhat. So, the consensus is that the possible copyright infringement isn't a big deal, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the point everyone here is trying to make to you is that plot summaries are not copyright infringement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

...as long as they are relatively short, that is. IANAL, but someone who is said "At some point, if you put in enough details, and if your summary takes several pages of text, you run the risk of being accused of creating a derivative work."[46] Fram (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector - Wait, were you thinking I was tilting at windmills about the use of plot summaries?? Noooo. It was solely the timing of the plot summary posting that I took issue with. I had really tried to make that clear.

The copyright infringement comes in when a plot summary is posted before it is available to the general Wiki-EN public. Since the plot summary was posted well before it could be broadcasted for the first time in other countries, it interfered with their ability to profit from their work. It was about fairness and not acting like a torrent site. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

In reply to this and your earlier point on the UK, Indonesia and "FarEast Asia", I'm fairly sure most copyrighted content in English isn't generally available to a big chunk of the English speaking population of North Korea. And North Korea has been party to the Berne convention since 2003 Copyright law of North Korea and Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/North Korea. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course the more relevant point is perhaps that AFAIK, effect on the profit of a copyright holder only matters if what you are using is affected by the holder's copyright, and you are claiming the legal defence of fair use or in considering damages from your illicit use. If neither apply, and they shouldn't here since this should be freely licence content not NFCC content, then it's a moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. You may suggest those in North Korea who don't have access to copyrighted work also don't have access to the English wikipedia which I'm sure is generally true although I suspect there are cases where it's not and there's also the question over whether it matters. Maybe a better example is China and other countries where AFAIK legal availability of some works of fiction can be limited [47] but where the English wikipedia is available (or was until recently in the case of China). I would add while things have improved somewhat in recent years due to the risk of copyright infringement when released are staggered too much, in some cases where still talking about months before something is available in a number of countries again with access to the English wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Publishing the plot summary makes it less likely that people will download or stream the episode, as it has been ruined for them. Broadcasters lose revenue."has nothing to do with "We have infringed on their copyright" (whether or not it's true in and of itself). Copyright infringement is about copying someone else's work, and retelling a summary of a plot in one's own words is not that, regardless of the time lapse between the two or the commercial implications. Deprivation of revenue does not make something copyright infringement. We don't have an obligation to directly preserve HBO's bottom line (or anyone else's) beyond generally acting lawfully. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems less about whether or not releasing the plot early is copyright infringement (as it is quite clear that it isn't) but more about whether or not we SHOULD release the plot early to an audience that hasn't received the actual story yet. And truly I don't think it matters if we stay perfectly WP:NPOV. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I asked for some opinion on how to approach the matter and - after some clarifications - I got it. THanks, folks. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Nv8200pa

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Nv8200pa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: Mkdw, AGK, Opabinia regalis, RickinBaltimore, Premeditated Chaos, SilkTork

For the Arbitration Committee; Mkdw ^talk 23:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Nv8200pa

quick check of deleted article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone with admin eyes tell me what Harold Drotning contained when it was deleted? I'm trying to see if it had any sort of copyvio on it. Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It was a very short stub - basically "was an US Army officer who won the Distinguished Service Cross" and then the citation for the medal. If you'd like it restoring let me know. GiantSnowman 13:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible to get these IPs in a range block

I'm not well-versed on IP6's and rangeblocks, so if someone with a little expertise could help out that would be great. There's a site-banned user (Hidden Tempo) who is using rotating IPs for disruption on various talk and user talk pages. Here are a few of the recent IPs:

• Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B056:5109:9503:2656:FE4B:EC23
• Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B022:729:B1E5:69BB:D07F:D909
• Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B021:4650:B955:FB91:1DF3:9A1
• Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B01D:91EA:6021:FCD7:B451:38AA
• Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B026:364E:187B:95BB:973:C19D

User:Bishonen can also confirm that this is the banned user...there's also an AN/I thread somewhere in the archives.

Is it possible to construct a range block that would block whatever stock of IPs this user is using? ~Awilley (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B056:5109:9503:2656:FE4B:EC23/41 is the range (that’s wide). It looks like it has a fair amount of collateral behaviourally. I’ll leave it up to you if it’s disruptive enough for a short block. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that was helpful, thank you. A short block probably wouldn't be worth it. It's more of a long term abuse situation. ~Awilley (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Help requested on complex cross-wiki spam sockpuppet investigation

So, I just wandered onto Wikidata, checked my own contributions and found fr:Special:Contributions/MonsieurJohannes was busy creating spam pages on the French Wikipedia for the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu sockfarm. I also found out that some of the spam pages (NoxPlayer, Somdip Dey, SnatchBot software) had been created and edited by other sockpuppets and SPAs on other wikis - some obviously fitting the username generating algorithm used by Japanelemu, some blocked as socks under different masters, some neither. Some of these previously undiscovered socks have contributions on en.wp or have created other articles on foreign language Wikipedias that were also spam.

Example: SnatchBot software created by obvious Japanelemu sockpuppet Banglipompo here and MonsieurJohannes on fr.wp. jp:SnatchBot created by Keke1970 who also created jp:PMインターナショナル and jp:レジストラー・コープ. Both pages have a substantial cross-wiki presence - PM-International and Registrar Corp USA were created by obvious UPE socks, pl:PM-International was created by obvious sockpuppet Lithumagin, ru:PM-International AG was created by Luxembompamu (a blocked sock in a different investigation) and sv:PM-International AG by blocked Japanelemu sock Italiemek. All three of those accounts have spammed en.wp.

A non-admin mop

I don't think I can finish this investigation alone. Much of the evidence has already been nuked under G5, so admin tools are desired. MER-C 11:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• No admin tools but I'll pitch in with my non-admin mop. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

IP 2401:7400:C802:1A7:C95C:4334:46DF:BAD9 blanking Teahouse

Is there an administrator around who can block IP 2401:7400:C802:1A7:C95C:4334:46DF:BAD9? I've already posted something at WP:AIV and someone responded that it's probably a case of WP:LTA. The IP just keeps blanking the Teahouse over and over again, so if blocking isn't an option then maybe WP:PP the Teahouse is. For what it's worth, I didn't notify the IP of my post at AIV or here because it seems obvious that they only interested in WP:DE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Update: The account was blocked by Zzuuzz. The LTA concerns were raised by LightandDark2000, so perhaps there's a way to try and sort that out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64, which will hopefully suffice for a day. The last vandalism from the /48 was 12 days ago. I've taken a look at the wider range, but I'll leave any further range block for others at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

User:RonBot

user:RonBot and it's owner (and admin) user:Ronhjones haven't edited since early April. One of RonBot's tasks is taking care of Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old and without the bot keeping it clear it a tedious, time-consuming job. The backlog was up to 600+ yesterday and myself and others cleared it but it's now back at the 200 mark again. I've tried contacting Ron but without success so I don't know if his absence is temporary or long-term but is there anyone who could takeover RonBot or create another bot to deal with this task at least? Nthep (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nthep: - probably worth also posting this on WP:VPT. Nosebagbear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There was some kind of userscript by Legoktm that allows one to quick-process these files, does someone know if it still works? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It still works but it's still time consuming dealing with 200 files rather than just those a bot has flagged up as needing a human check. Nthep (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If you'd like more features added to the userscript just let me know and I can do my best. Legoktm (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot, the code was created by DatGuy and was just run by RonBot because it needed admin rights. As such, I imagine any admin-bot operator could just take over using the freely available source. Also according to the BRFA, DeltaQuad was working on something similar, so she might be interested in taking over. Regards SoWhy 12:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging some other operators of admin bots: @MusikAnimal and Anomie: --DannyS712 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I can file to take over that. If anyone wants any other image tasks continued, I can file for those too. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This is task #1 but if you want to file for #2, #3, #4 & #14 too that's great by me. Nthep (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nthep: 2, 4, and 11 require some modules I am not aware of, and therefore it would also be harder for me to fix when broken. If someone else takes them, I won't have an issue, as I'll need time (something I don't have much of). #3 I could look at taking over without issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look if I can reimplement some of those. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Adminbot request

Just to call it out here per our normal process, a request for an admin to run an adminbot has been filed at WP:BRFA. Any commentary is welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 6. Thank you, xaosflux for WP:BAG 17:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Help wanted with large and growing account creation backlog

The backlog of account creation requests presently exceeds 4 months and is growing. The assistance of multiple experienced Wikipedians (administrators or otherwise) is needed to keep up with the pace of incoming requests and work down the backlog. The delay is now long enough that many potential new editors may be losing interest due to the lack of response. The account creation process is important for recruiting users who are unable to create an account themselves as a result of being unable to complete a captcha, trying to register an account name too similar to the many existing account names, or who are trying to make good-faith contributions from a shared IP address that is subject to a block.

I am helping to work through these requests myself now but it will take multiple new people becoming involved to deal with the volume of requests.

Details on what is involved -- and how to sign up -- are at WP:ACC/Guide.

UninvitedCompany 19:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Coincidentally, I registered for an account on the day you posted this. I'd be glad to help but since I haven't received anything yet, I presume there's a backlog on that end as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I apparently have an account, but it was deactivated for inactivity (makes sense). Sent an email to the given address on Wednesday but haven't heard back yet either. ST47 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

softlavender

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – this is not a forum for content disputes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

She deleted 2 paragraphs from Kitchen_sink_realism which is a small page already, citing the 2 paragraphs as a personal essay, which is absurd. Instead of simply adding citation needed tags, she deleted them. I have made a revert and added citations to both paragraphs now, but I have a feeling she will delete them again for some spurious reason as she has done so before. Please can you prevent this from happening? Cardbottleenvelope (talk)

A) Per WP:BURDEN info in an article must have sourcing or it can be removed by any editor. B) This is a content dispute and does not belong on this notice board. You are free to start a thread on the articles talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 16:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits welcome to post-CSD notices

As mentioned here last month, I've been (slowly) working on adding to Twinkle the ability for sysops to automatically notify users upon CSD deletion. I've created the corresponding templates, and wanted to make folks aware of them so it's not just me writing them. You can read more at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Edits welcome to new post-CSD notices, but the tl;dr is that I'd appreciate any changes anyone sees fit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC – Global ban for Meister und Margarita

• Meister und Margarita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have created a RfC at Meta for User:Meister und Margarita, a member of this community. The RfC can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Meister und Margarita. All are invited to participate. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Quality rating

Not yet an incident, and not really sure where to find the relevant policy. Say I wrote a start class article, and then unilaterally awarded it a B class quality rating. Is this acceptable? On first look, it seems to me that I am circumventing peer review, but I may be ignorant of policy. Seeking guidance before I shoot myself in the foot and raise an issue. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Um ... Why would you do that? Miniapolis 22:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume this relates to BlueBorne (security vulnerability)? An author shouldn't be assessing their own articles, but in the scheme of things it's not something I'm going to start issuing warnings or blocks for. The assessment scale is a legacy of the early days when the plan was to publish print and CD-ROM versions of Wikipedia and we needed a method to filter out content that was good enough quality to be included; nowadays, it makes not the slightest difference whether an article is listed as "B-class" or "start-class". ‑ Iridescent 22:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Iridescent that most of the content ratings are pointless, but I don't see any problem with people assessing their own work. As long as people don't assess their own work as a Good Article or Featured Article, who cares? If they do a poor job of assessing articles, they might be asked to stop. So, until one has a good idea of assessment criteria, it might be best to avoid rating anything as "B class". Some people take this stuff seriously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There's literally no difference between a start class and a B class unless you're a part of MILHIST (and that is not a knock on them. They're just one of the few wikiprojects that takes it seriously still.) TBallioni (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW - this discussion may (or may not) be related to a recent discussion on my talk-page - at => "User talk:Drbogdan#Peer review" (please see copy below) - my response to the issue is copied below as well - hope this helps clarify the current concern - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Copied from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drbogdan&action=edit&section=16":

-- Peer review --

Hi. I earlier came across an article you created and then you subsequently gave a quality rating of "B". It was, on review and according to that project's quality scale, a Start class article, perhaps a very generous C. It is unusual to see articles rated by their creator or largest contributor, so I was intrigued by your user page list of "My created Articles". I was dismayed to see that you have rated all of your own articles as B class, without regard for the criteria. Would you agree that this is most unusual, and that you have circumvented the peer review process..? Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Neil S Walker: Thank you for your comments - I had no idea at the time that there was such a process - or that the article creator could not grade created articles - I do now - thank you for letting me know this - I was wondering at the time why the articles did not seem to be graded by anyone - and thought the best way to get the process started was to grade the articles myself - and then be corrected with better rankings by someone more knowledgeable about the ranking system than I - I would not contest a responsible ranking of articles by someone who seemed to know the process - hope this explanation helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and for letting me know there is such a review process - and that there are those who are able to responsibly rank the articles - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not looking for warnings, I'm looking for policy. If the consensus is that there is no problem here, I'm cool with that.I'm about to write a shit ton of B class articles however :D Neil S. Walker (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I treat those ratings as somewhat meaningful but I wouldn't go all wikilawyer about it. Just post a note on the talk page saying you think the article doesn't meet level B quality standards because of XYZ, and that you want to revert it to start class. If no response within a few days, revert the rating. Otherwise engage in discussion. It's just like anything else. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My recollection from past discussions on this issue is that self-assessment is generally considered ok for anything up to B class. Above that, no. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

An article I wrote had its class downgraded and I asked about it here. It turns out there is a script which automates ratings (details at link). According to it, the probability of BlueBorne (security vulnerability) being B class is 0.19 while C is 0.22 and Start is 0.44. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the kind of issue that would need to escalate pretty spectacularly before it's relevant to AN(/I). FA and GA have an associated community process that regulates how they may be assigned and on what criteria. Some WikiProjects (e.g. WP:MILHIST) have a process for A-class. Some WikiProjects have criteria for B-class, but some WikiProjects do not use the B-class rating at all. Most WikiProjects use the common WP1.0 criteria for Stub, Start, and C-class, but there is no fixed process for assigning them: anyone can do so based on an assessment against the criteria (and editors can disagree as with everything else here). After the WP1.0 project was abandoned, the point of these ratings (except GA/FA which have wider scope) is to organise and track the work of a WikiProject. They have no mainspace significance, but messing with them or misrating an article will be disruptive to those WikiProjects and editors that do make use of them. Assessing an article as B-class that clearly does not meet the criteria for it is annoying; rating multiple articles incorrectly is rapidly moving into disruptive editing. --Xover (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Decided to clear the "B" ratings I noted in my created articles - this seems to add "???" (instead of "B") to the rating - which may be a preferred ranking notification - until a better ranking is assigned by an editor more familiar with the associated WikiProject - hope this is *entirely* ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, could that script please be shut off? If machines are going to grade the articles, they should write the damn articles too. I don't want to give them ideas though. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The script is based on WP:ORES, which is a handy little quality estimator. It's useful to, for example, get a rough idea from a set of similar articles which ones are most in need of improvement. I don't think anybody, including the creator, would argue that we should be relying on it without human judgment. Quite the opposite. It's a neat tool, but overestimates in some ways, underestimates in other ways, and demands consideration of context. As for the assessments in general, it's just another thing that can be decided by consensus where it's controversial (aside from GA, FA, and others that require a more formal process, like A-class for the WikiProjects that use that). I would dispute the original case above should actually be considered B. Looks like a classic "start" to me, but that can be determined on the talk page. I have no problem with someone assessing their own work, though. We have very few people who actually go around to other people to do those assessments, and if you don't reassess, chances are nobody will. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request from Norum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Norum has made a new unblock request on his talk-page, which I'm copying here for consideration:

The reason I was blocked was because of my disruptive behavior. I changed info on Emma Gonzales to a crisis actress. I admit to what I did and I fully deserved the punishment I received. I wish I have never done this, but I am aware it is too late and nothing will change or justify my actions. This is something that I should have thought through, but I did not. I did not think of the consequences of my actions.

I have been a registered wikipedia user for some 14 years now. If I am to be reinstated, I will be playing by the rules and will not be involved in any more edit warring. I will comply with any restrictions placed on my account as a result of my actions. I would concentrate more on creating new articles rather than editing existing ones. I was actually in the midst of creating a new article titled Waldemar Marszalek, but I was unable to finish it, because of what happened. It was deleted subsequently. In the meantime, I have been creating and editing on polish Wikipedia, mostly articles related to North American hockey.

I admit that I shortly had another account here, Frithewlf. I created it for the sole purpose of trying to appeal my ban as at that time I was not sure how it all works. It wasn't until later when I was told the proper way of appealing bans. A few years ago I had another account, it also had Norum in it. I can't remember the exact user ID, but I think it was somewhere along the lines of Norum5000 or Norum86. I created that account a few years ago, but this was due to the fact that I had to clean up my laptop and I lost a lot of log ins, including Wikipedia. I was working on merging both accounts, but luckily I was able to retrieve my original log in information after a couple of weeks and my second account was not needed anymore. Kind regards, Norum 20:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

He's also agreed to accept the unblock conditions proposed a while ago by Dlohcierekim, which are, as I understand them:

• WP:1RR
• blocking without further warning for any more "drunk" or "compromised" edits
• or any more socking
• create a SHA committed identity to guard against account compromise.

It seems to me a reasonable proposal; I've not formed an opinion as to whether or not it should be accepted. Ping Daniel Case and Beeblebrox as (recent) blocking admins. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Support unblock per the proposed conditions and WP:ROPE. He says all the right things, and I'm willing to give him a short leash. --Jayron32 15:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• oppose unblock per additional evidence provided by Anna and Floq. I guess I should read closer. Publicly unrepentant bigots should not be allowed at Wikipedia ever. I guess I should have looked closer. Thanks all for the additional information.--Jayron32 13:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

My gut instinct is to say "never unblock", but I admit that might be more extreme than our current approach. It's just - and forgive my speaking about right and wrong instead of policy - taking at face value their claim that the edit in question was done while drunk, they still sobered up and several days later and still thought the block was illegitimate. I realize that they say now the block was legit, but I'm left with the feeling that we're dealing with a person who thinks that the Parkland shooting was a hoax, and that the kids who lived thru it are just actors paid by the anti-gun lobby, and the effect of the alcohol was to loosen his inhibition against saying so in public. That demonstrates either an Alex Jones level horribleness, or pretty gigantic incompetence. Neither of which seem promising, neither of which is someone I'd really want to interact with. Could we at least tack on an indef AmPol topic ban? At least? In the hope that perhaps the horribleness or incompetence is limited to that one area? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to be fair on that, people are allowed to think whatever the fuck they want. We aren't going to police someone's internal thoughts. We're only concerned with actions, and if someone's actions do not harm Wikipedia, we'll take all sorts of insanity. I've been here for 14 years, after all... --Jayron32 16:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the racist stuff on his user page (now I understand what Anna Frodesiak meant), so I'll switch this to a firm oppose forever. "Wikipedia is racist towards white people and is run by left wing idiots." That's not an internal thought, that's an explicit statement. The action of allowing horrible and/or incompetent racists to edit here results in the harm of making non-horrible, non-racist people want to leave. I'm not sure why he wants to come back, anyway... since, according to him, "WIKIPEDIA IS POSSIBLY THE WORST SOURCE FOR ANY KIND OF INFORMATION. IT IS RUN BY A BUNCH OF DUMB ASSES AND NERDS. MY APOLOGY TO NERDS....THEY ARE SMART, UNLIKE THE PEOPLE EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA. Ethnicity, not your nationality determines your origin." (emphasis his). Just, no thanks. Conservapedia will welcome him with open arms. He should go there instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Both statements were, by the way, on his user page for years. I assume he wasn't drunk the whole time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Forever per Floq. "Wikipedia is racist towards white people and is run by left wing idiots." Further, I don't care how contrite one appears, the lasting psychological harm inflicted on that young girl by comments like his - calling her a liar, after her friends had just been killed - is unforgivable. I don't care what kind of chemical you were on.--Jorm (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. Seriously!? They had an actual neo-Nazi symbol on their userpage for almost two years until Daniel Case blanked it. If the account was really compromised for that long, we have no idea is in control now. If not, then this goes way beyond "internal thoughts". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh good grief. I saw that but didn't even realize what I was looking at. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ohman, I didn't see that, either.--Jorm (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

here is another fun thing.--Jorm (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest formalising this as a community ban instead. --Yamla (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Deliberately repeating a libelous claim that has already caused a substantial amount of harm in a BLP is not something one just says "whoops, sorry" for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This persons edits have no place on the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Leave and don't come back, I was willing to give one last chance, but what after what he said about Emma Gonzales being an actor, an unblock is absolutely out of the question. What he said is absolutely inexcusable, disgusting, and horrid. Also, when he says Wikipedia is all left-wing, that is entirely untrue. There are many Conservative editors (including myself) that edit Wikipedia daily. We don't want people like him on our platform. If you honestly think calling a teenager who seen her friends die by the hands of a school shooter an "actor" is an appropriate to talk to people. It's not. It's just disgusting, inexcusable, and horrid. And definitely not someone we want on Wikipedia. Thus, I will happily support a community ban. Per WP:NONAZIS, WP:POLEMIC, WP:NPOV and WP:JERK. Thank you. The Duke 23:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  The specific edits you're asking about the reason they are currently blocked, calling Emma Gonzales a crisis actor.--Jorm (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Jorm: Thank you. That is utterly disgusting. The Duke 23:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose After looking at their editing history, including statements on their talk page, I am satisfied that this editor has repeatedly allowed extremist (and odious) beliefs to influence their editing in unacceptable ways. Nor has this been limited to political articles. I'm sorry, but based on their history and their continued adherence to these views, IMO this editor is a high risk for continued disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Community Ban

I agree with User:Yamla and believe this should be advanced to a community ban, based on a metric ton of reasons but mostly WP:NONAZIS.

• Support as proposer.--Jorm (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support (note I also indicated my support of this in the section above, not meaning to double-vote). --Yamla (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but not based on "NONAZIS", which seeks to ban based upon beliefs rather than behavior, which I don't support. However, this editor's behavior makes very clear that they are here to be disruptive and not to make helpful contributions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support If a user cannot maintain some semblance of civility in user-space (ie, no neo-Nazi symbols on user page, and "left-wing idiots") then they will not be able to keep it out of user space. NONAZIS is a thoughtcrime-type essay, but when it is applied to outward behavior it is certainly relevant. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A lad insane, as the primary author of WP:BLOCKNAZIS, I'd point out that the entire point of the essay is that the only way for us to know if someone has these views is if they make outward actions, and that these outward actions are inherently disruptive. To quote the essay Declaring oneself to be a racist or using Wikipedia as a webhost to show racist or nazi imagery and propaganda or mythologizing crosses the line into disruptive editing because it is telling a significant portion of our readers and editors that they shouldn't exist. The entire focus, at least of the section on blocking, is on actions that are easily reviewable by all. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @TomyBallioni: Thanks for clarifying- I think someone else mentioned it being thoughtcrimey at some point and I just went with it. Apologies for the misgeneralization. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Reping @TonyBallioni:- oops -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC))

*Comment - is not the user name itself related to the neo-nazi symbol which was removed? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Plausibly explained at editor's talk page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support Blatant BLP violations, user-page, arguments such as Elvis "did have black blood in him" and The Simpsons is racist against white people, in addition to innumerable edits to ethnicity in BLPs (including based on "reasoning" such as in this edit-summary) means that I cannot trust this user to edit wikipedia without letting their ideology to get in the way. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support as they are obviously WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Other than WP:NOTHERE and WP:NONAZIS Do I need more? Please read my statement above. The Duke 23:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Their actions are incompatible with BLP considerations. Rivselis (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support, for obvious reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NONAZIS, beliefs stop being beliefs and become disruptive actions when you post neo-nazi symbolism on your userpage. There is no First Amendment on Wikipedia. We are a self-governing community and we can kick out people who have have through their actions show that their belief system is so utterly incompatible with the aims of our project that their simple presence here is and always will be disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Now claiming that they "did not see" the symbol of a neo-Nazi party as a neo-Nazi symbol. Don't know of that's WP:CIR or just trolling, but I don't think we need to waste any more time on this user. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I'm with Seraphimblade and Abecedare: this is a WP:NOTHERE matter. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I can forgive a one off comment that may have been made in bad taste, however, repeated edits and behavior suggest that they simply aren't compatible with Wikipedia and our 5 pillars. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Blocks and bans are not supposed to be punitive. They are preventative in the sense that they are designed to protect the project from disruption. I am concerned that some of the comments opposing the unblock and or supporting a CBan may be at least partly punitive in their motives. That said, the apparent affinity for extremist views as manifested in their editing causes me to wonder if they are capable of constructively contributing to the project. Would they be willing to accept an indefinite TBan from AmPol post 1932 as an added condition of being unblocked with the understanding that any admin could reblock them w/o recourse to AN/I for any perceived disruption? At the moment I am neutral on the unblock request and proposed C/Ban. But I am leaning against unblocking for now. I will have to think about this and consider their reply to my questions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Ad Orientem: I agree with you that some of the comments seem to make the proposed action more punitive rather than preventative, however, based on their actions they seem incompatible with our pillar regarding civility and respect. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Dusti:That's kind of where I am right now. We do not block or ban because of beliefs. But their decision to make edits that clearly promote or reflect fringe conspiracy theories and at least some evidence of racist beliefs manifested on their page makes me very reluctant to unblock. That is a kind of disruption that is rather insidious. I will wait to see if they have anything to say in response to all of this and my questions above. But I am going to need some heavy duty persuasion to support an unblock. That said, I think the CBan seems like overkill. If their unblock is declined no admin is going to unilaterally unblock them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm certainly not comfortable with the possibility that Norum might list another living individual as a crisis actor if they're unblocked. Rivselis (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  Would an AmPol post 1932 topic ban be enough? While the crisis actor thing may have been the final straw, it doesn't look to me like the concerns over their behaviour are restricted to that area. After all, they've changed someone who played for Germany and was born in West Germany into Nigerian because "parents are blacks from Nigeria. Therefore not German." [48], suggested that the English Defence League "should be listed as human rights organization protesting agaisnt Muslim extremism and Sharia law"[49] These are from 2014 but that seem in part reflective of the limited editing by Norum, they're both in the most recent 500 edits at this time. And of course the Nordic Resistance Movement logo they had on their page for a long time [50] that people are concerned about is for a party primarily active in Nordic countries which seems to be where they self identify as .

• Weak Oppose Mainly as redundant. Norum is already indeffed and with their unblock request basically dead, this serves no useful purpose and will just mean that someone will have to log what is already de-facto in place. No admin would ever unblock this user w/o community support. [I have opposed their unblock request in the section above.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NONAZIS and obviously WP:NOTHERE and I don't understand why do we have to vote on this? His actions are not acceptable. How can someone vote for oppose or unblock and not be endorsing this type of behaviour therefore deserve also a community ban?? I suggest closing this discussion. There is no excuse for Nurom.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) ETA--SharabSalam (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NONAZIS. I think Norum would be a better fit for Conservapedia. Reyk _YO! 10:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - on Wikipedia, the only good Nazi is a banned Nazi. GiantSnowman 10:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Glad to see this proposal here, this editor has been nothing but trouble since they joined this wiki. They definitely should not be editing here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Bigots like this person have no place at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. When a user hosts the symbol of a neo-Nazi party on their user page for such a long time, with the accusation that "Wikipedia is racist towards white people and is run by left wing idiots", then we're not looking at a compromised account or a momentary alcoholic aberration, or a "misunderstanding" as they're now claiming on their talk page. Similarly for the apparent support for Soldiers of Odin, which was founded by someone with "connections to the far-right, neo-Nazi Nordic Resistance Movement and a criminal conviction stemming from a racially motivated assault" .The attack on Emma González was disgusting, as was Norum's doubling down on it when challenged. An indef block is not necessarily infinite, but when it comes to a racist neo-Nazi bigot it certainly should be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, and if you want to see another gem, how about referring to Asians as "turban heads". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jerzy

So, we have an administrator that was ArbComBlock-ed almost two weeks ago. Is this the correct state of affairs? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. See JerzyA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). El_C 14:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

For reference, it was discussed at ANI a couple of weeks back before being semi-formally kicked to ArbCom. Archive is here. Also has some examples of the "contributions" that were being made there. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This hasn't been discussed on the functionaries list, but usually when an account is subject to an {{ArbCom block}} there is a very very good reason for it and it is something that should not be discussed in public. ArbCom hates adding to its workload so when they make something appealable only to them it should be taken seriously. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the expectation is that an admin would be defrocked in these circumstances, not merely blocked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

They were asked to contact the Committee by email. It's possible they have just yet to do so. El_C 18:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Since admins can no longer unblock themselves any blocked admin is de facto not an admin, so I don't see the problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

El C is correct. Jerzy has not yet contacted us (neither account has email enabled) and until we can verify that he's in control of the admin account, we placed an arbcom block. We didn't think it would take this long. A desysop is likely if he doesn't get in touch. If so, I'll lift the block after that. Katie^talk 20:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... Didn’t a very similar situation happen a while ago? 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 00:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, Centrx was blocked and desysopped after posting silly questions on the Main Page. It was an obvious case of a compromised account or an admin gone rogue. I'm seeing nothing of the sort in Jerzy's recent contributions; as far as I can imagine, the worst possible interpretation of the diffs presented at ANI is that he's decided he needs an enforced break and wants to make absolutely sure that he gets that enforced break without doing any significant damage. Yes, we shouldn't tolerate people persistently adding nonsense of this sort, but it really is harmless compared to dumping "What is the Big Lebowski" right at the top of the main page or compared to most of the other things that will lead to you getting blocked and desysopped quickly. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I was more reffering to the strangeness of his ranting on his alt accounts talk page, which seemed similar to the ranting that Centrx did. I wasn't talking about anything his main account did. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 11:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I never saw any strange ranting by Centrx, or anything strange beyond those questions, but I didn't look into the situation, so I can't speak to this statement. Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible need of mass article deletion created by a single user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I came across the issue when I looked at an AFD for Palgeocheon. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. I soon looked at the author of the article and I see that the user made a lot of articles that appears to all fail WP:GNG. Some of the articles were redirected to another article while others were deleted, albeit back in 2011. I did applied WP:BEFORE to some of the articles, but I wasn't able to find sources (both Korean and English) that would make the article meet WP:GNG. A mass deletion may be needed. INeedSupport ^:3 19:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the last edit the author made was back in 2011. INeedSupport ^:3 19:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've gone through and PROD'd a bunch of the articles. Unfortunately that's really all I think we can do - I'm not so sure we could speedy these, could we? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no speedy deletion criterion that applies to non-notable geographic locations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This also is pretty clearly in who cares? territory. These articles are doing exactly zero harm to anyone and deleting them is more trouble than it is worth, even if they aren't notable (something I haven't assessed.) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

So without actually assessing that they pass our notability guidelines you reverted a dozen of my PROD’s based on your assessment that nobody should care if they follow our guidelines? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because you failed to present a good case for deletion, and I consider mass proding of articles that are very probably notable based on the fact that they exist and are parks to counterproductive. I'm hardly the world's biggest inclusionist, but the theory that the encyclopedia is better off without a dozen articles on real Korean parks that English speakers can't find sourcing on in my view works against the goal of building a free encyclopedia. There was no harm being done, and the odds of them being hoaxes was about zero. A mass PROD would not be uncontroversial and thus would be inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, but I did make an actual valid argument for deletion. Did you bother reading what I placed? A mass import from the Korean Wikipedia - non notable park that does not meet GNG and on some I put GEOLAND. You're the one that didn't cite how they are notable nor did you give a valid reason for disputing the PROD other than zero harm being done, likelihood of non-English sources, no real reason to delete. Honestly, I don't care - I'm a little bothered by the fact that you put zero effort into looking at at the article and considering notability. Instead, you just reverted every prod I did citing the same reason of "who cares". I was going based on a discussion taking place here. Did you look at the talk page of the page creator? Numerous articles have been prod'd and deleted based on no notability. The articles that I tagged for deletion were, as the article was, not notable, did not establish notability, and had a singular source. Based on their text, they seemed like neighborhood parks. I left alone the articles that included amusement parks, statues and other historical markers. I did my WP:BEFORE research and I'm rather disappointed in you that you didn't bother utilizing any effort and instead assumed bad faith. I'll not be replying any further. INeedSupport I think maybe AFD would be your next step. I tried to help, sorry that my efforts were in vain. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider that to be a valid argument since you don't speak the language and there are all but certain to be Korean language sources: the fact that they were ko.wiki imports strongly undercuts your argument for deletion. Wikipedia doesn't work on a strict applications of rules. We assess every situation as it comes. If someone views these as actually needing AfD, that would be the next step, but it would do zero to actually aid the encyclopedia to do so. This is a non-issue that people tried to respond to with the brute force of deletion. We don't do that for minor stuff like this where nothing is being harmed and the pages serve some good and work towards our mission. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have the same problem, I found a lot of Sana'a villages articles that are sourced to same source and all of them are stub. There are three levels of official administrative divisions in rural Yemen. The village is the third division. I am thinking of merging all/most of villages articles to second level of division ('Uzlah) articles. Can that be okay?.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On User:It's gonna be awesome/Chinese Communist Party has invaded Chinese Wikipedia

Obviously, User:It's gonna be awesome is libeling others, and he was already been blocked due to libeling and personal attacking. This is a x-wiki issue. he did almost the same thing on Zhwp. --Humbleblue (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Your reaction tells everything. Time is precious. I will just contact the Foundation. Additionally, I think the article is quite well-sourced and has been backed up successfully. It is better to restore the article to let the general public decide whether or not it's an attack or a public issues for sure. BTW, just wanna ask whether or not Humbleblue is from mainland China and how did you reach here. Regards. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 10:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  No, we do not let the general public decide whether something is an attack, or otherwise violates our policies. In order to protect Wikipedia, we keep out things like libel, personal attacks and other things that degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. You may argue that something does not violate a policy, but that is for the community and the Foundation to decide. - Donald Albury 11:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  • • Thanks for the reply. Per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G10:Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.

The deleted article collected actually up to 50 sources and many more sources yet to come. Moreover, if the number of internal links that redirected readers to Chinese Wikipedia had been counted, the total amount of sources would exceed 100 approximately. Thus, a review is strongly recommended. However, I know time is precious for everyone. So I may not keep arguing here. Best. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 11:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Indeffed for endless soapboxing (see also Draft:China threat theory, Cult of Xi Jinping, Chuan Ping, Category:Political prisoner in China, Category:People who were forced disappeared), blatant personal attacks on named editors and named living individuals (see deleted page in the section header), and obviously not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You may want to review their subpages, which has copies of China threat theory and Cult of Xi Jinping.--Auric talk 17:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Upload request

Hey, I have an upload request (requires admin rights to upload the new version) in File talk:Extended-protection-shackle.svg, I used {{Edit request}} but User:Spintendo keeps removing it on the grounds that it's not "edit" and it's "upload". Please take a look. The change is almost invisible to naked eye. Ladsgroup^overleg 12:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, {{edit request}} is the wrong template for such requests; you want {{Edit fully protected}} Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

On an aside, I don't really understand why our basic edit request template {{edit request}} is apparently for COI editing..... --Izno (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed the template. Yes that's a good point. Why COI for such a basic template. Ladsgroup^overleg 13:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done see my reply at File talk:Extended-protection-shackle.svg. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Dead notice board

Hi, I made a report to this notice board Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and when I scrolled up I saw that there is no one replying there. No admins or experienced editors answering the reports there. Why?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Similar complaint in 2016. It should probably be marked historical? –xeno^talk 23:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dunno, I see people there going back to 2008 or so...no special reason for admins to be there, though. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I picked one or two reports on the board. Rather than responding on the noticeboard, editors and admins go straight to the article in question and answer/address the questions/issues there. Not regularly, but enough to suggest that the board does have its uses. Blackmane (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• If responders aren't going to confirm they've handled it on-board, then that should be made extremely clear at the top. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe merge it with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sivagopalakrishnan

Sivagopalakrishnan (talk · contribs) has recently admitted (here) to undisclosed paid editing and very belated made the required disclosure on SamHolt6's talk page, which was then copied to their user page and the article talk page for them. While looking a bit deeper, I found a disclosure on Commons from 2016March 2019 where they admitted paid editing trying to get unblocked (unsuccessfully). They've been pressed here on their talk page to make the required disclosures on all other articles they've created for pay. They've edited since those comments without responding or making disclosures, so I'm coming here for some admin help on this. I'm pretty confident that many of the articles they've created have been for pay and more than a few have been substandard. Draft:Syarikat Kejuruteraan Kenali is a pretty good example of that. Many of their edits are related to Indian film and television which is probably very under-represented here but also has a lot of WP:UPE happening. At this point, I'd like to see a block until they respond to the concerns AND make all of the required declarations. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Cyphoidbomb as an admin highly involved in the topic areas. Ravensfire (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Confirming the authenticity of Ravensfire's points above, and taking the time to thank them for their diligence. I originally suspected Sivagopalakrishnan of COI/UDP editing after I reviewed their work at Draft:Syarikat Kejuruteraan Kenali and found it to be riddled with puffery and WP:OR; very credible off-wiki evidence (being withheld out of respect for WP:OUTING) confirmed a paid connection between the editor and company. I have no bearing on any other potential violations of WP:PAID, but will comment that Ravensfire's points are strong, Sivagopalakrishnan's comments on the WMC are highly indicative of more undisclosed paid editing, and that future failure to communicate (WP:COMMUNICATION) should be grounds for a block.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Silence is never a good sign from editors like these and I would support a block until they start speaking and, as Ravensfire has suggested, until they agree to announce paid editing for each of the article's they've manipulated for pay. This, however, is contingent on a "are they even worth keeping around" analysis. If all they're doing is puffing up articles, I would be disinclined to let them loose in the wild again. If they tend to edit well with occasional bouts of puffery, that's a different story, perhaps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I misread / mis-remembered the date of their Commons post. It was actually from March 2019, not 2016. That does change the scope, but I still strongly believe that Sivagopalakrishnan has multiple articles that they've edited for pay and need to disclose, plus they really need to respond to comments made by other editors. My apologies for the brain spasm. Ravensfire (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

My own preference is that once an editor has been caught poisoning Wikipedia by undisclosed paid editing, they should not be given a second chance, at least not until they have blocked long enough to be eligible for standard offer. My own opinion would be no second chance even for an editor who otherwise has a reputation as an "excellent content creator", which is not the case here. We give far too many chances to editors who admit after the fact that they have been engaged in previously undisclosed paid editing. Our procedures for declared paid editing are very generous, and there is no excuse for not complying with them from the start. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Robert. Completely. Well put. They have also ignored this report. If it wasn't for this one edit I would have AGF'd that they weren't aware of having a talkpage, but it's clear they are. And they keep on editing. I recommend an indefinite block. Anybody against? Bishonen | talk 15:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

I looked through the contributions and don't think there's much we can do regarding the articles themselves. They appear on the surface to be fact-based articles on non-English TV series and acting talent. There is a strong bias at AfD for keeping such material, and it is nearly impossible to improve the articles or contextualize any deletion discussions that may be appropriate without foreign language abilities and cultural awareness that few enwp contributors have. The sample of articles I reviewed did not have the sort of obvious, serious problems that would allow them to be speedied. UninvitedCompany 18:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are two separate issues, the content and the editor. An undisclosed paid editor often writes reasonable-looking material, precisely in order to avoid a G11 that might call attention to their undisclosed paid status, and such edits need to be reviewed, not always deleted. However, if the editor has engaged in undisclosed paid editing, there is no reason to permit them to continue editing. In my opinion, they should wait until the world ends in 2038, but anyway wait a very long time. What reason do we have to think that such an editor has now made all of the declarations? Their own honor, when we know that they have no honor? It is true that they will probably sock, but we do better at blocking sockpuppets than at blocking spammers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with Bishonen: indef. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Indeffed. MER-C 09:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource import

Do we have any admins with import rights on Wikisource? I came to this issue after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full translation of the Behistun Inscription closed as transwiki to Wikisource. I've put {{Copy to Wikisource}} on the article, but I notice that Category:Copy to Wikisource has items in it that have been there for many years. No one seems to be patrolling the cat to take the necessary action. SpinningSpark 16:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably Billinghurst (talk · contribs), or he would point you in the right direction. Whether it is acceptable is another question, there has historically been a lot of resistance to text that difficult to verify (or even if it has been), and that is understandable as there is a lot of fiddling to get it into mainspace. cygnis insignis [used to work there] 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

We (enwiki) is a transwiki source configured on enwikisource, so any of their admins could do that. Our AfD can't force them to take anything, you could request it at wikisource:en:Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:  Already done (I like editing there.) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark and Cygnis insignis: I've made a request at s:WS:AN. EncycloPetey would be a good point of contact to talk to about this. (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I will admit to not having cleared the space in a while, though numbers of those tagged pages will have discussions on the respective talk pages of what will be required to migrate those works to enWS, or other language WSes. As WPs require citations, WSes require provenance. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to move the troublesome components onto the article talk pages if their staying on the article is no longer suitable. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I have imported the article at s:Translation:Behistun Inscription, and tagged Full translation of the Behistun Inscription for speedy. There's some cleanup needed and, as Billinghurst mentions, some potential the enWS community will ultimately decide it is unsuitable in some way; but in either case I figure this to be best handled by the community processes at enWS. Also, since I spend time on both projects and was recently handed a broom over there, feel free to ping me for any enws—enwp issues. If I can't help I'll at least know to run to Billinghurst for help! :) --Xover (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Uhm. @Anthony Appleyard: What're you doing? --Xover (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You can't unilaterally reverse an AFD decision like that! WP:DRV is the venue for that. SpinningSpark 06:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I have reversed the overturning of the AfD close. Take it to DRV or at least discuss it with the closer first. Fram (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: Wikisource is a host of editions of English-language published works and English-language historical documents. So in this case is more likely to host the edition of the published work "The sculptures and inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia" rather than simply the excerpted component of the translation. There may be able to have some accommodation, though the preference would be for the translation in the context of the provenance of the published edition. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Spinningspark, Billinghurst, Xaosflux, and Fram: Sorry. But the Wikipedia version is also needed, for its attached notes and images and wikilinks. Please keep it, as well as the Wikisource version. And it has many incoming links. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Anthony Appleyard: The full version—with all notes, images, and wikilinks—is currently at s:Translation:Behistun Inscription. It'll be edited to comply with enWS's style guidelines, and probably moved into mainspace somewhere like s:Behistun Inscription (annotated), but it is there. enWS just requires that an unannotated text exists first (which is what s:Behistun Inscription (King and Thompson) is).
  With this hat on (enWS admin trying to help out with a transwiki request) I have no particular opinion on what enwp should do with Full translation of the Behistun Inscription (with my "enwp editor"-hat on I am firmly of the opinion that this diiscussion belongs at DRV, and vaguely of the opinion that the AfD outcome was correct). --Xover (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Xover: Transwiki stuff is complicated. How about we Ignore all rules, leave the soft redirect in place. DRV seems very unnecessary in this case. Index:The sculptures and inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia.djvu has been uploaded and awaits transcription and proofreading. We would appreciate the help if anyone from here wants to assist. This is probably the first time in a while the two projects have interacted.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• @MJL: The AfD closed as "transwiki", which implies enwp should no longer host the content once transwiki'ed. If anyone wishes to retain the content here (as Anthony apparently does) then DRV is the correct process to argue for that. But absent a consensus at DRV to restore it, a cross-wiki redirect seems an eminently appropriate way to handle it. I wish I'd thought of that option before tagging it for speedy. --Xover (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• See speedy criterion A5, which explicitly includes articles that have been moved to Wikisource. There's no possible reason that deletion is fundamentally wrong, and (assuming that the close reflected consensus) there's no reason to contest the close. I understand the IAR reasoning, but the argument isn't a cut-and-dried obvious "we absolutely must IAR here", and I still don't think there's any good reason to contest an accurate close. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm with @Nyttend: on this. I see no reason to IAR and retain a redirect from what is an unnatural search phrase anyhow - we wouldn't be saying, "what we really need is a redirect for 'Full translation of Behistun Inscription' because that's what people on Wikipedia are likely to enter in the search box". As to the argument being made by @Anthony Appleyard: here that the additional pictures, captions, section headings and footnotes meant the page should be retained was a point raised during the AfD, and it failed to convince the majority of those participating in the discussion - with the exception of the nominator, everyone who !voted to transfer to Wikisource expressed their opinion after this argument was raised, and the close, that the page should not be kept on Wikipedia, reflected the 5-to-2 majority opinion. The more natural link and search target, Behistun Inscription, already has a pointer to the new Wikisource page anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Additional note: The many links to the page given as a reason for retention are not that straightforward - there aren't that many and I am not sure any of them should be pointing there anyhow: in addition to See Also listings that shouldn't point to a redirect, the remainder are awkward/unnatural piping of common phrases, being used as proxy (or actual) citations, or are piping away from a more appropriate target (Behistun Inscription). Again, not a good reason to IAR. Agricolae (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. The proper link is now at s:The Sculptures and Inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia/Annotated/The Persian Text. We normally don't have this sort of thing as Billinghurst pointed out on our noticeboard: It isn't our task to rescue enWP's out of scope works just because. I'll be honest and say this whole thing whole process is irregular. We're all still figuring this out on both sides. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  @MJL: Hmm, I am not certain that bringing a part of my comment here "out of context" is particularly useful, and I would advise against such actions. SCOPE' is the important factor here, and ensuring that we are moving to a site based on their scope, rather than our "out of scope". Where someone has put in an effort often we feel obliged to rescue something and decide that it should get a home somewhere else. Then we can often wait. I think that we may wish to do a better job or moving disputed text to talk pages if we believe they don't belong in articles though still have some supplementary pertinence. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Billinghurst: My apologies. I considered quoting the entire thing, but I had an error in judgement there. That being said, I do agree with what you said. That'd definitely make life a lot easier. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Malaysian IP editor abuses other Asian IP editors' talk pages with nonsense, profanity, and threats

• 2001:D08:DB:CEC0:F883:2D25:DC24:A157/48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)

I posted this last week and it got archived without action. Meanwhile, the editor continues on with the same pattern. Please stop them. The previous report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Malaysian IP with strange contribs.

The range looks like Special:Contributions/2001:D08:DB:8000::/49, and it probably goes back to October 2018. How about we start off with an anonblock for a month? They also seem to have an IPv4 range, somewhere within Special:Contributions/113.210.64.0/20, FYI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Thanks. Any reason not to block the IPv4 as well? It does look like the same person. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: but what proportion of those edits in the IPv4 range are by the same person? I took a look and thought not many. If you can refine it any further I'll take another look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The ISP (Maxis Broadband Sdn Bhd) has the range 113.210.0.0/15. This editor seems restricted to the 113.210.0.0/16 segment, but they're all over it: over 30 IPs from .50.48 to .202.147 in the last three months alone, based on looking at the User talk namespace. There were a small number of contribs there that were probably not them. Unfortunately, it seems the range is managed by a DHCP strategy that assigns a new IP for every (short) connection. Looking at the article namespace next... —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

ReeceTheHawk

ReeceTheHawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has requested the standard offer, placing this request on their TP:

It has been 1 year and 2 months since I was told to take the standard offer and I have not edited Wikipedia in this time. I forgot to post an unblock request 6 months after the standard offer but now i'm back into wikipedia hoping to start editing again. Reece (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I am bringing this to the community for consideration. A quick flick through their mainspace contributions suggests to me that they have the potential to be a useful editor of the gnoming sort, though with a bit to learn about policies and procedures. GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• {{Checkuser needed}} @GoldenRing: The block was a CU block and needs a check before it can be removed, only then can SO apply. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support if (but only if) checkuser shows no violations. --Yamla (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Checkuser note: there's not much data to go on, but I don't see any obvious socking on the range they are on. If there is community consensus to unblock, I'm fine with it from a CU perspective. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• @QEDK and TonyBallioni: Thanks for the reminder and for doing the check. GoldenRing (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable. Floquenbeam? –xeno^talk 14:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I guess the theory is that if you don't actually say anything in your unblock request, you won't be caught lying? Looking at their talk page history, including their last few unblock requests, I think the odds of them being productive are pretty low. I suppose if they're young they've grown up some? I'm not going to waste my time negotiating unblock conditions, but if someone else wants to, that's OK with me. I'm perfectly happy for any individual admin, or a consensus here, to decide anything they want to. But you might want to get Reece to, I don't know, at least link to their previous ANI thread, or their previous declined unblock requests, or see if they understand what the previous problems were, or explain how they're going to avoid them, or something, instead of expecting others to do the heavy lifting for them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Per Floq, I also would not accept the SO request unless and until they can explain 1) what they did wrong and 2) what they plan to do differently. Unblocking without those two items doesn't seem like a good idea. If they CAN do those things, I would be fine with an unblock. --Jayron32 15:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Per my colleagues above, I think we should be requiring a basic "here's what I did wrong, here's why I won't do it again" even for SO unblocks. A fair amount of recent drama involving an editor who filed and had accepted a bare-bones SO unblock request only makes me more certain of this. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• The thread leading to their initial one-week block is here. After that block expired they did something to get indeffed which I don't really understand, but it feels to me like a WP:CIR sort of thing. Then this happened and they lost talk page access. Later, checkuser linked them to Ediitor10 (talk · contribs), and after another unblock request was declined Reece disclosed a bunch more accounts they had created to evade their block, although checkuser showed there were more they had not disclosed and were still using at that time. Several of those accounts were created solely to attack other editors. But, checkuser seems to show now that they're being honest. I'm willing to cautiously support here, with the understanding that any new misstep is going to result in a much more permanent sanction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, copied from his talk page, in response to a suggestion from me to address what previous problems were and how he intends to avoid them:

  What I did in the first place to be blocked - I reverted edits after a clear warning not to and I made edits which were invalid. This is because at the time I didn't know how to edit properly.

  How I will avoid this if I am unblocked - I will avoid this by only making edits which are valid and which are suitable for Wikipedia, and avoid making too many edits at a time unless I need to.

  Hopefully I can be unblocked today, I don't see any reason why I should stay blocked. I followed all terms of the standard offer process for over double the time and I also understand Wikipedia alot better now. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  Probably time for an uninvolved admin (or !voters) to make a decision, I suspect you aren't going to get much more detail without investing significant one-on-one time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• I took a look. I think that this is one of the many situations where there is no real basis in policy for continuing the block, but where we are all hesitant to support an unblock because it appears that the editor will be a time sink for others and is unlikely to contribute useful material. I believe we should consider our foundation policy that "anyone can edit," and apply it in cases like these. If the user continues to behave badly, escalating blocks are appropriate, and will require less administrative time and effort than ongoing appeals and socking -- which are, as a practical matter, the alternative. UninvitedCompany 20:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• (Non admin comment) I don't think I could convince myself to support an unblock. I've seen some very convincing unblock/unban requests in the past. The requestor clearly lays out exactly where they went wrong with humbling self reflection and a strong commitment, with examples, of how they would do better and abide by their restrictions/conditions. ReeceTheHawk's statement, however, is not one of those. It is no better than "Sorry I did some bad things, but I will do good in the future". Personally, I would need to see something that tells me, as a start, "here is what I did wrong, what policy/guideline I would have violated and how it violates the policy, how would I avoid repeating these mistakes, what conditions/restrictions I will commit to". --Blackmane (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• I think we would need to hear a lot more detail from ReeceTheHawk before any unblock. They appear to be under the impression that all they have to do is come back after six months and it will just be given to them, but WP:OFFER says, This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and administrators are not forced to unblock you, especially if you have not provided any reason why you should be unblocked other than your avoidance of Wikipedia for six months. You should still provide a clear reason why you should be unblocked. We haven't seen that.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• I know I'm late to the conversation, and it's probably not my job to state my opinion, but I believe that the user deserves another chance. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Vaidehi Parshurami permission to write an article

Hi, I was about to create an article on her, and doing so I'm getting warning/message saying this page can only be created by administrator, this page was never created I checked the public and deletion log, so can any admin please solve it please --Siddharth 📨 07:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@SidPedian: The title blacklist is preventing creation of this page, you should be able to create a page in your user sandbox and then you can ask someone to move it at WP:RM/TR. Iffy★Chat -- 08:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why is this on the title blacklist? It seems pretty innocuous to me, and there are no contentious AfDs or dramaboard discussions that link to it. Cheers. Reyk _YO! 08:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It matched the string "arshu", presumably because this is one of the many spelling variants of the repeated attempts to create a page for Arshifa Khan. Looks like a false positive to me. SpinningSpark 08:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, the old Scunthorpe problem. Reyk _YO! 08:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd never realised it had a name, learn something new... - and yes, Iffy offers the logical option (probably easier than asking for it to be whitelisted) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is this on the blacklist in the first place? I see that Arshifa Khan has been deleted one time and Arshifa khan four, but five deletions of an apparently harmless article (it's apparently not some attack page) generally isn't enough to blacklist some alternate form of the name that has never been deleted. WP:BLACK makes reference to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshifakhan61/Archive, but the last entry on that page says that apparently this sockmaster's edits are unrelated to this person. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Removed Stifle (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

SQL appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome SQL (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#SQL appointed trainee clerk

Requested edits: add TfD notices to link language wrappers

Done by JJMC89. (non-admin closure) Retro (talk | contribs) 00:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have just nominated these templates for deletion (more accurately replacement) as part of a mass TfD nomination:

• {{Ar icon}}, {{Cs icon}}, {{Da icon}}, {{De icon}}, {{El icon}}, {{En icon}}, {{Es icon}}, {{Fa icon}}, {{Fr icon}}, {{He icon}}, {{Hr icon}}, {{Hu icon}}, {{It icon}}, {{Ja icon}}, {{Ko icon}}, {{La icon}}, {{Nl icon}}, {{No icon}}, {{Pl icon}}, {{Pt icon}}, {{Ro icon}}, {{Ru icon}}, {{Sr icon}}, {{Sv icon}}, {{Tr icon}}, {{Uk icon}}, {{Yi icon}}, {{Zh icon}}

Because these are template-editor protected, I cannot add the standard TfD notice that notifies participants of an ongoing discussion. Could the following TfD notice be added to the top of each template:

{{Template for discussion/dated|action=|page={{subst:PAGENAME}}|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9#Link language wrappers|type=tiny|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}}

Please do not add a newline between the added content and the original template code, because it may break the template-code; if you don't know what I'm talking about, don't handle this request.

(23:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC): I edited the wikiscript above so it doesn't rely on the current date, which is about to change.) Retro (talk | contribs) 22:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions

I created a petition at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to say that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The petition part of the arbitration policy amendment process requires a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The ratification process then begins and requires majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in support.

There is a parallel RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that should not be confused with this one about the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Community sanctions

As a humble editor, I have been blocked by Admin as part of a content dispute (Interaction Timeline). This seems to me a clearcut case of WP:Misuse of administrative tools. Step 1: I have raised the issue with User:Fayenatic london. Step 2:I have raised the issue with an "Independent admin" User talk:Mike Selinker#User:Fayenatic london with no joy. Trying to follow WP:DR it states "The community may also impose general sanctions (known as "Community sanctions") on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard." I know how much you guys love your boomerangs and it will be me hit with more sanctions but I really do think that Admin User:Fayenatic london's actions reflect badly on the office. I have informed User:Fayenatic london hereJorgeLaArdilla (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

From December 2018 to May 2019, JorgeLaArdilla has been moving articles on Arabic-related topics to page names with diacritics. These include the high-profile topics Surah and Hadith. User:HaEr48, user:Mathglot and user:General Ization asked him on his talk page to desist from this practice, and so did I, citing WP:MOSAR#Common transcription which IIRC had been linked in an edit summary by one of the other editors when reverting one of his page moves. MOS:ISLAM#Arabic transliteration has since been pointed out as the relevant guideline.

JorgeLaArdilla did not reply on his talk page, despite his claim at User_talk:Mike_Selinker that "I always have". Moreover, he not only ignored requests to revert his other similar page moves, but he carried on making more such moves. He was therefore coming across not as a humble editor, but as defiant and insolent, choosing to carry on imposing his personal preferences on the encyclopedia rather than to collaborate. I agreed with other editors that his conduct amounted to disruptive editing. As he had been warned by the above editors of possible sanctions, I imposed a short block of 24 hours, intending to alert him to the seriousness of his conduct. To that extent, it appears to have worked, as he is now engaging in discussions, e.g. at Talk:Al-Nas. I explained this to him when challenged on my talk page. (Special:Diff/899626883)

I'm open to trouting (and for that matter, to recall). If I should have referred the above conduct here for an uninvolved admin to impose the sanction, I will brace my cheek for the slap. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

In Dec 2018 User:HaEr48 asked me to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Archive 11#Changing capitalization of sura article - not diacritics which I did. As new requests came into the project the naysayers there did nothing- it became apparant that The Islam Project is Moribund. One Title remained with a spelling mistake for Thirteen Years! before I picked up on it. It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order. There is no consistency within the articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles refers to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic the very second example of which proscribes ("Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi"), but is actually transcribed in the article as Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī! The MOS talk pages of both do not show a consensus but they show the peops actually doing the work hitting the same problems I am facing. You are not presented with consitency of style within each article...crazy reasoning to have consistency accross title pages and no explanation why every other transliteration within the article differs. Then you get an editor fly in who doesnt know his diacritcs from his capitalisations and an Admin who doesnt know his Guidlines from his policies changing edits which no one has opposed close to 6 months- Strewth.I could go on (I'm sure I will have to) JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

RFC Closure review

Dear All,

per this discussion I kindly ask a review, or at least an explanation, because as far as I know, in case the are more Support than Oppose the case should be considered decided according to my experiences...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC))

Hello, KIENGIR is doing lies, he should BANNED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamunno8 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be about this Talk:Cossack Hetmanate#RfC Merge. KIENGIR please see WP:NOTVOTE. MarnetteD|Talk 22:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In the mean time, I've blocked Mamunno8 indefinitely. Multiple accusations of lying without any evidence (here and [51] and [52]), and also damages an article for no good reason [53]. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all. I've learned the catch is not necessarily the number of votes, but the strength of the arguments behind them.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC))

Sysops can customize new Twinkle preference for notifications after speedy deletion

As previously mentioned, Twinkle's CSD feature will soon allow sysops to notify page creators of deletion when the page has not already been tagged. The default behavior will match that of the current system for notifications when tagging, and will replace the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. I'm planning on making this change live next Wednesday (June 5th), but you can customize which criteria receive notifications right now using your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment moved to WT:TW ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Blatant UPE. Final warning given. Please block.

Davidbolthouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Above user has been creating articles at a rapid rate for secondary schools with little or no notability. Also virtually never has independent sources. Seems like a strange request from me, who as one of the coordinators of WP:WPSCH generally defends all school articles, but these are only very marginally schools (less than 50 students, frequently treatment facilities that offer education, etc). User in question never responds to messages and states he is a PR professional on his userpage. John from Idegon (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: he finally responded with the most self-serving garbage I've ever seen. This is pretty darn straightforward. Clear policy violation, final warning given. Especially in light of the only explanation he's offered, I'd say block is unavoidable and as he created yet another article this morning, is absolutely needed to stop ongoing disruption. He can give his side in an unblock request. John from Idegon (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the account indefinitely pending a full disclosure of all paid edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll go through his creations, draftifying the ones that have potential but aren't there yet and nominating the non starters for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Phengly Oeung

Hi,

Phengly Oeung (likely https://www.linkedin.com/in/phengly-oeung-a9212a4b/) has copied several times https://cam-ed.com/about on User:Phengly Oeung/sandbox and Draft:CamEd Business School while never declaring his conflict of interest.

Can someone take action?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale 12:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Desysopping of Od Mishehu

CheckUser evidence has been presented to the Arbitration Committee indicating that Od Mishehu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has disruptively edited Wikipedia while logged out.  The edits appear to be intentional and were detected over a number of occasions.  The Committee has verified that evidence and has been unable to establish a satisfactory or alternative explanation.  The administrator permissions of Od Mishehu are removed under Level II procedures, effective immediately.

• Support: AGK, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, SilkTork, Worm That Turned
• Oppose: Courcelles
• Inactive: Callanecc, Joe Roe

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 16:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Desysopping of Od Mishehu

Later today: Twinkle adding notifications for Speedy Deletions

This is the last time I'll post this here, but later today the new Twinkle feature for notifying users when speedy deleting their page creations (that is, not just when tagging) will go live. Barring any bugs this will likely mean numerous additional notifications we previously did not provide, so please go to your Twinkle preferences to curate the CSD for which you want to notify users of deletion (look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria). Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This should now be live; any comments/questions/bugs can be made at WT:TW. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Putting errors into articles - productive?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should administrators ever deliberately put grammatical errors or spelling mistake into articles? It seems to me that the answer is obviously: no, not under any circumstances. But I know of several administrators who frequently do this. If you think such behaviour benefits Wikipedia, can you explain why? 82.132.241.118 (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Huh? I don't believe I know what you're talking about. Maybe you're mistaken on certain aspects of the Manual of Style. Perhaps this can be put in WP:BJAODN. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

What does the manual of style have to do with spelling and grammar? I will post diffs later on when I have time.82.132.233.35 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Community-banned Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Favonian (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I high dudgeon today; see e.g. 80.106.73.199, recently blocked by resident expert Number 57. Favonian (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I got the feeling it was him. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Weird conclusion. I've certainly never encountered John M Wolfson before, so if they think I am someone they know, they are wrong.82.132.233.35 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, the answer is sometimes "yes"; that's why we have {{sic}} and {{Notatypo}}. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about errors. If those templates apply, it wasn't an error. But I frequently see a group of administrators deliberately putting errors into articles. Should this ever happen? If so, why?82.132.233.35 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @82.132.233.35: Could you please give actual examples instead of vague comments? creffett (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is one: Special:Diff/866187992. How did the encyclopaedia benefit from having "escalator" spelled "escalotor"?82.132.233.35 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is another: Special: Diff/868965217. How did the encyclopaedia benefit from including nonsensical text like "it is fast accessible"?82.132.233.35 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that both of those are tagged "rollback" and have a comment to the effect of "revert sock," it would appear to be a mass revert of sockpuppet edits, and presumably a couple of those reverts undid sock-based grammar fixes. I'd call that an honest mistake and try a little WP:AGF. Also, considering how deeply you seem to have dug to find these...you wouldn't happen to be related to those socks, would you? creffett (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• For misuse of administrative tools and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT, Rama (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama closed

SlitherioFan2016 ban review request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SlitherioFan2016 has requested a review of their community site ban and has asked for it to be posted here. The following is from User talk:SlitherioFan2016#June 2019...

I, SlitherioFan2016, would like to review my site ban.

• I have reviewed every single policy on Wikipedia thoroughly.
• I now completely understand what edit warring is.
• I now completely understand why I got so many blocks.
• I was told to leave Wikipedia and never to create any new accounts and not to edit as an IP for at least 6 to 12 months. I have stayed away from the project for 24 months, and am older and have a better understanding of the project works. I was in 6th grade at the time of my first block, and now I am in 9th grade.
• Please unblock my original account so that I can have another chance to be useful on the English Wikipedia.
• If unblocked, I would stay away from content ratings articles and start off by fixing off JR East fleet totals, such as the removal of 209 series trains on the Chūō-Sōbu Line.
• I really do promise not to edit war ever again. If there are disagreements over editing I would seek dispute resolution instead.
• I have made some useful edits on FANDOM. The FANDOM account I used is called SlitherioFan2016
• I did edit as User:Mali1702 as well as all the other accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of SlitherioFan2016 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SlitherioFan2016.
• I understand that seeking forgiveness is especially difficult for sockpuppeteers because the act of sockpuppetry is perceived as dishonest, even if the sockpuppeteer in question is not inherently malevolent. However, I also understand that sockpuppeteers aren’t necessarily “never” unblocked. Rather, sockpuppeteers are rarely unblocked.
• As I am currently sitebanned I would request that this review be posted to the relevant notice board where possible. --SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

• Oppose. This user appears to be saying the right things, if perhaps not going into specific detail. But we've heard promises like this before from this user, over and over again. See for example, their user page from early 2017. SlitherioFan2016 was banned back in 2017 and immediately engaged in at least two more instances of evasion. Note, though, this was back in 2017. They were always a substantial drain on the project and nothing here convinces me otherwise. Counting in this user's favour is the apparent 24 month period with no evasion (note this hasn't been verified at this time) and the claim they are now in 9th grade. It's not enough for me, but should be considered by others. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – as sockpuppetry is involved, perhaps a CU can advise whether there has been any recent socking or block evasion? Thanks! –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Question. Would it be possible to hear from IAKenny? It was disclosed on-wiki that IAKenny was SlitherioFan2016's real life teacher in a conversation with Tarage, Yamla, and Bbb23. It might be good to get some insight from them as it relates to this request. Side note. Slitherio, why do you want to edit Wikipedia? Can you share what you enjoy about editing besides vandalism? I've watchlisted your talk page if you care to respond. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

   Support. This response seems to be about right for a Wikipedian. Thus, I'm willing to cast a !vote in their favor. It says Yes right now _{pending my edit request.} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm leaning towards support per WP:ROPE pending a CheckUser. He seems to have not done anything malicious or otherwise contra-policy since 2017, and while he might have done such things before if he does it again he can be promptly reblocked. (Also, as an aside, the Fandom edits are irrelevant one way or another.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment SlitherioFan2016 caused a lot of problems for the project and consumed a lot of its time. That said I believe in the philosophy of the standard offer. However, there should first be a check-user and then we can advance with this discussion. If there has been no sock-puppetry then we should discuss how we can facilitate the editor's return, but with a view of avoiding the previous problems. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I find no evidence of socking in the last 90 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm leaning Support too. Yes there was a lot of trouble, but 2 years is a very long time for someone of that age and should bring a significant improvement in maturity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Boing!, it is worth giving them a chance as they are now more mature, and they seem to understand what they did wrong.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per John M Wolfson and Betty Logan. A difference in maturity between a sixth-grader and a ninth-grader is natural and expected. If they prove themselves wrong, they will be re-blocked very quickly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I'm probably going to regret this, but I'll give unblocking a try. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:AGF (with WP:ROPE as a backup :-)). Miniapolis 22:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support – per Boing!, Ivan and PK3. Two years can make a huge difference at a young age. – Levivich 07:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support - The user seems to have matured and in my opinion, they are less likely to be unconstructive than a new user. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support, per WP:ROPE. I'm always willing to give people another chance, due to my past. This person's situation is quite similar to mine. Six months matured me greatly, and I do not deny for one second that two years has greatly matured them, never mind six months. If I'm wrong, they can be re-blocked, but for now. Now since the CheckUser stuff has been cleared up. Give them another chance. You can change greatly in two years. The Duke 14:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support giving them another chance. Two years is a long time. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Users can reform, and this user has went out of their way of show that they deserve another chance. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support They are acting more mature, and the fact there hasn't been any evidence of socking shows me that they are genuine about their request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I do believe indeed that 2 years especially at this age can change someone a lot and the CU check came clean, so if they are willing to be constructive here, why not. I would see a 1 account restriction for a year and a topic ban on content rating systems, indefinite with the right to appeal in six months after the actions are taken. --Kostas20142 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support: A second chance never hurt, per Miniapolis, Levivich, Ivanvector et al. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have been asked to comment by MJL. SlitherioFan2016 is currently a student in Year 9 - roughly equivalent to American 9th grade. I am still tutoring him at his school once a week, having started in February 2017. To the best of my knowledge he has fully obeyed the ban on editing Wikipedia for the last 24 months, including the absolute ban on creating sockpuppets. He is two years older now and is (as you would expect) more mature in his behaviour. He began editing Wikipedia while he was still in our equivalent of elementary school (Year 6 or earlier), but he is now an adolescent. My suggestion would be for him to be allowed to edit with restrictions (on parole?). I enjoy working with him in real life, but I am also aware that his time on Wikipedia has been difficult for you. IAKenny (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  @IAKenny: Thank you for responding! This is incredibly valuable insight, and your work is ever so appreciated. I believe that the unbanning of Slitherio's account comes with the understanding that they will be closely monitored for a while.
  Yamla, I hope this at least partially satisfies your concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Support Two years is a very long time at this age. He is trying to follow the rules; many of us are likely to be keeping an eye on him. --valereee (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jzsj topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would ask that my ban from editing schools articles. from over a year ago, be removed. I do not subscribe to some of the harsher judgments made about me in that case. There was a huge learning curve for me between January and March of 2018, since in my few years of creating articles I had not run into most of the issues raised in those two months. I have a much better understanding of procedures now, and I intend to seek community consensus on any disputed edits, now that I understand what community consensus means. I have created seven articles and made around 4000 edits in the past year, adhering to what I have learned about following established procedures. Jzsj (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• The original TBAN can be found here. There was a short ban for an infringement fairly soon after linked here, which was about a year ago. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Please notice also that this is the first time that I have requested the removal of the ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Jzsj (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment Just a quick skim of his editing from the past few months shows that he has not been abiding by the terms of the TBAN. I would think a broadly-construed ban includes participation in AfD conversations about schools or school-related organizations [54][55][56], but even if you assume his TBAN didn't involve deletion discussions of schools, there's also this, which is a pretty blatant violation. Grandpallama (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd thought that was an overly extensive reading of the TBAN, but I agree the "Mentioning" probably covers it. Although my reading indicates the 1st (which isn't a !vote) and actually evade the prohibition. The other two I'd classify as minor breaches (though they happen right next to each other, which would have been problematic had it been noticecd at the time). His participation in them is at least not problematic (the disagreement on the 3rd I've seen made by non-blocked editors), so he's moving the right direction. I'm currently leaning against it, but am still in a persuadable area - I need to have a check for whether he's learnt to drop the stick (given that the prior TBAN was heavily premised on proposing edit wars as a method of getting his way). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose In March of 2018, I wrote that "Jzsj is a tendentious and tenacious editor and a Catholic priest who is doggedly determined to add promotional content to his pet Catholic high school articles against consensus." And more. I stand by my assessment and see no evidence that he has changed. Only two days ago, he made eight edits to Milošević-Rugova education agreement, a clear violation of his topic ban. Here is the wording: "Jzsj is indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed." That's chutzpah. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - When the primary argument to lift the topic ban is you do not agree with it, that in and of itself is enough to deny it. It's a clear indication of the editor's unwillingness to conform himself to the community's expectations. The further violations especially considering how recent they are in relationship to this request indicate it may be time to talk about simply indeffing him. This is by my count the third unblock request. Perhaps this should instead be a discussion of whether we need him at all. John from Idegon (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that Jzsj received a firm warning on his talk page from Bishonen on March 8, 2019. The heading is "Tendentious editing". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Jzsj: - would you care to explain your multiple editing 2 days ago on an article that (possibly unlike AfDs) is a clear breach of the TBAN, and why no further sanctions should be applied? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Nosebagbear: My whole focus was on the Community of Sant'Egidio article that I'd spent seven days improving with multiple edits, virtually rewriting it, and I was focused on the inter-governmental dispute and Sant'Egidio's arbitration of it. It honestly never occurred ot me that this was a school article, but I don't deny that it's something I missed. I ask that you look at my 4000 edits and seven articles over the past year and see how much my good works outweigh my few, inadvertent slips. Jzsj (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comments. I agree with Cullen, above, that Jzsj is a tendentious and tenacious editor. I supported the original topic ban; indeed, I thought it might be insufficient, and wrote "I'm not sure a topic ban is the best recourse for an editor who despises so many of our guidelines and policies, and seemingly the very character of Wikipedia." And I have indeed warned him since. However, as far as participating in AFD discussions, which Grandpallama mentions above, the banning admin User:Cyberpower678 together with other admins (me, for example) decided on an exception for school articles that Jzsj had himself created. He was allowed to take part in the AfDs for those, as not allowing that seemed inhumane. See this section on his talk. So, if you were talking about AfD's for articles created by him, @Grandpallama: there is an exemption for those.

As for lifting the topic ban, I'm unsure. He writes above about having a "huge learning curve" between January and March of 2018; but, as can be seen, in my warning + discussion from March of this year, I still think him tendentious and tenacious. He has indeed learned to answer mildly and concede wrongdoing; but nevertheless he was still, in March 2019, not long ago at all, editing tendentiously in favour of Jesuits and the Catholic Church. And, of all things, obfuscating sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. (That has not AFAIK happened again after my warning; if it had, I would have either indeffed or taken him to this board for a topic ban on the Catholic Church broadly construed.) It doesn't look to me like the learning curve has gone far enough. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of @The Banner: concerning lifting the topic ban. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thanks for the clarification; I hadn't thought to read through the talkpage to see if an exception existed. That doesn't account for the occasional direct editing of articles, of course. Minor breaches, maybe, as Nosebagbear stated, but less minor for someone who'd already been blocked once previously for violating the ban. Grandpallama (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

TheBanner proposed for deletion 74 of the articles that I created, that editors have succeeded in preserving. (And I've explained on my talk page how I got into creating articles on development centers with insufficient notability: I thought that their being reviewed without tags meant that they suited Wikipedia's criteria.) Is pinging TheBanner not canvassing? I may not ping those who have been more supportive of my work. Jzsj (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I'm unsure about lifting the topic ban; I have neither opposed nor supported your appeal yet. I've seen The Banner so much on your page that I thought pinging them might help me make up my mind. But you may be right that there's a whiff of canvassing there. I apologise. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC).

Do not worry, Bishonen. I have this page on my watchlist and I had already seen this discussion before you pinged. The Banner talk 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

And just responses like this make clear why lifting the ban is not a good idea. The Banner talk 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Jzsj, you have to thank Wikiproject Schools for most of those keeps, as they reject the very idea of deleting a school article. So a lot of them were not kept on their merits! Without their efforts, I would have nominated far more of your spam-articles. The Banner talk 07:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are misleading people. Even apart from the school project articles you proposed for deletion, 65 other articles which I created and you proposed for deletion were kept, with about a dozen proposed for merging into university articles. Well over 50 editors voted to not delete in one or more of these cases. I haven't counted all those from "Wikiproject Schools" who voted to retain almost all of those articles.Jzsj (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj, please. Do you really think this is going to help you get rid of your topic ban? Even after a narrowing was already rejected? Seeing all the Jesuit-spam you added to so many articles, a widening of the topic ban would be a better idea. The Banner talk 09:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Okay, his last block for breaking the Tban was last august. But still it were three (3) blocks. And all of them were "slip ups", according to Jzsj. I do not believe that. He is too often skirting the ban, for example with Milošević-Rugova education agreement. I have no confidence that lifting the ban will improve Wikipedia and its workings. The Banner talk 20:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"Skirting"? He is topic banned from education broadly construed, and the article has education in the title. Those eight edits look like a clear-cut violation to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you really believe that I'm so stupid that I'd appeal for removal of the schools ban when I am aware of having violated it a few days before? Is there nothing else in the past six months that you can point to? I did learn from the Bishonen exchange, but we won't know whether Bishop Pell has been unjustly defamed for life until the appeal hearing is over at the end of this week. Jzsj (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I was more referring to articles about people who were once working in education, professors and the like. The Banner talk 07:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I'd endorse a topic ban on Catholicism broadly construed, that Bishonen mentioned considering above. However, that would, practically speaking, be the equivalent of an indeff, as I cannot find a single edit anywhere Jzsj has made that doesn't relate to Catholicism in some way. Let me say this: just as we frequently end up having to indeff editors who focus on fringe theories, we are going to have to at some point consider that for Jzsj. Not that Catholicism is a "fringe" theory by any means, but, as a Catholic priest, he simply cannot separate his beliefs from his encyclopedia editing. And BTW, pinging those involved in prior discussions on this editor is expressly not canvassing. Although they probably all should be, especially the one single editor that supported him. I'm going to think on this for a few days, but I honestly think that we've surpassed the end of the rope with this editor. Unless I see a reason to sway me or someone beats me to it, I'll likely move formally for an indeff on Friday. John from Idegon (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As I review the whole history of our interchanges from January to March 9, 2018, I agree that I was very slow in realizing that while interpretation of policy and guidelines was being discussed, I missed the point that content issues are resolved by consensus, which to the uneducated editor would be better described as a nose count of informed editors. To make that clear early in any discussion would be a great saving of your time: very general references to MOS without sectioning just causes doubt. I have not run into much dispute in my 4000 edits since the ban, so I see no justification of extending the ban: so just let it ride. I mainly wanted to restore to universities some well-documented facts about their service programs, that are often integral to their academic curriculum and integrated into courses. These references were almost all lost when the university service programs were deemed not notable enough for a separate article and the conclusion was merge. The merges seldom happened. It's not clear what you mean by "the one single editor that supported him". I had support from The Gnome, Alansohn, Lionel, Billhpike, Zfish118, Clean Copy, Mannanan51, ... and over 90% of the material opposing me was coming from five editors: Meters, The Banner, 32.218.42.122, John from Idegon, and Cullen328. As to my focusing entirely on Catholicism, I've often worked on articles about people or organizations I admire, with no reference to Catholicism. And I'd welcome your checking out the 65 times I've responded to requests for comment in the past year. I hope you'll take that into consideration. Also, in thousands of copy edits I made in the past year, I did not try to impose any point of view on the articles and have only encountered a couple conflicts, which I handled in a respectful way. Jzsj (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, and now you start again with counting noses and revisiting already made community decisions. With the same disruptive results as before. The Banner talk 22:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose As has been pointed out, immediately before opening this topic ban review the user violated his topic ban on Milošević-Rugova education agreement. There is no question that edits to an article about centralized education in Serbia and the handling of disputes over education curricula and financing are blatant violations of the topic ban "indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed." The statement by Jzsj that this is the his first attempt to remove the topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard seems disingenous. As I said in one of the previous topic ban reviews (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive300#Request narrowing of ban) "I am not confident that loosening of the topic ban would not result in resumed disruption." Meters (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please, one of the things that caused me to lose trust in you and the few others that were consistently opposing me is that you had to mislead at times to make your point. There is no time prior to this that I tried to have the ban removed. The request you cite was to have the ban narrowed to only high schools, since that was the area of offense being discussed. Jzsj (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please, yourself. This is about you, not us. I don't appreciate the accusation that I intentionally mislead, or that I consistently oppose you. I didn't say that you had attempted to get your ban overturned before. I didn't link to all previous actions on this topic ban, but the thread I referred to, I did ink to and called a review. I simply said that it seemed disingenuous of you to state that this was the first time you had attempted to get your ban overturned on this page. By that I meant it was disingenuous for you to have done so without mentioning your previous actions on this topic ban on other pages.You left the impression that this is the first time you have attempted to appeal this topic ban, whereas an open appeal would have mentioned and linked to all of your previous actions on this. Don't you think it germane that you previously attempted to get the scope of the topic ban loosened with a result of "Strong consensus against any modification of the topic ban" when you are now attempting to get your topic ban removed completely?

Sorry, but I see this as more of the disruptive, argumentative behaviour that got you topic banned in the first place. Even in opening this appeal you still didn't accept that what you had done was a problem. I called the discussions related to your threads at Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School/Archive 2 "probably the single largest time suck I've been involved in at Wikipedia" and nothing in this appeal convinces me in the least that removing your topic ban won't result in resumed disruption. Meters (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj, I am going to assume you group me in that group with Meters of editors you "distrust". The point you are missing is that the community endorsed our position, not yours. So, therefore, that too is an indication that you do not have the temperament to successfully edit in this collaborative environment. Your viewpoint is incorrect, and the community has told you so. You can either make some indication that you accept that, or you can expect that you'll not be here to worry about it much longer. Making enemy lists is strongly discouraged here. You know, I do admire your devotion to your church. But here is something to think about: If a man that ran a Chevy dealership came here, and made edits about subjects related to General Motors like you make to subjects related to Catholicism, we would have banned him several years ago as a promotional account. You've been given a whole lot of WP:ROPE. I think it may be about to snap. John from Idegon (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have carefully responded to the misleading charges in this section and I truly have corresponded to all Wiki policies and guidelines in the past 6 months, with only a few inadvertent slips. If you care to bring up some of these cases where you find me simply advertising rather than documenting according to Wiki policies in the past six months (as I get progressively more sophisticated in this editing business) then please point out to me so I can learn from you. Jzsj (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please, do explain how editing an article with "education" in the title while banned from editing about "education" is "inadvertent". -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you find incredible about my answers to this above, I assure you they are the truth. What more can I say? Jzsj (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything else aside, the clear violation of your topic ban is a blockable offence and sufficient for me not to agree to remove the topic ban. As user:Cullen328 said, it takes chutzpah to violate your topic ban on Milošević-Rugova education agreement and then ask us to remove the topic ban. I cannot believe that you were unaware of the violation when your very next non-userspace edit was to inquire about lifting your topic ban. Meters (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting TBAN. Propose CBAN. Per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#Pre-_and_post-nominals_discussion_needs_reopening, TOPIC BANNED: Jzsj (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed.

Yet on 1 June 2019 Jzsj makes a series on edits to Milošević-Rugova education agreement, and two day later — on 3 June 2019 — requests a lifting of the TBAN he has just violated.

That flagrant breach of the ban indicates either:

1. disregard of clear conditions imposed by the community
2. a severe lack of competence in comprehending plain English (see WP:CIR)

Either way, this editor is not to be trusted. And I don't see any evidence that this POV-pushing editor is anything other than a severe negative to the encyclopedia. Enough is enough: time for a WP:CBAN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no warm feelings for Jzsj. The way he is acting is costing too much time and too many headaches. Still I will plead against a community ban as that looks too harsh to me. To stay in Jzsj's remit: The Lord is about seeing the Light. I hope the Lord will send him an email to advice him to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia and stop spamming and obstructing. And see the Light.

Instead of the community ban I plead for another harsh treatment: a topic ban, widely construed, for education and Jesuits plus a mentor to train him. And no right to appeal this within 3-5 years. The Banner talk 13:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Banner: I agree with a lot of that, but he already has a topic ban, and hasn't exactly been abiding by it. If your solution is to be implemented, it must be very strictly enforced, with immediate and escalating blocks for any violations whatsoever. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you prefer to judge me to be lying when I say that my editing of the article on the arbitration agreement was completely inadvertent and my only violation of the ban in the past six months. If my edits there resembled the issues that got me in trouble then I would have most certainly noticed that this article was under the ban. And among 4000 edits in the last six months, is this one oversight so difficult to understand? And is it likely that I would do this knowingly right before requesting the lifting of my topic ban? You can decide to not believe me if you wish, but I insist that my whole focus in the edit was on the arbitration being carried out by the Community of Sant'Egidio, which had gained a worldwide reputation for its arbitrating ability, and whose article I had just spent a long time improving. I skipped scores of articles on schools as I copy edited hundreds of article over the past six months, and also gave constructive responses to 65 requests for comment. There was no reason for me to risk anything for this one addition to the Sant'Egidio story. Jzsj (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You had 42 "oversights" here. en now again we must believe that it was just an oversight? Nope, at least no from my side. The Banner talk 18:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting that admitted single slip of over a year ago, where others were willing to accept my explanation. Jzsj (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting TBAN per the very recent violation observed by Cullen. No comment on site ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the only violation of the ban in the past six months, and the one I just explained right above. Jzsj (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It's still a violation. Do you understand what a topic BAN means? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per all. -GeniusWorkbench4622 19:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

CBAN

There is a clear consensus that we not lift the TBAN, and it has been proposed that a CBAN be issued for continuing WP:TEND as clearly illustrated by Jzsj's behavior in this very thread and his continued boundary pushing as mentioned by Cullen.

• Support - there has been very little useful content added by this editor anywhere. Most of his editing has been strictly to promote the Catholic church or some facet of it. The value of his contributions is clearly exceeded by his argumentative, disruptive behavior, and despite having it pointed out to him for the Nth time here, continuing in this very thread. John from Idegon (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't find anything here or at CBAN that says what you are proposing. Is it a total ban from Wikipedia editing into the indefinite future or not? Why don't you specify? Jzsj (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - please cite where "in this very thread" I have been disruptive and argumentative, or where Cullen said this of my behavior "in this very thread". I have merely tried to point out inaccuracies in statements, and explain the truth of my own behavior, where I find others gratuitously denying the truth. Jzsj (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And that is exactly the damn problem. You are right and everyone else is wrong. I used the wrong word. I forgot that I am dealing with Jesus II. You didn't skirt it you blatently and intentionally broke it. HERE! John from Idegon (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The fact is that I take all correction seriously, and have changed my practice in accord with all I've learned. Here I ask you to show where "in this thread" (as you say just above) I have done otherwise, and you change the topic. It's difficult to hold you to truth-saying, given the unqualified support you get from some editors. I explained above this one slip in the past six months, and that if I did it deliberately I would not have opened this appeal a few days later. I can only repeat that I regret this slip in the 4000 edits in the past six months. In view of it I would ask the community to just forget about my request here and recognize my continued efforts to comply with the ban and with the good editing that has characterized my past six months, including the seven articles I created properly. Jzsj (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I showed you what you asked. I'm sorry, but your explanation does not hold water. How can you not know the subject of an article you are editing? And if you truly do not, then I'm sorry, WP:CIR applies, and you should still be CBANned for that. John from Idegon (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I can do no more than keep repeating the truth, that I was focused on "Milošević-Rugova educational agreement" and, unlike my other 4000 edits in the past 6 months, it failed to occur to me that this agreement was in the schools area that I was benned from discussing. My interest in the article concerned only the role of Sant'Egidio in mediating the agreement, which was my one addition. I copy edited and completed citations in the article while I was there, but I, like you, wonder at this one slip in 6 months, that it never occurred to me that this was a schools article. Jzsj (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per John_from_Idegon. -GeniusWorkbench4622 16:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I wanted to give him one last chance but he slammed the door about that. Enough so. The Banner talk 16:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Enough doubt, I go for the extended topic ban again. The Banner talk 20:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Perhaps the user could have responded to some of you a bit better, but a community ban is an overreaction and a bit unfair. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I do my absolute best to stay out of discussions that intersect with Catholicism, which is the content area I have traditionally edited, and a discussion of the behaviour of a self-disclosed Jesuit certainly falls in that. At the same time, whatever Jzsj’s problems are on this project, he certainly has not risen to the level of a CBAN. He honestly wishes to improve our coverage of things he cares about and generally speaking tries to work within our sometimes arcane policies and guidelines. A CBAN is not appropriate in this case when other remedies will do. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see any need to escalate this to a full community ban, especially not related to behaviour during a TBAN discussion at WP:AN which can stress the best of us. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I have disagreed with this editor quite forcefully at times and it is clear the the current topic ban will remain and be enforced. But I believe that the editor has made many useful contributions outside schools and education, so a community ban is not called for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: At this time, I do not believe this to be a proportionate measure, given the circumstances, as stated by Boing! said Zebedee. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

permissions requirements no longer met

Hello!

Since I have been inactive for quite a lot, I have been removed from the arbitation commitee clerks. That being said, I do no longer have the requirements or the demonstrated need for the templateeditor flag. Therefore you may remove the flag. Should I join the clerks team again, I can file a new application.

Best regards, Kostas20142 (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright revdels backlog

Resolved

Could we have some admin eyes on Category:Requested RD1 redactions please? Currently 36 open requests, some days old. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I believe that part of the problem is that our policies on proper handling of copyvio revels are unclear and inconsistent. Apparently, we're now doing revdels routinely for copyvios, but not all pages reflect that; there is a problem with attribution of the lost edits that is difficult to solve. I've looked through the backlog and many of these are complex requests where it is unclear exactly what should be done. UninvitedCompany 16:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've done a number of them, there are still about a dozen left. Some of them are especially complex or large, such as The Hot Zone (miniseries) where most of the article's history would be deleted all to hide a relatively short synopsis, or Tejaswini Ananth Kumar, where there already have been several revdels, and where I don't believe the revision ids provided in the template are correct. ST47 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Currently back to normal.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Paid editing

Hey, fellow admins,

I was looking at the WikiConference website to see if there was any information about the 2019 event (there isn't) and saw a user page plugging a paid editing website, https://wikipagecreator.org/, that looks pretty professional and makes bold promises, like articles about their clients will never be deleted! I had an idea that these services existed but I had never seen a company devoted to placing customer's profiles on Wikipedia.

I think I know the answer to this but is there anything we, or WMF, can do about this? It is just so, uh, blatant and unapologetic. I thought of paid editing as being done by a lot of freelancers, not a company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Judging from the "from common to famously known" tagline, it's yet another name for Get Wikified (and looks very similar to the known wikipagecreator.net). creffett (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I realize now that there is nothing that admins and editors can do about this. It just challenged my perception of paid editing which was freelance writers making a few bucks by writing a few articles for random clients. Having at least one company solely devoted to getting their clients' profiles placed on Wikipedia was startling to me, but I guess this is just the shape of paid editing nowadays. Do you think we could write them and get a clients' list to check out the quality of their work? One can dream! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing that. Make sure that they log into their accounts and prove that they actually wrote the articles they claimed. It is likely that they are using freelancers to write and/or post the content and that GetWikified is merely a front door. I also find the claims about multilingual spam to be interesting given Adam Kamani and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu. MER-C 14:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: You should look at WP:PAIDLIST if you want your mind completely blown. (Non-administrator comment) ☆ Bri (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What I found most concerning from a brief look was their FAQ (second last on the page ATM) that claims the Fifth Pillar amounts to a “loophole” in the WMF’s ToU.—Odysseus1479 20:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:SPI cases awaiting administration

53 cases currently listed here, including some that have been there for weeks. Please can uninvolved admins review? GiantSnowman 15:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

56 now :) GiantSnowman 09:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Working on it... GAB^gab 23:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Appreciated, but still at 56... GiantSnowman 12:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A few of us worked on it all afternoon and got it down to ... 50. Progress! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I got it down to 41. I'll take a minute to go off on my soapbox about needing more patrolling admins at SPI to assist in conducting investigations and taking administrative action as needed. The CU completed section is chronically backlogged and could really use some admin hand even if just to say not strong enough evidence and they haven't edited in a month. Re-report if it starts again and things become clearer. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There are editors (like me) who would gladly prefer to help out, rather than just report. If I thought it all possible to be approved a CU without being a sysop, I would ask. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess I didn't read that close enough. The problem is lack of admins? Only one way to fix that. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

There are several problems, but a chronic shortage of consistently willing admins is part of it. SPI has a high burnout rate, you kind of deal with the worst of Wikipedia constantly. That said, applications are accepted for non-admin clerks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

OTRS request

Could someone who is active in SPI and an OTRS agent take a look at: ticket:2019061010006591

Based upon this WP:SPI, it appears they should also be a CUS Philbrick(Talk) 15:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, would you be best transferring the ticket to checkuser-en-wp? It could be transferred back afterwards. AGK ■ 17:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

AGK, Good idea  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A request to see deleted edits of files

• I have received a request by a non-admin, to see deleted edits of 13 files, at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Can you help?. The piece of Chinese text in it (已刪除版本和已刪除的內容) Google-translates as "Deleted version and deleted content". What should I do? Is this request legitimate? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Anthony Appleyard: perhaps there is a compounding language barrier here? None of those appear to be links to files at all, just pages. As far as the deleted page versions go, I'd decline this massive fishing expedition without some good reasons from the requester. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux: Sorry, by "file" I meant "page" :: word usage persistence from older computers. I will ask him what he needs this information for. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Back in January, MCC214 filed some an WP:SPI against 0格格不入 (see the bottom section of User talk:0格格不入 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthingsgo/Archive), and most of the others appear to have some sort of sockpuppetry connection. Note that NumCinq, ET4Eva, Advogato4, and 格格不入 were included in the same filing, and CometQ and Advo2 appear on the same page in earlier investigations. (All of these accounts' userspaces are linked in the list of pages.) I suspect that MCC214 is trying to prove sockpuppetry by someone. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A non-admin wants to see deleted edits

• Please see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Can you help? and advise me and User:MCC214 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: I've combined this with the section you already opened here, see responses above. If they want a SPI, send them to WP:SPI where admins can investigate. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Nyttend and Xaosflux: Thanks. I and User:MCC214 seem to be having difficulty in understanding each other because of his apparent imperfect command of the English language, including of computer-related words. Examining some of his edits seems to show that his own language seems to be Chinese. If so, are there any administrators here who know Chinese well and can continue discussion with User:MCC214 in his own language? :: see "perhaps there is a compounding language barrier here" above. (I sympathize with User:MCC214 ; I have experiences of being in countries where I did not know the language well.) (Link to MCC214's contributions list). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to go through them later when I have more time, but it looks like a request that could be fulfilled to an extent. Some of the deleted pages are just corporate spam, makes sense to know what that was to determine a paid editor's employer; at least one account has no deleted edits; and at least one really has nothing useful in the deleted contributions that I would want to share, but there's no more information there than you'd find in the username itself. Yeah, I'll take a deeper look later. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Page move system jam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=900928021 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Since we're only able to move up to 100 subpages, I suspect the system sees 145 subpages and doesn't know which ones to move. I've left a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Mass_page_move; hopefully someone can move some or all of the subpages individually, and then the rest of the work will be easy. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Done by GreenC. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to Oversight team

The committee has been notified that GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) anticipates a period of inactivity. Accordingly, their Oversight permissions are removed. The committee sincerely thanks GB fan for their service.

Support: Callanecc, Courcelles, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned

Oppose: None

Not voting: AGK, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 13:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to Oversight team

Portal namespace deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure how many editors have noticed but the portal namespace is been reduced by 80% percent since the mass creation of portals incident and there subsequent deletion with a strong effort to eliminate all portals that seems to be going well with little participation over at the deletion noticeboard. At this point I think its clear that portal namespace has failed. I agree that there was a recent RfC about retaining them ....but the effort to update them has not happened with a few editors having a field day deleting portals with zero attempt at fixing problems... that has reduced the namespace to fewer then 1000 portals for 5000+ (that all agree was to much...but no call for mass deletion of non automated portals). I am sure many are aware I am not a fan of deletion over improvement when possible (lazy way out in my view)..but.... since no one is caring at large about thousands of portals deleted in the past few months ....I am proposing again to drop the portal namespace since we have no system in place to notify the community when portals are outdated as we do with ever other namespace (like a page banner-tag) and the fact we cant get far if they are being deleted faster then the community can fix them up....clear not many care anymore!!! --Moxy 🍁 15:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy that the lack of any monitoring of portals is a huge problem. As Moxy rightly notes, there has never been any systematic monitoring of quality of portals, nor any way of tagging those which are deficient. Sadly, WikiProject Portals has been more interested in quantity than in quality.

However, the figures which Moxy cites are misleading unless read in context. Here's some numbers:

• Number of portals before the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC: 1500
• Number of portals when TTH's portalspamming was halted: 5705
• Number of portals now: 1018

So we are actually down about 30% from the pre-portalspam total.

So what's actually happened is that a wave of deletions, including the two mass deletions (one, and two) removed nearly all the deprecated automated portals.

Once portals were being scrutinised, I and a number of other editors have continued the scrutiny, and have MFDed many other portals which failed the portal guidelines because they were abandoned, broken, too narrow a scope, etc. This is catching up on backlog of 14 years of neglect, and even now we are still finding portals abandoned in a pitiful state since before 2010, e.g. MFD:Portal:College basketball.

There are currently about 100 portals being discussed at MFD, and I expect that there are probably about another 100 portals which will be deleted in this cleanup phase. That will leave us with about 750–850 portals.

Some of those are highly maintained and do quite a good job. Most are mediocre, exceeding the bare minimums set out in the guidleines, but add little value for readers.

The big issue is that two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that head articles and navboxes now offer most the functionality which portals set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Dhaka, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Dhaka, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. Most existing portals use an outmoded format which displays a preview of the lead of selected articles under a few headings, and an image gallery. These are now redundant, since both previews and image galleries are built into every page.

They are also a maintenance nightmare, because they are built from swarms of sub-pages, each consisting of a content forks of the lead of a selected article. These become outdated (most are now a decade old), and are attack vectors. They need to go.

The question is whether there is a) consensus on a new format for portals which does actually add value for readers, and b) editors with the energy and commitment to build and maintain those portals.

I think that we already have the model for a new format, in the shape of those adapted by Bermicourt from the German-language Wikipedia. They are what one editor recently described as mega-navboxes: e.g. Portal:Harz Mountains and Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. They don't need the forest of sub-pages, and they don't waste time offering previews, because the Wikimedia software now does that already.

That's only my personal preference, but I have so far seen no other proposal which would make portals useful in the face of the new technologies.

We need an RFC to decide what new format to adopt, and then probably another RFC to decide what to do with the hundreds of old-style portals.

But whatever is decided for the future, the removal of hundreds of abandoned or misconceived portals will make the path ahead clearer. One of the perennial problems with portals has been that the number of editors willing to create portals has way exceeded the number of editors willing to do the hard work of building them into something which genuinely adds value for readers, and way exceeded the number of editors committed to maintaining the portals on an ongoing basis.

The Jan–Feb 2019 data on portal pageviews shows that only 52 portals get more than 100 pageviews per day, and only 150 portals get over 50 views.

I think the way ahead is to concentrate efforts on fewer, better portals. So I would support a radical cull ... but I would oppose outright deletion of all portals. That all-or-nothing binary thinking was rejected last year, and it would be folly to delete the portals which get hundreds of pageviews per day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone please explain to me the intended purpose of portals and how they relate to the "outline of ..."/"index of ..." pages that we have for various things. I've never figured it out.

An aside:One of the perennial problems with portals has been that the number of editors willing to create portals has way exceeded the number of editors willing to do the hard work of building them into something which genuinely adds value for readers, and way exceeded the number of editors committed to maintaining the portals on an ongoing basis The same can be said of the majority of stub creations, notably for villages and schools, unless we are intending to be a basic gazetteer. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: I agree about that sort of stub raising similar issues. However, the difference with stubs is that they are actual encyclopedic content, and most of them are capable of expansion into meaningful articles. I think that the bar for stubs is set too low, so that too many of them are simply standalone list entries. We haven't entirely shaken off the heady optimism of the late 2000s expansionist era, when it seemed that any topic would eventually be built on. The reality now is that we have a large collection of permastubs, and some sort of rethink is long overdue. For example, most articles on Irish townlands have been merged to lists, and I would favour a similar approach being more widely adopted.

Portals are a different issue, because they are not content. The are a navigational device and/or a showcase for content, so the case for retention is utilitarian: if they aren't doing that job, we shouldn't waste readers's time with them. They should either be deleted (as we do with superfluous categories or navboxes), or mothballed: unlinked from articles etc, and marked as historical unless and until someone revives them.

I too am unclear on the distinction between portals, outlines and index-ofs. My overall impression is that most portals exist because some editors like making them, rather than because they meet any particular need or add any significant value. Most of them are products of that optimistic era of expansionism, when there was an implicit assumption that any page on anything would eventually attract editors to expand it ... but insofar as there was a purpose, the idea seems to have been that a) portals were a magazine-type way of allowing readers to sample sub-topics in a given field, and b) that they provided some sort of bridge between reading and editing, by indicating areas where work was needed.

In practice, neither role has been served well. The magazine-type approach requires huge amounts of ongoing effort, and while that works reasonably well on the main page, the large active teams working there have been replicated on v few — if any — portals. The result is that most portals are just outdated magazine covers. And I have yet to see any evidence that the theoretical bridge between reading and editing works in practice; even the pages which try to provide it have too few pageviews to make much impact.

The mega-navbox style portals such as Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern do have a lot of similarities to outlines and indexes, both of which are unloved and little used. I think that all of them function best when used at v high levels, on topic areas spanning tens of of thousands of articles ... but I am unpersuaded that more than a few of them add enough value to enough readers to justify the work involved in crating and maintaining them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support, although I think this needs broader discussion. It's about time we euthanize the portal namespace, which I'm starting to feel is the Esperanza of our times (there are certain parallels; potentially good ideas, initial RFCs/MFDs that resulted in keep/no consensus and spurred on reform that was half-hearted and in portals' case might have actually done more harm than good, and nominal guidelines that neither community actually respected, although portals didn't have bureaucracy). In the ~10-12 years I've read Wikipedia (although my current account is only a year old) I've never once looked at a portal except in light of the controversy. I thought it was just a preference of mine but it appears I'm not the only one. Per WP:PRESERVE, and to preempt a potential pro-portal argument, I say we delete the namespace and move all existing portals from "Portal:X" to "Wikipedia:Portal X" and protect them if the community feels like it's not that much a waste. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The fact that a) there was an ill-conceived portal-creation spree and b) there are unmaintained portals out there is no more reason to delete portal space than mainspace, which suffers from similar problems i.e. mass creation of useless stubs, poor maintenance of thousands of articles and many with low viewing numbers. As the community voted recently against deleting all portals, what is needed is consensus on the role of portals and then standards to be achieved. BHG and I have tried to get this going, but we've just swung from portalmania to anti-portalmania, neither of which is a responsible approach to managing an encyclopaedia. So I agree with a lot of BrownHairedGirl's comments, although I probably wouldn't go quite as far in some ways; nevertheless I think there is a consensus to be had if editors don't swing towards the extremes. And that would bring benefit to Wikipedia with portals being used both as navigational aids alongside categories and as tools to assist projects in achieving coverage, balance and article improvement in their topic areas. Bermicourt (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Can we not have proposals that require community comment at WP:AN unless administrative action is required? If this is really a subject we want to get into again, WP:VPPRO is -> that way. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per John M Wolfson. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note regarding WP:SO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have received several emails from blocked sockpuppeteer Zenkaino lovelive regarding him being blocked for sockpuppetry. They were mainly regarding WP:SO and shortening the period to 2-3 months instead of 6 months.

• The first email from Zenkaino: "Dear SlitherioFan2016, I'm Zenkaino lovelive. Congraturations for your unblock! I'm blocked indefinitely because of abusing multiple accounts, but this block is occured beacuse of someone's misjudgement. I didn't use sockpuppet at all. ABOChannel is my sister's account. The block is misjudgement. What is the best way that I can do?"
• My response on Zenkaino's talk page: [57]
• Early this morning Zenkaino sent me another email: "I'm keeping waiting, but I have a question. Is it true that WP:SO is poisonous for unfairly-blocked users by misjudgement? We'll have to change SO's term from 6 months to 2-3 months. (by discussion) Because it's poisonous for unfairly-blocked users. If you want to respond, please do through e-mail, not talk page."

Zenkaino's last email prompted me to open this thread here, as I do not want to disclose my email address my responding via email. — SlitherioFan2016 (^Talk/_Contribs) 23:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• CheckUser confirms block evasion after the SPI. As this is a CheckUser block, it may only be lifted with the consent of a CheckUser. Since there is technical evidence confirming block evasion after the block, I cannot support this in my capacity as a CU. If they wish to appeal, they should contact the Arbitration Committee. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I'm not an admin, but I might be able to help. First of all, thanks for bringing this here! Second, from a cursory glance of their talk page, if their claim is truthful (that they haven't socked) then they've engaged in meatpuppetry, which is also very bad (and according to Tony, whom I just edit-conflicted with, that isn't truthful, which would limit the possibility of a successful appeal at this time to exactly zero). Third, I'm not sure what they mean by "poisonous for unfairly-blocked users by punishment"- my guess would be that it's unfair to not be able to appeal for six months when the block deserved a trial (?), but as I'm not sure, I have no comment on that part. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I went to pull the user's email access and found it's been disabled since April. checkuser needed can you fine folk have a look and see what account's being used to email SlitherioFan and shut it down? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, there were no additional accounts on two of the very sticky IPs. There was logged out block evasion, however. SlitherioFan2016, if you want to forward the email to checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org I can look further. Having a named account they are emailing from would be helpful if it was not their own. If they're doing it on another project from their main account, we can request the account locked if it is becoming disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Zenkaino was using his main account, Zenkaino lovelive, in both instances to email me. I don't see the need to forward it. SlitherioFan2016 (^Talk/_Contribs) 23:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Well then they're doing it from another wiki. @Ajraddatz: if you're around, could you lock? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, done. At first I was going to decline because they have 2,500 contributions on kowiki and are not unblocked, but then I looked and found that all but 1 (!!!) were in the user or user talk space. Abusing the emailuser function from other projects is enough justification for this given the circumstances. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel its warranted to note that Zenkaino was active in the Discord server and repeatedly asked for guidance on how to get unblocked. The response was to wait out his 6 month SO (Octoberish? Last I recall). The topic was brought up repeatedly until he had to be warned (May 12) that bringing it up further would lead to his removal (after which he disappeared). It is my understanding that he came to Discord because he had already been banned from IRC due to similar repeated inquiries. I know offwiki doesn't have much bearing, but the pestering and seeking out every avenue possible is a reoccurring behavior. Sock accounts may need email disabled? -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tonybins reverts text with NOR in the article Oleksiy Poroshenko

Moved to Talk:Oleksiy Poroshenko (diff)

User:DoNotArchiveUntil 11:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram banned by WMF office

Moved to WP:FRAM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cross-post for those who haven't seen yet: Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Holy shit, what? That’s insane. It appears that their admin rights have also been removed... can only wmf restore the rights, or will fram have to go through an rfa?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 18:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Neither; this is a WP:OFFICE action so we can't overturn it. Per my comments at the main thread, I can't even imagine the circumstances in which this is legitimate, since if it were genuinely something so problematic he needed to be banned instantly without discussion, it would be something warranting a global rather than a local ban, and permanent rather than time-limited. ‑ Iridescent 19:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• ?!?!?!?! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• It might be useful for people not to comment here, but instead to comment at the original BN post. GiantSnowman 19:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion has now been moved to Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:WMFOffice - Ban Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi folks, I'd like to propose that this account, WMFOffice (talk · contribs), be banned and indefinitely blocked. Whoever is in control of this account has demonstrated, on numerous occasions, unwillingness to communicate transparently as well as poor attitude/behavior incompatible with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. As for diffs, I simply point readers to this discussion: Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. I imagine a ban like this is symbolic in nature, but it may have the added effect of forcing the WMF staff responsible for this fiasco to either a) start using their role accounts instead of socking through User:WMFOffice, or b) identify so we know who we can contact with complaints/inquiries. -FASTILY 08:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Symbolic support- this is unlikely to go anywhere, but what the WMF is doing is furtive and sneaky, and there's few other ways for the community to express our lack of faith in them. Reyk _YO! 08:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Symbolic or not, everything that has been done thus far would lead any rational person to believe that the account was compromised. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would also suggest any ban include a deop. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - for gross negligence and incompetence, unaccountability and lack of transparency, disregard for the community, conduct unbecoming a humanitarian nonprofit organization, for suspected corruption, and for directly damaging both the project and the community. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - for breaching WP:WHEEL if nothing else. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Not here to build an encyclopedia. --Pudeo (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per SchroCat and Pudeo. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I'd thought about this yesterday, and I voiced that I'd support any community based sanction up to and including a CBAN. I agree that this is likely symbolic, but I don't see any policy that says we can't. The rest is per Swarm, and from a policy perspective WP:WHEEL. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't get me wrong, on this occasion I think their actions were breathtakingly clueless, but there are sometimes legitimate reasons why an action needs to be taken anonymously (some of the people against whom the WMF takes action genuinely are violent criminals). ‑ Iridescent 08:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  xaosflux technical question: would an account with the staff userright be prevented from actions by a local block? –xeno^talk 13:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Xeno: actions that are checked by the "are you blocked" type checks (such as editing) should be, however keep in mind that "staff" global group, just like stewards, retain the "unblockself" right that administrators used to have - so they can always just unblock themselves. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm fairly certain Fram is not a violent criminal. And I'm fairly sure the smart people over in San Francisco (who are being paid top dollar) can engineer an alternative solution that doesn't piss off 95% of the project in one go. -FASTILY 08:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Iridescent, with all due respect (and I mean that), that really is irrelevant here. It's not sufficient to simply say, as you did in your first comment on this controversy "What the hell? There had better be a damn good explanation", but expressing your dismay without backing it up with action of some sort is simple a futile gesture. The range of actions open to us is very slim, and this is one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  "This is an action we can take" isn't synonymous with "this is an action we should take". That whoever's currently behind this account is abusing the privilege of anonymity in this particular instance doesn't mean there aren't circumstances in which the WMF will legitimately need to use this account in future. ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  I do not foresee a ban or block lasting long beyond this issue's resolution. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Iridescent, they will unblock through meta (prob. immediately) to de-sysop and ban the admin who chose to pull that trigger. And blocking them here hardly renders them technically unable to undo the block, either.

  It will be obviously reversed by them but the symbolism of the block is more important. ∯WBG^converse 08:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The WMF is shamelessly demonstrating that they're able to exert absolute and unappealable power over their projects, even where opposition is unanimous, even when they breach our policies. There has never been a greater and more direct insult and disregard for the actual community that built their multimillionaire organization. Yet you'd defend them from this symbolic protest gesture of banning their role account, because "they need it for violent criminals"? Really? From a practical perspective, really? If the purpose of this account was to protect their personal safety, then they're abusing it by executing faceless illegitimate political disappearances. If and when they need an anonymous account to deal with a violent criminal, then nothing is stopping them from creating a new one, but that's clearly not what is going with this account in this situation, and a statement needs to be made that we will not roll over and take it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - something's got to give, and they are not above everyone else. Cassianto^Talk 08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - They will of course, simply undo do the block used to enforce the ban, but it's very clear that they're simply not understanding how seriously we view their actions, and the point needs to be made in as many ways as possible. Non-admins such as myself can't take direct action and issue the necessary unblocks to those who have been the target of inappropriate office actions -- as Floquenbeam and Bishonen have courageously done -- but we can make our displeasure loudly known to ther WMF, and hope that sooner or later the Foundation and its staff will come to their senses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• who would carry it out?50.106.16.170 (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  If there is community consensus for such a ban, then any admin can pronounce the ban and enforce it with a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support We need to know who exactly we are talking to. This is exactly the type of misuse that WP:ROLE is designed to prevent. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Symbolic support- This won't go anywhere and they will unblock through meta; but still. And, if this passes at all, we will have yet another admin desysopped, who chose to pull the block-trigger. ∯WBG^converse 08:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• But they can be snow supported at their next RFA, can't they? Cassianto^Talk 08:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• And it's highly likely they'd pass with flying colours. But it's still insulting that they should have to. Reyk _YO! 08:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Im sure they've taken that into account already. Cassianto^Talk 08:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Not realistic. Staff global group can unblock themselves. -- 94rain ^Talk 08:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thats not the point, the point is that it's symbolic. Cassianto^Talk 08:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• And with a consensus for a ban, that means we can continue to enforce it by any means we deem necessary. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a time for thoughtful negotiation, not inflammatory escalation of the conflict. Take it slowly, folks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Normally I'd agree with you, but it takes two to negotiate. The Foundation has already made it clear they are not interested in discussing, well, anything. -FASTILY 08:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

With respect, Cullen, we've already lost 5 admins. How many more should we lose until we stop being "patient" with the WMF? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - agreed with nominator's rationale. starship.paint (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC

If WMFOffice was willing to actually negotiate as opposed to throwing us canned orders over a loudspeaker, we wouldn't be having this discussion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support GiantSnowman 08:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• The fact that the WMF can unblock themselves is technical statement of fact, not an opinion. A block and a ban are two completely different things. A block is a tool, a ban is a social decision. We have unblocked Fram, twice now, but the WMF says we can't overturn their ban, no matter what. Fine, then WMFOffice can unblock themselves, but that doesn't make them unbanned from our project. Even if they can defy the ban from a technical perspective, they can't overturn the social decision that they are unwelcome here after abusing our community. It's a pretty serious proposal, and it goes beyond a symbolic gesture. I'd urge any opposers to give it a second thought. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, excellent point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support per the opening statements and comments from the other supporters above. I am in full agreement with them. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 08:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and request for anyone supporting this to have any elevated privileges revoked and to be issued a one year ban. It is actively calling for a violation of the Terms of Use. Anyone supporting it can run their own website. There are plenty of avenues left and unlike what everone seems to indicate, there is no reason to rush any of this. If the foundation took 4 weeks to make a decision, we can take 4 weeks too. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Let me make my signature a little larger so that Trust and Safety can read it clearly without their glasses. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  As an admin, and presumably familiar with out policies and rules, please point me to where in the Terms of Use -- or anywhere else for that matter -- that urging people to civilly disobey the Terms of Use is a de-sysopable offence, or even a blockable one. I do not believe that "sedition" against the WMF is mentioned anywhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  No. Time is of the essence here. This isn't about Fram's ban or the deops, it's about having the trust of the community - trust which, with each passing moment, is eroding to the point of being broken irreparably because WMFOffice is patently not acting in good faith, and their actions (The limited ban of Fram, not escalating Fram's ban for revealing information when they claimed everything was privileged, the canned responces, the refusal to actually talk to the community about the "issues" that are apparently so serious that ArbCom cannot be trusted to address them) show this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Your statement is honestly nothing short of disgusting, and a betrayal of your own community. This situation reeks of corruption rather than enforcement, and we've literally lost several of our best admins of all time standing against it already. You'd side with the corrupt WMF over your own colleagues? To reduce it all to "violation of the Terms of Use" is pathetic, and you should be ashamed for shilling without even looking into the situation. If the Foundation wants to strip supporters of this proposal of their extended privileges, they can start right fucking here with me. I'd be far more honored to join the likes of Floq and Bish, than to join the likes of yourself in actually defending this shitshow. This is Wikipedia history, and you chose the wrong side. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  LOL, vindictive politically motivated witch hunts are what caused this shitstorm in the first place. Reyk _YO! 08:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  It's a good thing Tank Man didn't share your attitude towards "Terms of Use." Mr Ernie (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Congrats. You've officially sold out the community. Please resign. Seriously, I have no sympathy or respect for anyone who demands that the people who built this encyclopedia must humbly bow to the people who happen to own the servers. And it's particularly astonishing when this sentiment comes not from a WMF staffer, but from one of our own. Your suggestion of bans is the icing on your totalitarian cake. Lepricavark (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  "request for anyone supporting this to have any elevated privileges revoked and to be issued a one year ban" There has been a lot over over-inflated nonsense written over the last few days, but that is possibly the most ridiculous and laughable piece of rubbish of the lot. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  @TheDJ: si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses. ——SerialNumber54129 12:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I doubt this can be done, other than symbolically, but I would oppose even that, not least for the reasons in the latter part of Iridescent's !vote, and those given by TheDJ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not a fan of how the Fram matter has been handled at all, but this proposal isn't part of the solution. The WMF has the right to do what it's done under the terms of use, and banning its account is both impossible and pointless. A much better use of WP:AN would be to gain agreement by lots of admins to a complaint about the WMF's approach here - I'd like to hope that the admin corps' views carry a fair bit of weight, but expressing this through a gesture as is proposed here is a bad idea. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Back in the day we had a principle that you don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point... As Cullen says, this is a time to think and reflect, not indulge in this kind of harmful posturing. The Land (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  WMFOffice threw the first stone on that front. Again, the ban on Fram is time-limited and en.wp only, they're claiming everything is privil;eged yet don'tt escalate Fram's ban for revealing stuff on Commons, they completely overrode ArbCom (who is MORE than capable of handling this sort of hing), and they've refused to discuss anything with the community (including everything which, due to Fram's words, is not privileged). Again, if the WMFOffice took ten minutes to make its case for the bans to ArbCom or the community as opposed to just glossing over it in the monthly teleconference (per OR) then we wouldn't be here discussing whether or not the Office's role account should be banned for their behaviour, especially since this is the sort of behaviour any admin would get deopped and blocked/banned over. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  @The Land: - to really think and reflect, we would need to know from WMF, exactly why Fram was banned. starship.paint (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom, and because role accounts are fundamentally bad, and a powerful role account, anonymously controlled is extremely irresponsible. AUthorised WMF staff should use individually accessed account, a basic rule of security, but by far mostly for transparency and honesty. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose' as WP:POINTy. We could say much about the Terms of use and about the WMF-community relation status, but this requires time and a more organised discussion within the community. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. So we seek more communication and transparency from the office, and to achieve that, we will ban them from communicating with us? That aside, any such action would only be seen as retaliatory, and that is not the way to proceed. ST47 (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is your outspoken opinion against malicious retaliation at WP:FRAM? Sometimes I swear the WMF has a canned fanbase cheering them on like they're a shitty developer at E3. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is of no import. Any named "(WMF)" account is claimed to be "official" and not used for personal edits. They could still communicate through that method and at least we'd have a name then. Assuming they didn't just unblock it anyway. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support WMF processes which aren't emergencies need to be 100% transparent where every action is documented and presented properly on-wiki before enforcement. WMF has violated their duty in helping the community by superseding the role of the community in conduct-related sanctions. Until a proper ban policy is placed, the WMF should be disallowed from taking any actions on the English Wikipedia. Period. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support even if it is technically just symbolic. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose symbolically or otherwise. Let's not be in a rush to burn things down. And I say that with feeling. Whatever the merits of of the ban of Fram and especially the way they've handled things since, I do not believe we've behaved any better since. If anything, we've demonstrated to the WMF that they are right not to trust us to make level-headed, reasonable and fair decisions. Further as a non symbolic gesture, we're getting in the way of the important work the WMFOffice need to do some of which is not project specific. (To be clear, I'm not referring to any project specific bans/blocks of editors.) Finally while I'm not an expert on Californian employee law, or employment law anywhere really, from what I do know the law in a lot of jurisdictions mean that the WMF actually likely have a far greater duty of care to their employees than to any of us whether we like it or not. If we think we can force them to submit the many staff involved to this especially the lower level ones to a lynch mob, I'm sure we have another think coming. Again, we've simply re-enforced to the WMF that it makes sense to use role accounts for this from what we've said and done. Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  full support for this statement. Well formulated. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Minor clarification on my final point: "Again, we've simply re-enforced to the WMF that it makes sense to use role accounts for this sort of stuff which are surely only enacted after multiple people have agreed anyway so can't really be ascribed to one individual in the first place, from what we've said and done. (Simple mistakes like effectively extending the ban for 2 days are the only thing which can likely be ascribed to one particular person in this mess.) Even if the WMF is convinced somehow, and I think we've made it clear already how we feel, to stop using a role account, it's only likely to be some very high level person who is involved in signing of on what's happening. " Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • This aspect of employment law ('duty of care to employees') is an often overlooked point. Some (especially TheDJ here) have made that point forcefully. It is entirely possible that the continued expansion in numbers of WMF employees and their interaction with the editing communities, will increasingly see this sort of thing happen, where the needs of WMF employees and employment law trump the needs of the editing communities (for transparency and having the freedom to make forceful critiques). That sort of conflict should be avoided where possible, ironically because in the long-run the future of the WMF and the movement and jobs it sustains is dependent on maintaining healthy editing communities (to be clear here, I am talking about the demoralising effect heavy-handed WMF actions have on the editing community). If this escalates and leads to a [likely failed] attempt at a fork, the damage may be irreparable. What may really be needed here is to get people who understand these issues elected to the WMF Board, to oversee a culture change at the WMF. Carcharoth (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support,absolutely. At themoment thataccount is in breachof multiple behavioural guidelines and should be treated—whether symbolically or not—like any other editor.If nothing else, it may perhaps havethe effect ofreminding the WMF of the quality of behaviour we expect as a community.——SerialNumber54129 09:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm greatly troubled by the recent events, but it is correct that actions on behalf of the WMF Office should not be pinned on a single individual. In this case, can you imagine the opprobrium that would be heaped upon any individual who performed these actions in their own name? There has to be a way for WMF employees to act on the direction of the WMF without the employee tasked with pressing the actual buttons suffering the backlash personally. The problem here is what the WMF did and how they did it, not which account was used to do it and which individual was tasked with doing it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  But the buck has to stop somewhere. That's why people get paid the big money, whether at the WMF or any other business or charity. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  The buck should not stop at the messenger. And, seriously, empty angry escalation like this is absolutely *not* the way to resolve it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  I find it perfectly reasonable that the WMF wouldn't want a single employee harassed (for being the messenger as Boing! says, because decisions are made by multiple people collectively). Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  But they're happy to point the finger at Fram? FWIW, I don't agree with all of the speculation about the LauraHale accusation, so that cuts both ways except for the fact that the LH thing is/has been indeed speculation whereas the Fram situation is actuality. - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, and I meant to add: the buck has to stop not with the messenger but with the person ultimately responsible for running the show, either right at the top or departmentally. That would be Jan E., I think, in this instance. I seem to recall James Alexander was willing to put his name to awkward things on wiki. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I think this issue needs to be owned by a senior individual. But that's not a good reason for trying to ban and block the WMFOffice role account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  The buck goes to The ED User:Katherine (WMF) and before her User:Mdennis (WMF) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support--Summer ... hier! (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This will only have the effect of making communication harder and more fraught. You don't shoot the messenger, and you certainly don't do it before you've even heard the message. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  They've already given us their message. It's canned orders over loudspeaker. We're rejecting that because it's of absolutely no help[ in understanding what the hell has gone on. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 10:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is not helpful. Civil disobedience, protestations, and reasonable actions to demonstrate that in this instance they are doing the wrong thing, yes yes yes. Blocking the main role account of the Foundation that owns Wikipedia, which is used to protect the project from legal issues and protect people where there are safety concerns, no no no. Fish+Karate 10:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: WMFOffice rarely takes actions, if and when an emergency need arises, they can use another role account, that is barely a justification to not ban the main account as a symbolic move. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In my view, such a symbolic move is pointless, escalates rather than de-escalates, and would ultimately be self-defeating. And if you're the sort that needs a policy to tell you how to think, that would be WP:POINT. Fish+Karate 10:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support per everything Swarm said.Smeat75 (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Pudeo: WP:NOTHERE. --A.Savin (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support The account is behaving in a disruptive manner, contrary to the interests of the encyclopaedia and the community, and is refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion thereof. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Swarm. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Let them put their names to these out-of-process blocks. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose We do not have enough information to know whether this was out of process and I support the WMF's right to intervene even in local matters regarding trust and safety issues. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Admins who want to take a vacation from ad-mining just take the vacation don't use tools. We all agree to Wikipedia:Terms of Use every-time we edit or post or act, and WP:CONEXCEPT is the Wikipedia:Consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Swarm and others. The coward(s) hiding behind WMFOffice, handing out sanctions and robotic boilerplate responses should be ashamed of themselves. They have overstepped their just authority, and there's reason to believe that their ban of Fran was for reasons incompatible with the WMF's purpose. Note: Once the facts are known, I may change my mind. It's up to WMF to explain their actions, and there is no reason that can't be done while protecting private information not already present in page history and logs. - MrX 🖋 10:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. User:WMFOffice is required to comply with all admin conduct related policies, as they are failing to comply, making up special rules just for themselves, and refuse to be accountable, community supported sanctions are an obvious next step in line with a common understanding of natural justice and good governance of privileged sysop rights. If the WMF staff member were using their own named account rather than an anonymised role account, by WMF policy, they would be required to be accountable to local procedure. Hiding behind a role account should not be a magic cloak of invisibility to hide from community agreed policy. --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Per Fæ. This is an absurd activity from this account that warrants action. - Aoidh (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (and the unblocks). It's just an inflammatory escalation. It will be immediately reverted by omnipotent powers and will only antagonise both sides.

(But the WMF actions have been poor here, and need explanation) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose/Impossible. We do not have the authority to ban an official Wikimedia Foundation account from the wikis. All this will do is trigger both the Foundation and volunteers to escalate the situation even more, which is the opposite of what we need to resolve this situation. --Deskana (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Or, put another way, "They're bigger and stronger than us so we should just let them do what they want, however unethical and disruptive they are being". DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I do not agree with that summary of my comment. The communities are definitely larger than the Wikimedia Foundation, and arguably more powerful depending on the lens you look at it through. However, that is not relevant to my point. --Deskana (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This editor has misused their permissions repeatedly to include wheel warring, disregarded and ignored community consensus, repeatedly and deliberately undertaken disruptive actions, and has made clear that they intend to continue doing so despite repeated warnings by the community to stop. That isn't some special case—we ban editors who behave that way routinely. As to the WMF having a "duty of care" to protect its poor employees from doing their primary job, that being supporting (not lording it over) the volunteer community here, well, Tom Petty's got some advice for you. If you do not want to follow our rules and respect our community while on our project, stay off it. We don't really need you anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  "Our project", their website. If you don't want to agree to the TOU, then you are free to fork or simply stop editing. You don't get to pick and choose if and when the TOU applies while you're using the website as long as it's hosted by the WMF. -- User:KTC (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  @KTC: What TOU would that be? The TOU that WMF say Fram broke or the TOU that Fram clearly did not...? ——SerialNumber54129 11:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Or we could continue taking a stand against blatant overreach with the knowledge that the WMF exists because of the willingness of the users to build and maintain content. In fact, it's the content that brings in the tens-of-millions of dollars of donations feeding WMF, not MediaWiki or the server farm.- MrX 🖋 11:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  KTC, no, we're not going to keep seeing this falsehood. WMF is a support organization. They hold the Wikimedia trademarks and handle some affairs as a matter of convenience to the community. Their job is to keep the lights on and the servers humming, not to tell the community what to do. Wikipedia existed before the WMF did. It is not "theirs". It belongs to the community that built it, both literally (while we agree to free license our contributions, they still do belong to us) and figuratively. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm so tired of this argument. Who cares if the WMF owns the servers? They are NOT the ones building this encyclopedia. Who do people keep acting like editors are here for the sake of the WMF when it is the other way round? Telling the people who have built this site to fork or stop editing is a highly insulting response. Lepricavark (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  If you tired fine, but that seems more reason to take a rest. No need for you to get in high dudgeon with people who have and are writing the pedia, just because they are reasonable thinkers and happen to know how the internet and terms-of-use work, and are clued into exactly where they are writing and under what terms. We agreed to the TOU by posting our work here, that is the terms under which we are volunteering to write. (Now others agreed to volunteer to administrate, they agreed and are continually agreeing to volunteer to administrate under the Terms of Use.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is foolish and stupid. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  A good summary of the WMF's actions :D ——SerialNumber54129 11:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, the WMF Office's actions have been (based on what is publicly known so far) stupid at best and highly suspect at worst, but there is no point in proposing unenforceable actions and escalating the conflict. This needs to be resolved at the WMF Board level via the community's Board representatives. Sandstein 11:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing! and my comment above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support for whatever form of non-violent resistance is necessary to get their attention. Lepricavark (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per Swarm and others above. –Davey2010^Talk 12:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. Office actions are sometimes necessary, and we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Also echoing the comments that this action would be (a) unenforceable, and (b) be premature, given the apparent ongoing efforts by DocJames and Jimbo to bring this saga to some sort of amicable resolution.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• oppose. Meh. --Jayron32 12:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't be daft, this solves nothing. Mike Peel (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose would be unhelpful at the present time. While its annoying that they are using the account for PR waffle rather than anything constructive blocking it wouldn't be constructive either.©Geni (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, a strong message should be sent, either this is a community ran and maintained project or not, the actions are fundementally adverse to how dispute resolution should be. Shame on Jimbo Wales for allowing this to happen. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Arbcom. They wheel warred against Floquenbeam, pure and simple. "Break the wheel, Arbcom's deal." I wonder if they've got any immunity in policy against that. Wnt (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Violation of the username policy. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. In stark contrast to some, I think I would feel different about a CBAN against individual (WMF) accounts given the need to make a statement about the lack of comity between the en community and the WMF at the moment.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I get why this has been proposed but I don't think it would help.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Have to be real here, not only will this ban serve zero purpose as it is practically impossible to enforce, but also it doesn't solve any ongoing problem. On one way WMF Office can simply override such a ban and continue the actions similar to what they have already done, while on the other way if they "comply with" the ban and still need to make Office actions they can simply globally lock accounts _{(including the ones reversing the Office's actions, see Shahirmihad--note this particular action was done at this wiki instead of meta when the configurations allowed global locking action on all wikis; this has been changed so all locks can only be done at meta, but either way the account is still globally locked and cannot be logged in)} and make no communication at English Wikipedia citing that they are "banned" here. I believe that the second scenario will damage our community even further, and therefore I do not support a ban that potentially hurts ourselves, even if just "symbolic". -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 13:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: While the response from the Foundation has been nothing short of abominable, and I do have questions regarding the propriety of the usage of this role account, I cannot, at this time, authorize, accept, or otherwise allow the loss of another administrator. As Amakuru correctly notes, there is a board meeting or something along those lines (I honestly don't really care what) on Friday, and we do have two people who may advocate for us. Should circumstances change, I am willing to reconsider; but in light of the current situation, this currently unnecessary action would only serve to further fray the bonds of trust between the Foundation and the community. (Not that the bonds aren't already fraying, but I'm afraid this is a step too far right now.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The account is used for office actions and messages on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. It has completely legitimate uses. This is not a constructive way to seek change; it's an unnecessary escalation of an already over-escalated conflict. Vermont (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Note. The WMFOffice account looks like different people use the account. It may be a general account for the WMF office. QuackGuru (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - so this is supposed to be a dramatic symbolic gesture. Okay, those can work. But do we think it would work now - would it help pressure the WMF to open dialogue? No? Me neither. Instead it opens us to a legitimate rebuttal that we are hindering an account that protects against death threats and child pornography. If we want to win, then don't let us look like the bad guys. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. While it seems like a good idea, the reaction is too rash and radical and does not demonstrate that we the community are a lot more intelligent than the WMF whose salaries we provide with our volunteer work. The drama is not worth it. They will be hoist with their own petard over this soon enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Tempers are high right now, probably on the WMF side too. At least wait until the outcome of Friday's board meeting and hopefully some better answers before driving the wedge deeper between WMF and the community. creffett (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:EngFram

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If this isn't noticed: @Bishonen: forget to unblock it also --Habitator terrae (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

We can address the legitimate alt later. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 09:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did forget, but I think I'll just leave it for now. Fram states on the alt's userpage that it's not intended for use on enwiki anyway, and like the main account it's only blocked on enwiki. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting removal of user right

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As a mostly symbolic gesture in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's inconsistent, opaque, oblivious and inadequate handling of user conduct issues on the English Wikipedia and on other Wikimedia projects, I would like to request the removal of my template editor permissions. This is the only user right I currently hold other than extended confirmed and autoconfirmed. Jc86035 (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Assistance at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard has a long-term shortage of active volunteers willing occasionally to open a case for moderated discussion. Most of the volunteers at this noticeboard are not administrators, but we welcome both administrators and non-administrators, and we also welcome administrative assistance on difficult cases (and with occasional disruption of the board). If you want to make a small additional contribution toward civllity in Wikipedia (and I know that most of you are already working toward that objective), please consider either adding your name to the list of volunteers and checking the board every few days, or verifying that you are already one of the volunteers and checking the board every few days, or just checking the board every few days.

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Reporting a higher than average number of spambot account creations than I usually see

Hi fellow administrators! I just wanted to start a discussion regarding the number of spambot accounts that I've seen today.

The accounts I've blocked as spambots today (so far) include MiriamZ1120644, LorraineRischbie, Tabitha64I, LeonoraBrumfield, Lawerence38B, BrainGale73656, ReyesWallen87, MckenzieColby35, LidaDunrossil, DarcyPotts9, SoilaCote58512, NonaRetzlaff976, FreddieLykins45, LionelMcCulloch, MarcyJanzen097, BudNemeth704, TahliaRounsevell, MaiCoode3106816, BeatrizBrifman, YolandaBetche86, InesHobart2775, MarianaS02, HarryHargis1, AlejandroMadison, BernieceHrm, VidaHavelock, LonnyDemko334, TyreeGriver, and MervinBlackwell.

They're easy to spot if you know what to look for: They usually always create accounts with similar usernames, which are usually a first and last name, followed by some random integers at the end. Some of their usernames omitted the last name or the ending integers or random characters, but are all generally the same. Their first edit is made to their user page, which adds some random "information about themselves", then use multiple HTML line breaks (<br><br>) between their "personal information" and the spam URL that they're trying to add at the end of their edit (they usually add exactly two HTML line breaks), followed by "Also see my blog", "my homepage", or something similar, followed by the spam link.

If you go through the deleted contributions of each user I listed above, you'll see how they started trying to change their M.O. very slightly. The next group of users made the exact same edits to their user pages as I described above, but then immediately made another edit afterwards to remove the spam portion from their user page... which is strange, but okay. Then I noticed a bunch of similar accounts simply adding "%About_Yourself%" to their own user pages (I suspect because whoever this is accidentally broke something in their code that was supposed to replace that variable or text with the actual text containing the spam before publishing the page, but I'm obviously can't be 100% sure, just fairly certain). I just wanted to ask other admins or users here if they've also noticed an increase in the number of spambot accounts being created today compared to most other days? I usually only block a small handful, maybe 4-5 per day on average. I wonder if a long-term blocked IP address expired maybe, and what we're seeing is the result of the expiration? I also wanted to ask other admins and users if they happen to see or recognize the "%About_Yourself%" edits some of these accounts are making to their own user page? I just wanted to confirm that this isn't something legitimate like a gadget, tool, wizard, or tutorial, etc that might have broken that's adding this, and not what I believe/assume is happening (someone's spam code broke).

If anyone could provide input, comments, or could answer my question regarding "%About_Yourself%", I would appreciate it very much. Please ping me in your responses so that I'm notified. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: 17 seconds ago - MohammadJoris59 created their user page with the same "%About_Yourself% --DannyS712 (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 - Blocked. Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: As I was going through the new accounts, I saw again new users creating other accounts, reminding me of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#What to do with a new account creating another?. Now, I understand that they could just log out and create another, but is there any policy regarding this? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 - I don't believe there's a set policy regarding what to do, but I will generally block all child accounts created by the parent account if the parent account is blocked as a VOA, spambot, etc where there's a near-zero chance that the user would use them within policy and a near-absolute chance that they'd be used to evade blocks and cause additional disruption to the project. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably not expired. [58] —Cryptic 06:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cryptic: What do you mean? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 - There was a recent RFC that reached consensus to unblock all IP addresses that were blocked back in 2009 or earlier that are still blocked today, due to the IP addresses most likely no longer being assigned to the same user or network after 10+ years. That's what Cryptic was referring to. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I understand that, but what does that have to do with the spambots? DannyS712 (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 - I believe that Cryptic was suggesting that it's possible that one or more of the IPs we recently unblocked due to the RFC enabled or made it easier for more accounts to be created due to no longer having the account creation restriction set on them because of the block. This is certainly possible, but I doubt that this is the reason. These spambots were able to be created (and have been) for quite some time, and long before the RFC mentioned even became a discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Oh, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 - No problem. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I've taken a look with the magic goggles. They're using some wildly dynamic IPs from around the world, with typically one edit per IP (despite the IPs being dynamic, I'd still class them as 'dodgy' - this is in no way legitimate). There's no IP that's been unblocked, and really nothing to block to prevent this. I suspect as you suggest that these are one of the regular spambots that we already know and love, with something gone wrong, which is something we see occasionally. Last time I saw this I had to be generous with the spam blacklist, and an edit filter might also help, but blocking IPs is not going to figure in the solution. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zzuuzz! Thank you for the input and your response here, and for taking a look at this situation with your "special eyes". ;-) I figured exactly as such, and that this isn't due to anything that happened recently (such as an IP being unblocked) and isn't occurring from a single IP or range that can easily be blocked that will stop this. Otherwise, it would've happened long ago and this wouldn't be an issue. I'll continue to patrol the new user log and be on the lookout for user page creations with that variable I mentioned above (as well as the usual spam edit). I've added these conditions to the edit filter I created and maintain on a regular basis (#51), so this will hopefully help in catching more spambots that may get missed by others. I just realized, however, that edits from some of these users that are just adding that variable I noticed (%About_Yourself%) isn't technically a G11 (I delete the user page of the spambot as part of my normal response when I find one). I might have to go back and undelete those for not meeting the criterion. What are your thoughts on this? Should I undelete those pages? Other than that, your response unfortunately comes with no surprise and no silver bullet. Oh well; just gotta keep doing what I've been doing... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I just nabbed another of them. Pedantically speaking, I've always maintained that vandalspambots (whether working properly or not) are a G3 because they're listed at WP:Vandalism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Zzuuzz - I just did as well. Thank you for digging and for blocking any spambot accounts I've missed - much appreciated. :-) Fair enough; I'll just leave the pages as-is then. Thanks again for the input. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Oshwah: Just in case you weren't familiar with it - the user page format ("about me", <br><br>, spam URL) looks like the NTSAMR pattern. I believe there's a private filter that tries to catch these, might need some updating. If you were familiar with it, well, oops. Hopefully someone else who reads this wasn't. creffett (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Creffett - That's good information; thank you for replying and for taking the time to provide it to me. I'll take a look and check out the edit filter. I also added conditions to the one that I maintain (#51) that have been catching edits from that spam user. I'll see what needs to be updated on the other. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Filter 499 catches a few spambots as well. MER-C 17:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Spotted a handful more of the failed text replacements (all very stale, but might as well be thorough): User:JanKnaggs8063, User:SusannahMetcalfe, User:CharlotDCH, User:MalloryDickey, User:RobertoJOJ, User:AlyciaNickle12, User:IHSKimberqu, User:ChantalGalarza0, User:GingerPhelan, User:NickolasWIW, User:FaeSchaafwpudx, and omitted a couple that are globally locked already. Not too important, since the main spam link failed, but if anyone's interested in watching for this in the future the search I used was insource:"about yourself" insource:/%About_Yourself%/ (might also be worth adding some variant of this to the filter). creffett (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I need guidance to make an article live

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi dear admins and sincere editors I want to know the process to make an article live which is actually put back to draft because I mistankely created more accounts. I sincerly apologize for that. We are humans we make mistakes but please can you forgive me once and let the article be live. Please let me know I am waiting for all of your responses.

Sincerly Americaisgreatest (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can mistakenly create additional accounts, as it it takes more than one deliberate action to create an account. If you are blocked, you are evading your block by creating additional accounts. You need to return to your original account to request to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article you are talking about as there are no other edits associated with your current account, but inappropriate articles cannot be permitted. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

He is a german notable person his article was live. I am not sure what to do now. I need help. Americaisgreatest (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I or anyone cannot help you unless you tell which draft you are talking about. As I said, if you created it under a different account, you need to return to that account. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure Mer-C name person already moved it to draft and has placed that It can be approved through AFC. I dont know how can I approve it more that's why I need help. Americaisgreatest (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@MER-C: draftified several articles recently, mostly for being advertising or other spam, I think you should speak clearly which your other account was and what article was draftified; if you're evading a block for creating spam articles and coming to AN over it, I am sure a lot of admins will be happy to block this account too. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tell us what draft you are talking about. If you created it under a different account, you must log in with that account. If that account is blocked, WP:GAB will explain how to request that it be unblocked (but note, you'll also need to deal with your violation of WP:EVADE here). If you aren't willing to do this, there's literally nothing we can do for you and you are just wasting our time. --Yamla (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to know how to improve that so it get accepted in AFC. It was already live. Can anyone help it to make to AFC process.

Blocked. WP:EVADE, WP:IDHT. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need help dealing with a Disruptive user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear admins, I need help dealing with a Disruptive user. The user repeatedly disrupts me at every turn when it comes to works in relation to Tragedy and Tragicomedy. I had previously created an article called List of Tragedy films and TV programs which was put up for deletion and was deleted. I had conceded to my mistakes in relation to that article and yes I had previously gone outside the bounds of what is deemed correct procedure for Wikipedia for that article. So, I accepted the articles deletion. Since then as was previously brought up to me by the editor to use clear references that clearly states the item in question to has been acknowledged as a Tragedy or Tragicomedy. Since then I have operated within those bounds. But the user continues to object at times with the statement "not a genre for films" or something to that effect and proceeds to edit the article without substantial evidence despite the references I offer disputing their statement. I have previously attempted to acquire the User's cooperation so that we could work on this issue together but I have been ignored. I don't understand why the user repeatedly gets involved after I get involved in an article when it comes to this particular subject for I have no personal grudge towards them. The User/editor is MarnetteD.

In the article for Dead to Me they placed on it "rmv unsourced addition" for an edit of mine that was unsourced genre wise but on the article Requiem for a Dream they edited the genre section with the statement "rvt to last clean version." This shows a major conflicting and somewhat arbitrary pattern when it comes to their reasoning for their actions as it displays no clear consensus among themselves over what they deem as acceptable on this subject matter as the reasoning on Requiem for a Dream clearly contradicts their reasoning for Dead to Me.

IceBrotherhood (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Ice, but if you are making bad edits, there might be ten things wrong with them, and they might just pick one thing to put in the edit summary, and yes it might seen arbitrary. Beach drifter (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

But how exactly am I making bad edits if I'm following the guidelines that was told for me to follow. My major issue is that the reasoning consistently conflicts with what they are asking for. And there seems to be no clear reason or consensus on what makes my edits acceptable to them, they just apparently aren't in all situations. My thing is why are the edits conflicting with the references I give. IceBrotherhood (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be very confusing. There is a lot going on here. Please don't take it personally if experienced editors run roughshod over what you are trying to do. Beach drifter (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

IceBrotherhood, this is a tangential issue, but there is something amiss with the date stamp in your signature - it does not show the UTC time (your latest post should have been dated 06:53, 20 June and not 23:53, 19 June). Maybe you are manually inserting your local time instead? If you use four tildes, that should automatically provide the UTC time. Secondly, and much more importantly, I can't see that you have asked MarnetteD about this or tried to engage with her at all before coming to this board. Am I incorrect about that? I see no disruption at all from her side; you, on the other hand, have simply restore your edits without attempting to discuss - and that is disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 07:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I had tried to engage her in the article for deletion and there was no reciprocation on that end. UTC I'm not entirely familiar with the usage of that time. I felt I didn't need to discuss because my edits were edited without discussion towards me and from that I basically assessed that I wouldn't find any sort of agreeance but perhaps that was assumtuous. I'm not the most skilled wikipedia editor and I don't have much interactions with editors on these sorts of issues. I skipped ahead because I thought I was following proper procedure I'm sorry. I would be inclined to agree with the both you had it just not been showing a pattern with this particular subject. I was simply was trying to get help dealing with the issue I'm not here to vilify anyone. I just didn't know how to contact a 3rd party to mediate this. I just looked on Wikipedia on what I thought was the appropriate label for this. I have no personal grudge against anyone I'm simply trying to do my best to navigate Wikipedia which I'm apparently doing poorly. User:IceBrotherhood (talk UTC 08:21, 20 June 2019

Are you guys willing to help mediate between MarnetteD and I. I truly don't know what to do. I wish I knew more about this process. User:IceBrotherhood (talk UTC 08:30, 20 June 2019.

• IceBrotherhood, the problematic user in this case is you. You fail to leave edit summaries, and you fail to discuss matters. Issues concerning the content of individual articles should be discussed on the talkpage of the article in question. Issues that you have about a long-term and respected editor's repeated behavior should be discussed on that user's talkpage. I suggest you withdraw this complaint before you receive a WP:BOOMERANG, and I suggest you learn from those editors who have been cleaning up after you. Regarding your efforts to add the opening descriptor and genre "tragicomedy" or "tragedy" to films, that is not something that is normally done on Wikipedia, so I recommend you inquire or start a discussion at WT:FILM where other interested and knowledgeable editors who are familiar with our guidelines for films can respond. Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would second Softlavender's suggestions. MarnetteD is a respected editor, and should be treated as such, and if you disagree with his judgment it needs to be discussed and not automatically reverted or reported on ANI. They are most certiany not a "disruptive user", far from it. This is essentially a content dispute, not a behavioral issue, and as such is not something that admins can get involved with. Article talk pages and WT:FILM is where you need to discuss this and work it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• @IceBrotherhood: On the minor subject of the timestamps on your talkpage posts, just type ~~~~ after the text of your posting – no need to do anything else to it. Your earlier posts were fine – it's just the last two that seem to be non-standard. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I've only just logged on and seen this. First, this is the wrong notice board for this discussion. Second, this is a content dispute. Wherever the discussion winds up this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tragedy films and TV programs covers the situation. To sum that page up IB has a theory that there is a genre classification of tragedy for films, TV shows and anime/mange. At this time there isn't. Thus, their edits in this area are WP:OR and bump into WP:NOTESSAY After the AFD IB has continued to add tragedy as a genre to film and TV show articles - I can't remember if they touched any anime/manga pages. Please note IB's adding the genre to plays is fine and I have not changed any of their edits to those article. Also note I am not the only person to remove the edits which continue to promote their theory. IB is free to start a discussion at any of the venues that have been suggested here but I think they should reread the AFD and take on board what was said there. One last thing, I know IB feels strongly about their theory - there are plenty of other places on the web to write about it - blogs, facebook and wordpress to name a few. IB should avail themselves of those venues and who knows maybe one day the idea will catch on and WP:SECONDARY sources will comment on it and turn it into a genre. MarnetteD|Talk 15:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.