Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304

Block appeal by user:FrogCast

Copied from my Talk page

---

A user came on the IRC help channel to ask about his block and I had a conversation with him; he consented to my pasting it here. I decline to do the unblock myself, but this is at least something for you to consider,

• <Dragonfly6-7> what was th ename of the previous account, please.
• <FrogCast> user:Akiva User:Akiva.avraham
• <FrogCast> User:Akiva.avraham
• <Dragonfly6-7> thank you
• <Dragonfly6-7> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Akiva.avraham
• <Dragonfly6-7> out of curiosity, can I ask why you switched from one to the other?
• <FrogCast> Yes. I run a youtube channel
• <FrogCast> I make derivative works from wikipedia
• <FrogCast> my youtube channel is named, "FrogCast",
• <FrogCast> I wanted all future contributions to be under that rudrick and not my real name.
• <FrogCast> most of my contributions under akiva.avraham are all things concerning my youtube channel, which are extremely small edits correcting punctuation and syntax.
• <Dragonfly6-7> also I'd like you to bear in mind the notion of 'false balance'
• <FrogCast> Dragonfly6-7: Yeah. I had over an hour long discussion about that with Huon, the admin who rejected my unblock:
• <FrogCast> ""I thought that if "Right-wing conspiracy theories" was allowed in, that this language was fair and neutral as long as a source was provided." Funny how you then failed to provide a source for "left-wing conspiracy theory" and rather argued about the number of intelligence agencies which confirmed that this supposed "left-wing conspiracy theory" is what actually happend. Huon (talk)"
• <FrogCast> Huon took the time to articulate the nuance around what constitutes a "conspiracy theory", and I happily accepted and understood the principle that was laid out to bare, and promised to apply it moving forward. At the end of that conversation however, that admin did not want to unblock me based on "a hunch", and then promptly left without explaining.
• <FrogCast> The point being, is that look, I see what everyone is saying about "false balance" and I have always agreed with it, but it really honestly feels at this point, after promising and doing everything conceivable to address the issue, to admit guilt, rectify it moving forward, and still be denied, is that... That I had committed a thought crime. I really dont know what to do.
  • [much later]
• <Dragonfly6-7> oh jeeze, i forgot i was still connected
• <Dragonfly6-7> uh
• <FrogCast> ttyl
• <Dragonfly6-7> what you're saying *looks* sensible; would you be okay with me copying it into a message to another admin
• <FrogCast> Fine with me. Use your best discretion.

so, this looks prima facie like contrition and comprehension to me. What do you think? DS (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Akiva~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Akiva.avraham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FrogCast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The User:Akiva account was renamed to User:Akiva~enwiki. The latter has no live edits, but a few deleted edits ending in 2006. Akiva~enwiki has never been blocked. The newer account Akiva.avraham was editing up through April 2018 and is not currently blocked. User:FrogCast is another story, and I'm not yet seeing good reasons for an unblock there. In the block appeal on his talk page FrogCast seems to be stubbornly defending bad behavior. There is more good information in this user's UTRS appeal. Still, the last UTRS reviewing admin was User:Just Chilling and he declined to lift the block, recommending a later appeal instead. In the UTRS appeal FrogCast does reveal what he says are his previous accounts, and anyone who has UTRS access can compare those statements to the above IRC discussion. There doesn't seem to be any reason to ask for an SPI or a checkuser. (It's the current account that is behaving badly, not the older ones). EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

---

I blocked because this clearly wasn't a new user, and he posted this to a talk page I stalk, plus the nonsense on his own talk page. Given the three edits to murder of Seth Rich I'd only support an unblock with a US politics TBAN. What do people think about that? I don't feel super strongly either way here, none of the accounts has edited much, but Akiva.avraham and FrogCast were both used concurrently for some time and his choice of topics includes some with which we have long-standing issues, such as Burzynski Clinic, a ruinously expensive quack cancer centre, and Rudolf Steiner, the German faux-mystic cultist. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support unblock and neutral on Guy's proposed restriction. Frankly, Mjolnirpants and David Tornheim sitting on the user's talkpage demanding they reveal their previous accounts is harassment and should not have been allowed, and if they responded to that poorly, well, sometimes that happens. As for the accounts listed here, the only page with any overlap between the two active accounts is History of Mexico (see [1]) and that was a series of three insignificant edits. Akiva.avraham hasn't edited in months and definitely hasn't edited while FrogCast has been blocked, so it's my view that no violation of the multiple accounts policy has occurred. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  New user shows up and starts causing problems at an area thats under a variety of restrictions - and states they are not a new user? Yeah the first thing thats going to be demanded is they disclose any previous accounts. And I will note the that WP:HAND there. Using a bad hand account for disruptive editing certainly is a violation of WP:SOCK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• This appears to be the YouTube channel, which appears to be audios of Wikipedia articles: [2]. I'm wondering if the username "FrogCast" may violate username protocol in that the username could be perceived as advertising the name of his YouTube channel? Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It is a CORPNAME issue. there is http://frogcast.org/audiobooks/ where they sell stuff. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I noticed their Youtube channel said it was frogcast.org but it didn't work then and still doesn't work now. But I agree they need a user rename Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Any thoughts about (un)blocking, then? Topic restrictions and namechanges only apply if one is unblocked. DS (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think the conditions for any unblock need to include a username change (to something completely unrelated to "FrogCast"), a complete removal of the advertising on his userpage, and an indef block of any alternate/old accounts. As to the other problems, including whether he is here to build an encyclopedia, I am uncertain. I would actually prefer that he (be permitted to) make an unblock request on his usertalk. That IRC conversation is a little too informal and hard to parse for my tastes. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG would have to re-enable the user's access to User talk:FrogCast before he could appeal there. The four previous appeals do not give any reason for optimism. Those appeals were declined by User:Boing! said Zebedee, User:AGK, User:Yamla and User:Huon respectively. FrogCast has also been at UTRS twice without receiving any encouragement there. If you carefully read the various POV statements on the user's talk page I think you might join me in recommending against this appeal. If he would give up on the past nonsense he might be unblocked, but he is standing firm behind the past nonsense. On October 5 he asserted that there was a left-wing conspiracy theory that Russian hackers were behind the DNC email leaks. In his November 6 UTRS appeal he is suggesting that admins' personal political views might be contributing to his unblock declines. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I too had a lengthy conversation with FrogCast on IRC (log collapsed after this comment) and do not feel confident that unblocking would be beneficial. In short, I felt trolled throughout much of that IRC conversation and didn't get the impression that they were addressing their own conduct (beyond factual descriptions of what they wrote). At least the topic ban for US politics should be imposed; I oppose an unconditional unblock and remain skeptical about even one with a topic ban. Huon (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Huon's chatlog

Nov 06 21:27:57 * FrogCast (uid330209@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-sbhqfchzeacwwjdx) has joined Nov 06 21:28:07 <FrogCast> Huon: ping Nov 06 21:28:22 <Huon> FrogCast, yes? Nov 06 21:29:39 <FrogCast> To the point, I wanted to address the behaviour and demonstrate that I understand the criticism, and why you were correct to make it. Nov 06 21:30:28 <Huon> FrogCast, OK Nov 06 21:30:44 <FrogCast> Huon: you spotted a contradiction in my reasoning, that quote: Nov 06 21:30:50 <FrogCast> "I thought that if "Right-wing conspiracy theories" was allowed in, that this language was fair and neutral as long as a source was provided." Funny how you then failed to provide a source for "left-wing conspiracy theory" and rather argued about the number of intelligence agencies which confirmed that this supposed "left-wing conspiracy theory" is what actually happend." Nov 06 21:31:08 * tzatziki is now known as vote Nov 06 21:31:22 <Huon> FrogCast, indeed Nov 06 21:32:20 <FrogCast> meaning that when I said that "as long as a source was provided", this was a contradiction because in my edit, no source stipulating "left wing conspiracy theory" was provided. Nov 06 21:34:26 <FrogCast> Huon: I am at fault for that. I had not considered that point of view, and it makes sense to me that even the phraseology and conceptualization has to be sourced. Nov 06 21:35:09 <FrogCast> If I were in your position, I would have done the same thing. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Nov 06 21:35:26 <Huon> FrogCast, this is not a question of "phraseology" Nov 06 21:38:16 <FrogCast> Huon: Okay. Are you referring then to the latter part of your message, "and rather argued about the number of intelligence agencies which confirmed that this supposed "left-wing conspiracy theory" is what actually happend." -- How would an excellent wikipedia editor parse this criticism and use it to identify their error? Nov 06 21:39:42 <Huon> FrogCast, I'm referring to the part where "The Russians did it" is not a conspiracy theory Nov 06 21:51:27 <FrogCast> Huon: Right: It was a conspiracy by the Russians, but that conspiracy does not constitute a "conspiracy THEORY" because it has not crossed the epistemelogical threshold that wikipedia upholds for calling something a "theory". Doing otherwise constitutes a weasel word. I 100% agree with that. Is that fair to say? Nov 06 21:52:40 <Huon> FrogCast, what exactly do you mean by "the epistemelogical threshold that wikipedia upholds for calling something a 'theory'"? Nov 06 21:53:13 <FrogCast> Huon: That in history, nothing is apodictic. Nov 06 21:54:16 <FrogCast> But just because nothing is absolutely certain, does not mean you are allowed to call everything a "theory". Therefore: Nov 06 21:55:02 <Huon> FrogCast, are you familiar with the common meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory"? Nov 06 21:55:05 <FrogCast> Wikipedia has to choose "x" amount of evidence for classifying a "y" concept. Failing to meet "x", means you can not conceptualize something as "y". Nov 06 21:56:15 <Huon> and no, none of this is about Wikipedia choosing anything Nov 06 22:00:04 <FrogCast> (Sorry, my internet is being worked on at the moment by a technician. It is constantly being disconnected.) Nov 06 22:00:07 <FrogCast> Huon: Conspiracy theory in the common meaning is used as a pejorative. Nov 06 22:02:57 <Huon> FrogCast, no Nov 06 22:04:13 <FrogCast> Huon: You do not think that conspiracy theory is a pejorative? That being labelled a conspiracy theorist is not accompanied by negative connotations? Nov 06 22:05:56 <Huon> FrogCast, you could argue that it has negative connotations, but so has "fraudster", and it's not a pejorative Nov 06 22:08:27 <FrogCast> Huon: Okay, I think I see what you are saying, if you would then say the common meaning of conspiracy theory is defined as an irrational level of paranoia towards one theory... is that fair to say, or am I still missing the mark? Nov 06 22:09:33 <Huon> FrogCast, you may want to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory Nov 06 22:10:27 <FrogCast> "without credible evidence." being the keyword? Nov 06 22:10:48 <Huon> FrogCast, indeed Nov 06 22:11:19 <Huon> FrogCast, and no, it's not Wikipedia's place to decide whether the evidence is credible or not Nov 06 22:13:40 <FrogCast> Huon: I think Im getting there; its not wikipedia who decides but rather, a primarily consensus basis; the entire concept behind wikipedia in the first place, correct? Nov 06 22:14:18 <Huon> FrogCast, no Nov 06 22:14:53 <Huon> FrogCast, we're going full circle: It's reliable sources who have to evaluate whether the evidence is good enough to call something a "conspiracy theory" Nov 06 22:15:11 <Huon> well, whether the evidence is bad enough, that is Nov 06 22:16:57 <FrogCast> Huon: Okay; I was conflating credible with reliable, and that was wrong? Nov 06 22:17:58 <Huon> FrogCast, there are two issues: a) Did the Russians do it? and b) Is "The Russians did it" a conspiracy theory? Nov 06 22:18:24 <Huon> FrogCast, to say "The Russians did it", we need reliable sources making that point Nov 06 22:18:47 <Huon> FrogCast, to say it's a conspiracy theory, we need reliable sources making *that* point Nov 06 22:19:30 <Huon> FrogCast, evidence isn't the same as "reliable sources"; we're not citing whatever evidence there is, but what secondary sources such as newspapers or reputable magazines have reported about the evidence Nov 06 22:21:42 <FrogCast> Huon: And I failed to provide a reliable or reputable secondary source for stating """"The Russians did it" is a conspiracy theory""" " Nov 06 22:22:58 <Huon> FrogCast, indeed Nov 06 22:24:00 <Huon> FrogCast, and that would be rather difficult, given that the evidence is credible enough for four intelligence agencies to endorse that the Russians did it Nov 06 22:24:02 <FrogCast> Huon: My error was how I conceptualized wikipedia. I thought any evidence could be inserted, when in reality, I need to base all propositions against reliable and reputable secondary sources. Nov 06 22:25:39 <FrogCast> And that stating anything otherwise will be rather difficult, given that four US intelligence agencies have endorsed that the Russians did it. Nov 06 22:27:14 <Huon> FrogCast, finding a reliable source that calls something endorsed by four intelligence agencies a "conspiracy theory" will be difficult Nov 06 22:27:32 <FrogCast> Huon: Exactly. Nov 06 22:31:56 <FrogCast> Huon: Taking all this into account, what else would an excellent editor and contributor to wikipedia keep in mind moving forward? Nov 06 22:32:45 <Huon> FrogCast, sorry, that's beyond the scope of this channel Nov 06 22:33:05 <Huon> FrogCast, you may want to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Nov 06 22:33:33 <FrogCast> Huon: Great. Are you satisfied that would warrant an unblock, so I can move forward? Nov 06 22:36:43 <Huon> FrogCast, I'm sorry, but no Nov 06 22:37:07 <FrogCast> Huon: Why? Is there anything else I can do? Nov 06 22:41:03 <Huon> FrogCast, you can appeal via UTRS if you want to Nov 06 22:41:44 <FrogCast> Huon: But why? Nov 06 22:42:41 <Huon> FrogCast, call it a hunch; I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable unblocking you

MediaWiki message delivery - duplicate messages, incorrect timestamps

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.

---

Just had two identical messages on my talkpage from "MediaWiki message delivery", both with incorrect timestamps. There is no indication of who to contact about problems with the message. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination#Duplicated_distribution. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:14, 20 November 2018 (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 recovery of Talk:Sky Limited

User:ChupaCol123 redirected Sky Limited to Sky UK on 12 November 2018‎ without major discussion. The redirect was later reverted, but Talk:Sky Limited hasn't recovered yet. There was an ongoing discussion about whether the moving of Sky plc article to Sky Limited was justified or not, and I want to see that discussion continue. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 07:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Graham87 11:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete AfC Draft:International Krav Maga Federation

Hello. I saw how much problems raised. This subject is not notable AfC article. Insufficient independent sources. Rejected. Please see WP:PROMO that Alex4ff (talk · contribs · count) just wanted it. Please delete now, because it has been repeatedly declined and this submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. 93.76.182.183 (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Further, the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to include the following remedies:

Editors cautioned

Editors are cautioned against edit warring, even if their actions are not in violation of the general 1RR prohibition active in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Instead of reverting, editors are encouraged to discuss their proposed changes on the article's talk page, especially when the edit in question has already been challenged or is likely to be challenged.

Administrators encouraged

Administrators enforcing arbitration remedies in this topic area are encouraged to make use of appropriate discretionary sanctions to prevent or end prolonged or low-speed edit wars, even when the general 1RR prohibition has not been violated by any involved editor.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles

Mass bot edits

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 see Category:Requests for unblock mass unblock requests posted, has to be a bot. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 16:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done @FlightTime Public: several of us cleaned this up, let us know if it persists. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

See also, Existing ANI discussion. Courcelles (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Xaosflux and Courcelles: I should've checked ANI before posting here :P - FlightTime Public (open channel) 17:17, 26 November 2018 (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:InstallAware Software

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.

---

Hello, could an Admin please remove the G13 eligibility template from Wikipedia:InstallAware Software. Thank you, JMHamo (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: as the protecting admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Just had to add |demo=yes. Will likely revert to the un-substed version just for readability ease. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not thrilled that we're intentionally, permanently, publicly shaming the company in project space; pretending that this is in the service of helping other companies avoid the same problem is a cover story that should be beneath us. Why lower ourselves to their level? Deleting outright would be better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Floq on this one. I don't mind rewriting it to be fictitious, that might be the answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You know, I had the same feeling when reading that page. Spammers are an annoyance but venting your frustration about them by hanging one of their pages on a pillory like that is childish and ineffective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. And the irony is that the company now has their "article" on Wikipedia. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I joined the thread purely to stop the G13 happening, my "admin hat" comment would be... WP:MFD is thataway. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It is, indeed, thataway: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:InstallAware Software is now live. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2018 (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.

Rename request from SuperSucker

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.

---

• SuperSucker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey, I am posting this on the behalf of User:SuperSucker, since they requested a renaming and are blocked on English Wikipedia. (A little discussion about this is here). 17:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1997kB (talk • contribs)

User:SuperSucker is still under an indefinite block per this ANI from 28 March. Their block notice refers to WP:NOTHERE plus repeated IP socking. Since the editor still has access to their talk page, they could post an unblock request at User talk:SuperSucker. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock has been declined by NRP per IP socking. I see no reason to grant a rename here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't personally see a reason to oppose renaming since they seem in good standing on commons and they can be required to ensure to mention their previous username on any unblock request here. I mean if there's fear someone will try and push their images onto articles and people won't recognise the creator, we could always notify of the username change on relevant article talk pages. Or in other words, I don't see how them being renamed harms us in any way and they have a reason for wanting to be renamed, despite being blocked here. (It's obviously normally a waste of time to rename people if they're not editing anywhere.) After all, if they were to ever successfully unblocked, we'd surely allow a rename right after. And while people sometimes have to put up with the consequences of their ill advised choices, having a username SuperSucker must be super sucky. But I'd oppose an unblock if they've been editing with an IP less than 6 months ago. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose rename - if they can convince one of the other wikis to rename them then fine, but if they're blocked here and socking, I've no interest in doing them any favours. Username's inconvenient for editing other projects? Not English Wikipedia's problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Ivanvector: AFAIK the user is not asking the English wikipedia to rename them. They asked at meta, but were denied because they are blocked here. It may not be the English wikipedia's problem, but I don't see a reason to deny them the right to rename on meta, which is what we are doing by opposing a rename since meta has explicitly told them that they need to convince us to allow a rename. (Not implement it, but allow it.) Refusing a user the right to rename elsewhere because they've been disruptive here, and the rename will not actually make one iota of difference to us reeks of punishment rather than preventing disruption to me. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"Oppose unblock" is I suppose what I should have said, owing to their ongoing block evasion. If their disruptive behaviour here means that meta won't honour their request, tough shit. Don't evade blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment @Ivanvector: But why oppose a rename? As I've said, there's no reason it has to concern us. We can oppose an unblock, but have no objection to a rename elsewhere as I've done. Tough shit is fine, but you seem to me to be intentionally punishing another editor by refusing to allow them a rename for no reason. IIRC it was you who reverted one of my comments trying to help another editor because you regarded is as grave dancing. While I can understand this was comment was poorly phrased, I find it a little surprising that you're now effectively advocating punishing another editor by refusing to allow them being elsewhere, because they are blocked here. Now if meta refuses to allow them to be renamed without being unblocked that's fine, but the original discussion is ambigious and seems to suggest that it's possible they can be renamed, if they convince us to allow it, despite being blocked here. All we have to do is say oppose unblock but don't give a damn about a rename, as I've done. What happens from there on is none of our concern. Instead we're wasting time IMO trying to punish an editor simply because they were badly disruptive here, but I've seen absolutely no reason why it harms us if they are renamed elsewhere, nor how it prevents disruption here, by allowing the editor to get on with whatever they want to do elsewhere, hopefully in accordance with their policies and guidelines so they aren't blocked there too. Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to this, and I don't exactly recall the circumstances there but I don't see what that has to do with this. If you think I'm opposing this because of some grudge I hold against you, you are very badly mistaken. The disruption that would result from this blocked user being renamed is all of the admin time we would then have to waste jumping through hoops (as you've helpfully itemized in your reply to Dlohcierekim below) for an editor who has repeatedly ignored our policies (via block evasion) but has suddenly learned that, oh shit! they need us to do them a favour. I'm not here for it. If you think that's punitive then so be it. Score one for the "being a jerk on the internet should have consequences" crowd. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear even if you're intending on not following the conversation any more, I respect your approach here and very highly value any editor who is willing to assume good faith and go to bat for someone asking for help. I find the user's request highly disingenuous in this case, but had you come here with any other editor in this situation who wasn't evading a block as recently as last week, I'd be right there advocating with you. I'm sorry that we disagree in this instance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• regretful oppose The reason for not renaming is the block. not visa versa. This is to prevent problems from cropping up. Any unblock can accompany a renaming at that time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Dlohcierekim: Can you outline what problems you believe may crop up? As I've said above, it seems to me any possible problems can be resolved by ensuring that they mention any previous username in an unblock request and perhaps keep a message on their user page or talk page or both clearly mention the rename, at least until they've been unblocked. if it's felt that admins may still miss it, or that the editor may remove the stuff and not mention it on their unblock request, their block log can always be annotated although yes that would require someone here to take action which is unfortunate but IMO so minor that it's not worth worrying about. We can notify on relevant article talk pages if there's concerns over IPs trying to push images they've created onto articles. Heck I can do that myself if people feel it's necessary. I'm fine with opposing a rename if there is some real problem/disruptive it would cause, but I just can't see how it would do so here so IMO even though unintentionally we're actually punishing them by refusing a rename rather than preventing disruption. Again if there's some possibility I've missed, I'd be happy to hear it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment Just to let people know, if this rename is implemented and people want me to do anything like inform editors on relevant article talk pages, please let me know on my talk page as I won't be following this discussion further, for personal reasons. (I excluded the explanation from here since it's probably not helpful, but if you're wondering I did post it here [3] although regretfully on my talk page. I don't think it has that many watchers but I've removed it to reduce canvassing concerns as far as possible.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Do you mean besides the issues that led to the block and the loss of community trust in the first place? What Tony says below. Oh, Floquenbeam, you say the darnedest things. Besides, with what I've been through this (expletive deleted) week, Karma (expletive deleted) owes me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• There’s no local or global policy on this, and it’s handled mainly by convention. The norm is that we don’t rename blocked users unless it’s a new account and there are compelling privacy reasons. I don’t see a reason to deviate from that here. I’d also suggest closing this thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Sure, why not. Don't unblock but allow a rename. It's good karma to do a favor for someone who doesn't really deserve one. And God knows AN needs all the karma it can get. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. If the user's in good standing at another wiki, why get in the way of its processes? Maybe we need to revisit our renaming-while-blocked standard, if they have the effect of impeding editing at other projects. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Just noting they have already withdrawn the rename request on meta ([4]). Also note that while it's not noted in the log, they are blocked by a checkuser for IP socking, have had their unblock declined by a different checkuser for ongoing IP socking, and have two more checkusers in this thread suggesting they not be unblocked given the circumstances. For what it's worth. If they can be renamed in a way that does not involve their being unblocked here, I am not opposed but neither do I support. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, if I understand rightly, the thing from Meta is basically "if you get permission from en:wp, you can be renamed", so this is basically a request for permission, rather than a request for us actively to do something. If I can misquote WP:BAN — what's going on here is a social decision about the right to be renamed, while a block is a technically imposed enforcement setting. [At least that's the understanding by which I supported the request; I'm not supporting a change to the local enforcement setting.] I continue to support the request, since a user's actions on one wiki should never result in sanctions on another wiki where they're behaving fine, unless the situation gets bad enough that a global block/lock/ban is warranted. Should SuperSucker decide to make another Meta request, the request shouldn't have to be put on hold because we haven't granted permission. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. So long as whatever they want to do on the other wiki does not require them being unblocked here, I don't really care. I object to the view of "giving permission": this is a matter of meta policy, and if the admins at meta (or stewards, or whatever) want to make an exception to their policies for this user, that's out of our hands. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that we have to give permission seems rather nutty to me too. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• As a global renamer I see no policy-based or common-sense reason for preventing an editor who's in good standing on another project from being able to use the name they want on that project unless the proposed name violates one of our username policies here. That the account is blocked here should have no bearing on the global login they want to use on other projects where they are not blocked. However, as the request has been withdrawn, this particular thread can be closed, which I will do now. 28bytes (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2018 (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.

Bad faith accuations by User:SNUGGUMS

Would an admin like to look over the exchanges at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 21#Template:Demi Lovato songs and User talk:SNUGGUMS#November 2018 2 where this user is accusing me of "lying" and "pretending"? --woodensuperman 15:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The only possible need for an admin would be for closing that TFD. Assumption of bad/good faith doesn't mean I can't call out flaws when I see them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not see an urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problems requiring administrative action. Woodensuperman, please try to develop slightly thicker skin. SNUGGUMS, be conscious that some people don't react well to the word "lying". Now go and find something better to do. Fish Karate 15:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Per Wikipedia:Assume good faith#Dealing with bad faith: "Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help". Also, I was under the impression that the "urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem" were for WP:ANI which is why I posted here. --woodensuperman 15:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This is wholly correct. Please therefore provide the clear and specific evidence policy-breaching conduct you have thus far failed to provide. Also this probably should be moved to ANI, I don't really care but someone will probably move it as this isn't an "issue affecting administrators generally", it's a "specific problem". Fish Karate 15:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This was an informal request, which is why I didn't post at ANI. I've being trying to resolve with the user, who is still making the same accusations and who cannot see what is wrong with that. --woodensuperman 15:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if my comments on "lying" were taken the wrong way. More than anything else, I was frustrated with how woodensuperman insisted how proposed changes were ideal when they really weren't. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Esanchez7587

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Esanchez7587 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: Worm That Turned, BU Rob13, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis, and KrakatoaKatie.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Worm^TT(talk) 17:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Esanchez7587

A Small Edit Request

In the box(i guess it's a template) that appears in the user contribution page for those users whose accounts are currently blocked, please verify whether there exist any sort of lint error. I guess it's an obsolete tag error. I was able to find that in [this] page. Since those need admins access, I am posting this request here.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Adithyak1997, that user's block notice appears normal to me. Home Lander (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Home Lander:, in my account, I have enabled the tool User CSS from [this] page which displays all the errors in the colour pink. So I thought the above mentioned one is also such an error. Sorry for the wrong problem.Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on admin activity requirements

I have opened a discussion about changing the activity requirements for administrators and the procedure for removal of permissions for inactive admins. If you would like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to tighten administrator inactivity procedure. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333 doubling down on personal attacks

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.

---

Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) cast aspersions against Praxidicae (talk · contribs) without providing evidence ("although Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it"). When called out, Ritchie333 declined to provide any evidence and effectively said that no, Praxidixae was in fact not close to Strickland in any meaningful way beyond having declined unrelated drafts, and Ritchie333 didn't remember anything specific that they might have done or not done, and then went on with accusations of misconduct without evidence: "if you spent more time writing the encyclopedia and less time bashing people over the head who disagree with you, people wouldn't get that impression". The thread on Ritchie333's talk page, beyond some back-and-forth bickering, contains multiple third-party requests to clarify those accusations, none of them followed up by Ritchie333. Instead, Ritchie333 tried to shut down valid concerns over his personal attacks (see WP:Casting aspersions: Yes, those are personal attacks) by complaining about the tone of the concerns.

There's apparently quite some history between Ritchie333 and Praxidicae. Ritchie333 has previously tried to bait Praxidicae (that "smile" comment is a deliberate provocation because it refers to this conversation on Ritchie333's talk page and Ritchie333 knew exactly that it would be seen as sexist and telling a woman to better conform to her role as eye candy).

If Ritchie333 has a genuine concern with Praxidicae's conduct (and I'm not saying that Praxidicae is blameless, though I haven't seen anything close to these examples), they should know where WP:AN/I is and what to do about it. Maligning another editor, refusing to provide evidence or retract the accusation, and engaging in further personal attacks is not the way to go and is unbecoming of an administrator. I would have thought that this could be resolved by a trout and an apology, except it's not a one-off and no acknowledgement of inappropriate behaviour, much less an apology, seems forthcoming. So instead of joining the chorus who has expressed concerns on Ritchie333's talk page I'm bringing it here. Huon (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Praxidicae's conduct rises to the level of ANI; I just want them to be more reflective and recognise that other people have different views and opinions on notability and procedures, that AfC has caused problems in the real world by people doing things in good faith, and that they have an overly aggressive attitude. Part of the problem with diffs (such as this) is that they were made on an old account and I didn't want to fall foul of WP:OUTING, and the problem is not so much the incidents themselves (which were only a handful) but the overly aggressive and defensive attitude towards them. If that means I come across like Gordon Ramsay berating a chef in a loss-making restaurant, well that's just the sort of person I am I guess and I do apologise as I'm not here to upset people, though in my view "Your attitude is harmful and drives people away, please stop" is not a personal attack. I have tried to be conciliatory towards them in the past, but was ignored. I know they had a huge bunfight with The Rambling Man on my talk page, but I stayed out of that as it was unproductive, and they don't work on any articles I do so I find it easy to switch off and do something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this again... I was threatened enough last time round, and I don't want to go over it all again thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, I wonder how long it will take for people to realize that piling onto someone isn't going to make them change their ways even if they are unequivocally and irrefutably wrong. Never, of course, but that's beside the point. Ritchie333, may I calmly suggest that you strike the comment about Praxidicae on compassionate grounds (if none other) from User talk:Micha Jo#Outsider view. It's obviously upset them – valid/invalid understood/misunderstood isn't important now. Then may I suggest that this be let go. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, and done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Compassion isn't what's needed, a recognition of unbecoming behavior, in my opinion, is. This doesn't change the overall issue brought up here and that is the purposely antagonistic comments but also the flat out lie and aspersions cast, not to mention the constant deflection even after being asked directly to substantiate these claims, of which they've made several. Instead calm requests even from outside parties have been met with non-response, changing the subject or hostility by pinging unrelated users into the conversation. Praxidicae (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

And if editor retention is a concern here regarding my behavior, please look into the mirror first. Your constant attacks on people who don't participate the way that you like but are valuable editors, is what forces people out, not someone reviewing a draft and declining it when it is poorly sourced or otherwise unsuitable for mainspace. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone here could work harder on their tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You won't get any introspection in this heat. An amicable resolution may be possible to arrive if approached in better temperaments. I've long since taken Ritchie's valuable advice and moved away from these dispute boards for solutions, only for punishments [and I generally don't aim to punish]: resolutions are rare, just look at this 150k byte abomination over at AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused as to how this discussion even started. Looking at the message left on Micha Jo's talk page here, it appears that Ritchie333 got nearly every detail of that post wrong.

The draft was declined by several reviewers. After it was accepted, I worked on it for several hours trying to find additional sources to verify what was written. The best I can tell is that Jovanovic is a very controversial figure, but there aren't enough sources written about him to qualify for GNG, and the existing article was very one-sided and promotional. Any changes that I made to the article were undone by Micha Jo, and any attempts to work with them to provide better sourcing were met with arguments and accusations. I then nominated it for AfD.

Andrewa then got involved and voted to keep the article, and began trying to work with Micha Jo to improve the sourcing. At the same time, he left me an email in defense of Micha Jo, which I responded to on his talk page. Ritchie333's assertion that Andrewa has been unnecessarily aggressive and badgering towards Micha Jo is unfair, as he was on Micha Jo's side throughout the AfD, and on Micha Jo's talk page.

Praxidicae voted delete on the AfD. Once additional sockpuppets voted on the same AfD, Praxidicae opened an SPI, which was then reviewed by at least two checkusers and other administrators, who blocked Micha Jo and all the socks. Outside of these two (the keep vote, and the SPI), I'm not aware of any other involvement by Praxidicae. Ritchie333's comment I am disappointed that Praxidixae wants to bash people over the head for writing articles, which started this whole thread, is unfounded and unfair, as Praxidicae did no so such thing. The follow-up comment although Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it is even more confusing, as I was the one who declined that draft, not Praxidicae.

I would urge Ritchie333 to read through the deleted article's history, the talk page thread, the thread on Andrewa's talk page, and the history of Micha Jo's talk page (the talk page has been edited and rearranged extensively, so view the history), and then form a fresh opinion. The "Outsider view" posted on Micha Jo's talk page misses the mark on almost every point, and should be removed. Bradv 15:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to write a new article on Jovanovic, but I can't make head nor tail of the sources (is "Le Quotidien" as in Quotidien, Le Quotidien (newspaper) or Le Quotidien de Paris?), not so much over the French language as that I'm not really familiar with the range of French media and what normally counts as a reliable sources or not. It's frustrating because it sounds like the sort of person we should have an article on, if only we could find the sources. I spent time talking to Andrewa on this yesterday, and I think we're both in agreement that that's what needs to happen. (As you have probably seen, I have given Andrew a barnstar for his efforts as he gave a well-reasoned, accurate and civil account of events that was persuasive and convincing). Everything else as far as I'm concerned is just noise and I think people just got carried away a bit.

I did say that I am sympathetic to your situation at the moment Bradv, as you're being gently roasted on a spit by the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation for making one simple mistake months and months ago, and that people should go easy on you for it. But it is key to my central point, which is that Wikipedia is in the real world, and even though we can do things to chapter and verse and adhering to our policies and guidelines with absolute impeccability, we can still get bad press. The Independent is factually wrong to say "Someone had created a Wikipedia page for Strickland, which was subsequently flagged for deletion and removed from the encyclopaedia. The entry was determined not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements, and all three of these criteria are biased in favour of men". However, it's also one of the most respected British newspapers and one of my "go-to" news sources that I would trust enough to generally use on BLPs. So it seems reasonable to me that if we want to change this perception, we need to go easy on people who are trying to help and not bash them over the head with policies. And if I see somebody declining AfCs and being (in my view) unreasonably defensive about it even though they may be right when examined against policy, then I think it's a reasonable concern to suggest they may want to think about how the outside world views them. Otherwise we will continue to gather bad press and those of us working on the administrative side of things will probably start to feel like it's a siege.

Despite the impression you may have got, I do actually want to find out why people have different views for mine, even if I struggle to articulate that. Because once I know that, I can try and see if we've got a solution that will please all sides. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: This really doesn't address the issues I raised above. I fear you have misread the history of the article and our interactions, and somehow blame Andrewa and Praxidicae. I'm glad you have resolved things with Andrewa and struck your comments, but I believe Praxidicae also deserves an apology. I'm particularly confused by your comments about blaming Praxidicae for Strickland, and not me.

That said, I believe that AfD can be treated as a soft delete (not deleted and salted as on the French Wikipedia), so if you feel there are enough sources to write an article no one will stop you. This will probably be easier to do with Micha Jo blocked, as they were quite insistent that the information be presented only one way.

I share your concerns about the reputation of Wikipedia in the wake of the Strickland incident, but I do not believe that the solution is to lower our standards of inclusion to a point where we keep unverifiable and promotional material. I would be happy to discuss this further with you on a different forum if you like. Bradv 15:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I did say that this was my opinion and that I might not be right and everyone else was allowed to disagree (or maybe I didn't make that clear enough :-/), and my viewpoint was primarily geared towards whether we could get a decent article produced above everything else. I'm happy to apologise over misreading Praxidicae's intent in this specific circumstance, and I am sure they do everything in good faith; however I can't change my views over their attitude because I've got no evidence. Supposing that instead of running to my talk page and screaming "You're either being fed lies by someone or outright bullshitting." (as I said elsewhere, that basically has the same effect as "Fuck you!"), they wrote something like "I understand Wikipedia's problematic reputation with the press, but we can't just lower standards to assuage hurt feelings. Happy to chat more about this." (which is kind of chapter and verse in WP:CIVIL#Dealing with incivility, and basically the last line of what you've written above) then I am certain the discussion would have taken a more productive route. I think also part of the problem is I seem to be the only one here that thinks Praxidicae has a civility problem and is prepared to call them out on it - if more people shared that view, I probably won't feel as motivated to do something about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I seem to be the only one here that thinks Praxidicae has a civility problem and is prepared to call them out on it that's not true. I agree, and have said as much here and elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: You still made bad faith accusations against Praxidicae though. Your admission of that error should not be dependent on how they react to the accusations. Bradv 16:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I really wish I could agree with you here, and you can call what I did misguided, foolish, ill-advised, unnecessary, overblown etc etc .... but it was done from a genuine concern for the project, so I can't describe it as bad faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Making unfounded accusations toward other users is bad faith though. I would still urge you to recognise that your comments were inappropriate, and demonstrate good faith towards Praxidicae in an effort to heal this rift between you. You have an opportunity here to make steps toward resolving your long-standing disputes, and for the good of the project I hope you take it. Bradv 17:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not unfounded. I have formed the opinion that Praxidicae has a civility problem and their attitude (formed primarily from incivil and unsolicited messages on my talk page like this - this was for an AfD that closed unanimously as "keep", or seeing a continual lack of response to good faith questions on their talk page such as this, this, this and this) is likely, in my view, to cause an incident like Donna Strickland sooner or later if they don't appreciate there is a problem. You might not agree with my assessment, or might think it was inflammatory, or might think my reasons are spurious, or even bringing this up is likely to be productive, but you can't say it was without foundation. Anyway, it wasn't bad faith, and if you can't accept that, I don't think there's much else I can say to persuade you, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If you can't see how implying that someone is somehow responsible for something they had nothing to do with is bad faith and a personal attack, I don't think you should be in the business of evaluating anyone else's actions. zchrykng (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not do that. If you thought I did, then you have misunderstood my intentions. Assume good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The two comments left here, namely Praxidixae wants to bash people over the head for writing articles and Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it are both unfounded. As I mentioned above, Praxidicae's frustration in dealing with these accusations does not justify the accusations themselves, and certainly do not warrant additional personal attacks. The comments you make now are just deflecting, and still do nothing to heal the rift between you. You are both respected editors, and the project would be a lot stronger if you two got along. Bradv 17:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• All of this aside, are you going to substantiate your claim that I initially asked about or are we going to continue this charade of everything being my fault for your actions? Or are you just trying to prove a point? I don't know how this question can be asked of you in a more clear or direct way. Provide diffs. Praxidicae (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Also your further accusations that I'm uncivil or otherwise disruptive are ridiculous. You're just making things up now and you're just trying to find something to justify your own behavior. This diff you provided is adequately explained at the AFD. This one I helped via the help chat. This was straight up someone spamming their own website and my warning adequately explained it. And the last one, well frankly, I've gone back and forth with that editor to the point that it got nowhere and I forgot about it. None of this is justification for you treating editors like trash and making false accusations. And more importantly, your perception that I don't respond is way off base as I help most of these people that I interact with via our help chat and if you have a problem with that, like everything else you've brought up, take it up at the appropriate venue. This is about 'your behavior and conduct. Since you've also seem to take a liking to trashing me at AFC, please go get consensus to remove me or drop it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Two-way IBAN proposal

As much as I'd love to agree with Bradv's comment that "the project would be a lot stronger if you two got along", it's rather clear that's not going to happen - this has gone on for far too long, and is causing upset on both sides. I would like to propose a two-way interaction ban to stop this escalating further. Please - TNT ^💖 18:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I am proposing this IBAN between Ritchie333 and Praxidicae - TNT ^💖 19:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - TNT ^💖 18:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Um, an IBAN between which users? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus - clarified above - TNT ^💖 19:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support assuming the one-way proposal below goes nowhere. zchrykng (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Support – although I was hoping this would be resolved with an apology, I agree that does not appear to be forthcoming. While I'm not sure I see the advantage in extending this both ways, I do note that most, if not all, of Praxidicae's interactions with Ritchie333 are in reaction to comments he made about her editing, so both varieties of IBAN will essentially accomplish the same thing. Bradv 19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  Upon further review, I can't find any evidence of wrongdoing or "abuse" on Praxidicae's part. The messages left on Ritchie333's talk page were a justifiable reaction to the unfounded allegations made against her, and there is no reason that she should be punished for this. I realize that a one-way IBAN is difficult to enforce, but a two-way in this case is simply unfair. Therefore I'm changing my vote in favour of the option below. Bradv 20:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

While I realise administrators should take it on the chin and deal with stuff, and WP:CIVIL is a busted flush, I have to say I found this message quite mean-spirited and was upset by it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333, yes, she was clearly quite upset when she wrote that. But it was in reaction to something that you wrote about her, which she termed a "total, unsubstantiated and outright lie". You've agreed above that the accusation was "misguided, foolish, ill-advised, etc.", but you still have not apologised to her for it. It's completely unfair to then punish her for being upset. Bradv 21:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, a justifiable reaction, unfair, punish... I'll have to remember that for next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It was nowhere near as mean-spirited as this, given Ritchie had been reminded just a few weeks earlier that telling women to smile when you disagree with them is inappropriate. That was not even in the same league. Fish Karate 10:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems I have been naive and ignorant over that. In this case "Don't forget to smile" means "Good grief, if you can't accept my point of view, at least be nice about it", and specifically this. Yes, I shouldn't have been sarcastic and I apologise for that, but why is gender important? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Start here. Fish Karate 10:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support as this would prevent any further talk page abuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as first option. Nihlus 19:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Two prolific editors with diametrically opposed views on content creation vs maintenance and who are continually rubbing each other up the wrong way. A formal two-way ban is the best option. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Second choice if the 1-way i-ban doesn't pass. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC) strike in favor of GMG's proposal, see below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Certainly preferable to a one-way IBAN pbp 20:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support This needs to stop. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Hmmm. I'm surprised to only be the second opposer here. Perhaps there is more to this than I can glean through the diffs in this thread, but I cannot see an evidence of major long-term disruption that would merit this. Beyond that, I cannot see substantial disruption in mainspace/article talk. Perhaps I am missing something, but if it's primarily on each other's talk pages, then they can request the ibans themselves. I.e. I would want to see that it's something they want, rather than something imposed on them. Otherwise I can see this iban causing more disruption than not having an iban. A couple trouts earned, but that's all, pending more diffs showing a longer-term disruption by one or both parties. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as someone who considers both of these users to be friends I think this is the best option. I respect GMG's option below, but I honestly don't think it will work. I also would like to clarify that I see this as no fault: neither party particularly seems to like one another, and they tend to be drawn to conflicts involving the other.
  It's easy to say "let's all get along", but like TNT above, I think this has reached the point where it is having a negative impact on both of their experiences on Wikipedia, and, now that it's at AN, its starting to impact others. This is the sort of things that 2 way IBANs are good for: taking good faith contributors who don't get along and giving both of them help not to have to worry about it going forward. If we go with a "let's all get along" option, I think there's a halfway decent shot this will be back here again, and I'm not particularly a fan of kicking the can down the road. I respect and like both users, and I think this is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, we don't have to fly headlong into an IBAN every time two editors fall out. It's intended for preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. But in this case there is no disruption being caused to the encyclopedia, nobody is being particularly harassed or vilified, it's just a bucket of snark on both sides. An apology from both to one another and a willingness to move forward and do something else would be ample. Fish Karate 10:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of voluntary ban rather than something binding. Alex Shih (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- I agree that a voluntary effort to avoid each other is a better option than a strict ban. Reyk _YO! 11:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per TonyBallioni. Talk of a voluntary effort seems redundant when it's clear that has failed in the past. Formalise it, and the two can hopefully live their lives without antagonising each other. I also don't think either one is more to blame than the other. In fact, as Tony says, no need to blame anyone because they just don't get along and we're all human.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I am not really happy with this proposal. In my experience, users recently have been too keen of immediately jumping on sanctions. We have seen a user with over 100K contribution site-banned after a day (or was it two days, I do not remember) of a discussion at ANI. We have recently seen that a former arbitrator who behaved weirdly for an hour but had no previous blocks have been proposed to be site-banned with piling up a couple of dozen votes in an hour or so. I have on this very forum a month or so ago advocated that an indefinite block of a user with several hundred edits, one prior warning and no blocks, per NOTHERE is not necessarily the most optimum solution, and nobody listened to me, and the block still stands. Now we have two users, both with between 50K and 100K contributions to Wikipedia, with no prior warnings related to their interaction - and we start with the interaction ban? With an option of snow close? Is this really the first measure which needs to be taken? And next we will have site ban snow closed in two hours? Seriously? Give them warnings for incivility (on the talk pages), advise to stay clear from each other, and see what happens. If they really can not avoid each other and stay civil, fine, propose a two-way interaction ban. But of we continue behaving like this, soon we are just out of editors, and then usual outcry "Wikipedia is falling apart" would resume.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with most of this. Blocks, interaction bans, and so on should be last resorts, not first options. Fish Karate 13:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments from others, and better option in the section 2 below this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This project seems far too keen on banning and blocking users. I feel sure the two users concerned can moderate their behaviours and we can all get on with building an encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment As suggested above, this way is 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) it goes something like this: 'we need to ban the article creator for their alleged misfeasance, we need to ban the reviewer for their alleged misfeasance, we need to ban the admin for their alleged misfeasance.' Now, I agree that the admin is most to blame, here, they should have reversed the cycle not accelerate it, but now all that's left is for us to not jump on the MAD train, and tell the admin to do better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think interaction bans are an excellent tool in situations where one editor brings out the worst in another without there being anything wrong with their behavior as such. We've plenty of examples of such seemingly allergic reactions. This is not one such. I do wish Ritchie had not said what he did, and I do wish Praxidicae had not responded with a certain aggressiveness (yes, there were mitigating circumstances, but mitigation only runs up to a point). Still, this does not rise above a level where it could be talked out: I for one trust that Ritchie has received enough feedback in this very thread to prevent any further incidents (and in saying this I trust to the fact that he is reasonable enough to take this comment and the feedback above in the spirit in which it is intended, which itself is indication that no restriction is required). Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

One-way IBAN proposal

Generally two-way IBANs should only be used when the provocation is coming from both sides. I'm not seeing that here, so I think a one way IBAN on Ritchie333 from Praxidicae would be more appropriate. zchrykng (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. zchrykng (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as above (first choice). Bradv 19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• I've already said "If Praxidicae stops leaving abuse on my talk, I'm happy to leave him alone and do something else." (and have ignored them in this thread), but if you want to make it formal then that's consensus for you, I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: Are you agreeing to a formal, one-way IBAN from Praxidicae? If so, we can cut short this bureaucratic crap - TNT ^💖 19:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to take a de facto interaction ban - by that I mean I will not consciously go and look for trouble or criticise them; however, if I accidentally see an article at CAT:CSD that they happen to have tagged as CSD G11 that I agree with and delete (without noticing who tagged it, as often I just evaluate things on their own merits), I don't think that should be block worthy (and that is the stuff that interaction bans trips up on). In return, I ask that they stay off my talk page. I am pretty comfortable with all of that, and hopefully you are too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to think any administrator here wouldn't "consciously go and look for trouble". I'm not comfortable with anything less than a formal IBAN, be it a one-way or two-way. We can wait for a consensus either way - TNT ^💖 19:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

All I really want is for them to leave me alone and stay off my talkpage. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds more like the IBAN needs to be in the other direction. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Then I need to know what happens if they tag an article for administrative assistance (most obviously CSD) and I agree with it and delete it without realising it's them? What if they tag a gross BLP violation as G10? (In fact I would say probably 90% of the time at least I agree with their CSD tags and delete the article, but these never generate controversy so nobody hears about them). These questions need to be asked up-front, because (as Black Kite suggests below) I've seen too many occasions where people have used IBANs as "aha" gotchas. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, they're definitely there for the "gotchas". You will be left in a position that you will not be able to do anything about anything they tag, rightly or wrongly. You'll need to double check who added the tag and walk away if it's someone you're one-way IBANned with. It's a horror show. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Ritchie shouldn't be subject to an open house on abuse left on his talkpage. No way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I assume you have diffs of something that can objectively be called abuse, since you are leveling accusations? zchrykng (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I think all you need to do is look at the threads on Richie's talkpage, and the diffs he's already offered. But thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as second option. Nihlus 19:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose You only have to look at the original message that Praxidicae left on Ritchie's talk page to see that this should be either a 2-way ban, or nothing. (Edit: but support the below suggestion by GMG) Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  Black Kite, that message was in response to the unfounded allegations made here. Bradv 19:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, 1-way I-Bans are rarely useful, and only where there is only abuse being thrown in one direction. That isn't the case here - there's clearly an issue going in both directions. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose That would imply that the blame is all on one side, which is not the case. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, I do not see sufficient justification for a one-way interaction ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't know what's gotten into Ritchie here, and I'm disappointed but not surprised (this being WP) that this couldn't have been worked out without resorting to formal banning. I know a lot of people I respect disagree, but I'm not personally persuaded that 1-way I-bans are inherently impractical; if Praxidicae abuses it, then she can always easily be sanctioned, but I see no reason to believe a priori that she will. The annoyances of having an Iban imposed are part of why people usually try harder to change their behavior so as not to be subject to them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC) strike in favor of GMG's proposal below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, that's not true at all. What happens is people get slapped with a one-way IBAN, sometimes ex process, with no opportunity to "change their behavior" (sic), whether they need to or not, and then it's impossible to have that IBAN removed. No-one on Wikipedia works to avoid one-way IBANs, no-one, ever. And in any case, Ritchie's concerns are less with the ongoing talk page abuse, more with inadvertently carrying out an admin task and infringing those "terms". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly that. I really am all ears for what I could have done instead, Floq (and if you find email easier, I'm willing to listen). I didn't start this thread, it happened in response to an unsolicited message on my talk page, which in turn came from a ping I got from a blocked user who specifically wanted my help. I've apologised for going over the mark - why can't other people? I'll even accept a two-way interaction ban because it at least sounds fair. Now, my challenge is: will the other party agree to a two-way IBAN and we can close this down with the minimum of fuss? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Email sent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much, this is snow-closeable shortly with universal consensus in favour of a two-way ban, regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - For basically the same reasons as above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose If anything, Praxidicae's confrontational approach is equally at blame here if not more. Alex Shih (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfair to blame one side when it's a mutual failure to get along.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in principle, all 1-way IBANS. They're too easy to game. And this one in particular is wrong headed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• The admin is most to blame, but just tell him to do better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose being growed-ups

• IBANS among two of our most active users who are also active in similar areas is going to be a nightmare. Propose ending with the strong suggestion that both users be growed-ups, leave each other be, and go do something else, without all the bureaucratic minutiae of an IBAN either way, and with the understanding that if that doesn't work, the bureaucratic nightmare is the next option (and with all the ensuing bickering about who edited what first, and with what intention). I like both these folks; I wish they liked each other, but they don't seem to. So put on your adult pants, and go your separate ways without needing the forms filled out in triplicate. GMG^talk 23:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• GMG is right, of course. An I-ban sucks bad enough (with blocks for screw-ups) that I have some faith that they will observe an unofficial near-but-not-100% i-ban. With a 1 or 2-way i-ban in our quiver if this comes back here. Thanks for the reality check, and de-escalation, GMG, I think I got swept up too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as sensible. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• What rnddude said. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• It's a nice thought, but "being growed-ups" hasn't worked for the past several months (or however long this conflict has been going on). An actual solution is needed. Natureium (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've interacted with both these users quite a bit, I have no doubt in my mind the both of them have nothing but the best interest of the project at heart, and I expect that a community admonishment to kindly fuck off will probably be well enough for both of them to do so. GMG^talk 02:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Please find some way to work out your differences. It would suck to see two people I hold in very high regard screw each other over. It really sucks and is disheartening to see you two fight like this. I don’t usually comment on ani threads but I feel as though that sanctions may §lead to valuable editors like Ritchie and P being lost. So please, find some way to work something out.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 03:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. Hoping for the ideal when there is a clear solution that would make sure neither would have to interact with one another would be a forced deescalation. Kicking the can down the road does no one any good. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• I support this. Interaction ban is most certainly not a "clear solution" in this case, but only to delay us from dealing with underlying issues, being the easy way out for spectators. If there is a pattern of unfounded accusations by Ritchie333, that needs to be resolved. If there is a pattern of problematic AfC patrolling by Praxidicae, that needs to be resolved. If neither is a problem that requires sanction or continued discussion at this point, well then whoever that is pushing it needs to stop. Not tackling underlying issues but simplifying the matter as merely two people that don't get along is not productive. Move along. Alex Shih (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

For the profit of any other newcomer

All these events occurred in relation with a now deleted article centered on a person who is none of the 45 people listed at the Jovanovic disambiguation page, but another one, whose given name is Pierre. Pldx1 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

In an ideal Wikipedia

Disclosure: I am heavily involved in the discussions (past and probably future) over the article in question.

The best solution would be to simply warn both editors that wp:NPA is a policy and that further breaches will not be tolerated, not to punish either of them but simply to protect Wikipedia.

The problem being that this can't be an idle threat, and enforcement would be most unfair when nobody else is held to this standard, and that gives M. J more ammunition should he choose to use it. But it might be worth a try even so. See wt:Administrators' noticeboard#NPA. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The day someone enforces WP:NPA against admins is the day I reveal I'm secretly Jimmy - TNT ^💖 18:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but no one here needs a reminder of what NPA is or that it is a policy; the sky is blue. It has always been about what construes as "personal attacks" when involving experienced editors; the line will always remain debatable as there are always many elements including context to consider. We do not need civility policing, but we also do not need people not dealing with one another without the basic respect one would expect if it was a real world interaction; and that needs to be mutual. Alex Shih (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughts.

Agree that the key is respect. And discouraging all personal attacks encourages mutual respect, while allowing them encourages escalation of a disagreement to become a conflict. That's the beauty of the policy of NPA.

But that's exactly the question I was asking. Has the environment here changed to the point that this is now seen as important? I'm glad you think that no one here needs a reminder of what NPA is... etc. but not convinced!

But disagree that It has always been about what construes as "personal attacks" when involving experienced editors; the line will always remain debatable as there are always many elements including context to consider... the policy is quite explicit. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. It's about what to do about it when it happens.

Agree that We do not need civility policing. Civility issues are often raised as an excuse for ignoring NPA, but it's generally a red herring. The two policies are related but not the same thing at all. And if by policing you mean blocks, bans and other sanctions, agree again. When we as admins need to resort to those, in a sense we and the policies have both already failed. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sadly that turns out to be not the case. The policy is anything but explicit, and admins' failure to recognise that is the reason why fine editors like Eric Corbett eventually give up and find something more adult to occupy their time. One person's insulting behaviour is another person's vigorous banter; what one may see as disparaging, someone else will find to be justified criticism; my rudeness could be your bluntness; and so on. While we have a system which allows admins to jump to a conclusion and then become judge, jury and executioner in one, we will continue to lose hugely valued contributors who will no longer volunteer to be treated like that. The last thing we need is hold the sort of threats that are envisaged in this thread over the heads of such valued contributors. When will folks learn that the "stick" isn't the key to behaviour modification? --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This probably belongs at wt:AN#NPA where I tried to start a conversation, or even at wt:NPA. But I'm so thrilled to get any interest.

Agree that the "stick" isn't the key to behaviour modification. But that misses the point in any case. This isn't about behaviour modification. It's about protecting Wikipedia. Yes, if someone can modify their behaviour to avoid making personal attacks, that's a good outcome. But that's irrelevant unless we can at least agree that personal attacks are always a bad idea and we seem to have lost sight even of that.

One person's...... Exactly. So the bar needs to be set high if we're to retain editors. And it is set very high. But that is being ignored, and you can't blame people for continuing to ignore it if personal attacks pass without negative comment. That doesn't mean ban anyone who steps over the line. It means, take the trouble to say to them, maybe you meant it well but that was offensive to the other party and we have a policy that says that's unacceptable. And yes, some editors will say, if I can't tell other editors off whenever I like I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. And that is OK. This is a collaboration, we work by consensus, and not everyone is cool about that. And they simply don't belong here. Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It's becoming easier. Not sure whether that's good or bad. But it would not be good to use it only against admins. More severely, yes. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2018 (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.

TPA removal 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.

---

Can someone remove TPA from Mate Bulic Fakjea For making personal attacks while blocked. My first request was refused by Iridescent I guess they don't want to do Admin stuff. Really their response is quite unbelievable coming from an Admin, or maybe I'm asking too much. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 22:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I've explained why you reverted their edits. Hopefully that'll take, if they tell me to go jump in a lake then yeah I'll turn access off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Or more accurately, Iridescent explained in detail why I don't consider revoking talk page access—a last resort only to be used to address continued abuse, something explicitly spelled out in the blocking policy—is appropriate to address a single piece of venting by someone who's just been blocked, after you randomly canvassed me for no apparent reason demanding I strip Mate Bulic Fakjea of talk page access purely on your say-so. ‑ Iridescent 23:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent It won't happen again, I assure you. A snigle ping ≠ canvassing - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 23:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Um, why retain talk page access? The only significant reason blocked users retain talk page access by default is to facilitate unblock requests, and this is rather far from that. This kind of statement can get a block on sight, without the say-so of the target, and we have less reason to be lenient to someone who's already blocked than to someone who's not been previously. Meanwhile, this was rather obviously not on the say-so of the target: you were pinged to the page where it had occurred, and you had the ability to look for yourself. Furthermore, editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page means that it's generally a bad idea to shut it down, not that it's prohibited (read this, for example), and we have lenience to do that without invoking IAR. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• I also oppose the revocation of TPA on just a simple bit of venting. Be bigger, ignore, move on. And, FlightTime Phone, if you don't like personal attacks against you then perhaps you might consider not making attacks on others? Just a thought. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been trying to tell FlightTime to use less templates and more personal communication for years, but it doesn't seem to sink in and when I've brought it here, I found there was no community consensus that he's doing anything wrong, so these days I just manage it accordingly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Pile on opposition to removing talk page access.--v/r - TP 19:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose also. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Oppose removing TPA access for now. Nyttend has already removed the said attack. If the user restores or doubles down on personal attack, then I will support TPA revoke as mentioned in the edit summary. WP:NPA is taken seriously, no leniency on such blatant cases.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:01, 23 November 2018 (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.

Hertfordshire

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 was wondering if this edit in the history should be striked, [5], cheers, Govvy (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

That's just standard vandalismpromotionalism, nothing meets our RD criteria. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Really, I found it rather offensive that someone would try to advertise their right wing group, I would prefer it strike deleted. Govvy (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, RD2 is grossly insulting/offensive, and simply being promotional does not fit that bill. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2018 (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.

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.

---

Really, promoting a right wing group on wikipedia isn't a strike offence? I am surprised admins would allow that, sickens me that you haven't striked it and are allowing it to stand in the history of the article. Very sick, Govvy (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do read the criteria which govern when material is hidden from articles' histories. While this edit was correctly reverted, it comes nowhere near the threshold for revision deletion. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2018 (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.

Page history merging

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.

---

Hello!

Please merge this two pages' history:

• Troilus and Cressida‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Bencemac/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you very much! Bencemac (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking into this.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Many thanks! Regards, Bencemac (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2018 (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.

Flag removal

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 am on a wikibreak from ACC, can someone remove my flag until a later time. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you :) - FlightTime (open channel) 01:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Come back soon, FlightTime! ...But ...obviously when you're ready to. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:39, 27 November 2018 (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.

Level 1 desysop of Garzo

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Garzo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: Worm That Turned, Euryalus, Opabinia regalis, DeltaQuad, Mkdw, and KrakatoaKatie.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Worm^TT(talk) 20:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Garzo

Help with heuristics for auto-detecting paid revisions

Hi admins. I'm doing a little research on automatically detecting paid revisions. Part of my process involve coming up with weak heuristics for determining whether a particular edit is likely to be paid. But since I'm no experienced editor, I don't have a great intuition for developing these heuristics. I'd highly appreciate your help with brainstorming.

The framework I'm working with (and supporting publication). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apiarant (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

For some related work being done by the WMF, see https://ores.wikimedia.org. My impression is that they are using machine learning to identify edits that might be vandalism. There is a list of people here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I got in contact with the ORES group. A major difference between their work and mine is that I'm interested in whether a particular way of modeling crowd-sourced heuristics can drastically improve models like those that ORES works with. But I'd need less technical help than community help. I'm pretty new to the community here; would you happen to know where I can find admins experienced with or interested in paid edits? Apiarant (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is probably the best place to find people with an interest in the topic. Per my comment on your initial proposal, I think this proposal is vanishingly unlikely to be accepted, since it will be flagging huge numbers of good-faith editors as potential spammers, which will violate Wikipedia's most fundamental principle of assuming good faith. ‑ Iridescent 10:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for your help! Indeed, if the method falsely flags too many good-faith editors, it's unacceptable. I'm personally unsure how difficult reducing false positives here might be until I get to the modeling myself. However, I do have faith that with enough time and work, a reasonable job can be done: it doesn't appear that any part of the problem is (under my current understanding) insurmountable. Would you mind sharing what you've seen and why you think the method will over-flag good-faith editors? You might save me a few dozen hours of time! Apiarant (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by TheGracefulSlick

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.

---

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

TheGracefulSlick has submitted an unblock request at User talk:TheGracefulSlick#Unblock request. Per discussion of admins there, I am copying this here for community review. There is further discussion at that talk page, but the text of the main appeal is as follows:

Over three months ago, I was blocked for socking. Wikipedia, at the time, became a unhealthy environment for me and, admittedly, faith in myself took a nose-dive. The site offers viable solutions to handle what I was putting myself through, but I failed to invest the necessary time to understand what would have worked best for me, as well as the project. Instead, I took a disruptive approach, hoping an admin would block me for my socking. Writing and my friends outside of Wikipedia have helped me rebuild my confidence. After taking a two month break from anything related to Wikipedia, I began writing articles for WikiNews. I introduced myself to entirely new editors, who welcomed me despite the behavior that led to my block. If I am granted re-entry into the community, I intend to apply the lessons the editors at WikiNews taught me. I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator. I look to finish editing GA projects in my sandbox and collaborate on other historical subjects; long-term, I plan to improve the remaining studio albums by the Doors to GA status, write articles on books, and contribute more to content on women. By joining Women in Green, I look to set positive goals for my editing. In the unlikely event I find myself relapsing, I know now I have strong support in the community, to not feel ashamed to ask for help, and I have the ability to ask for a self-block. This is a route I should have understood more prior to making my mistake. If it is the opinion of the admin that my request here is insufficient or something needs clarifying regarding my plans, please prompt me further.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Note, that this unblock appeal is short of the standard 6 months, but there seemed to be agreement to test for consensus at AN. The community is invited to comment on this appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support- I'm not sure what waiting another three months would accomplish. TGS is one of the good people, and I don't see much chance of a repeat of the behaviour that got him blocked. Reyk _YO! 07:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Three months is too little time; the editor has shown far too many and too serious instances of very poor judgment, including outrageously socking in 2016 (two socks, which were attacking Garagepunk66 and masquerading as CrazyAces489). Even when confronted with clear evidence from Mike V. and DeltaQuad that CU results showed incontrovertibly that the two impersonators were TGS, he kept denying it over and over and over (see this thread and this thread). Not having learned his lesson, he socked again three months ago to cast two votes in an RFA. He also continued to harass Garagepunk66 after being unblocked from his first socking, to the point to the point that Garagepunk66 had to reach out to Bishonen to request an interaction ban [6], and even after that the harassment did not stop. Although TGS is a good content creator, I'm afraid these violations are quite egregious when taken together, and that TGS has lost the community's trust. I think that three months is too soon for an unblock. At the very least, he should wait six months, per standard offer. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Normally I'd want to wait for the usual six months Standard Offer period, but I don't see what difference that would make in this case and I see no need for it. The unblock request is one of the most open I've seen and ticks all the boxes, and I can't think how a new appeal in six months could be any better - if anything, it's a model appeal. Yes, the socking back in 2016 was bad, but it's clearly been addressed and TheGracefulSlick appears genuinely remorseful about it. There should be no element of punishment in a block, and that's all it will be if it's maintained any longer - I certainly see no justification for keeping a block in place for things that happened two years ago. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • All of the poor behavior didn't happen two years ago -- he deliberately socked three months ago to cast two !votes in an RfA (hence the current block), when he had already been blocked as a sock previously. Also, I'm not sure if the harassment of Garagepunk66 had abated by the time TGS was blocked three months ago -- I'd like to hear from him, although I see his editing seems to have slowly petered out since June. Softlavender (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean to suggest that all of the poor behaviour was two years ago, but all much of the specific stuff that you bring up above was two years ago. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Split the difference This is a more self reflective and honest unblock request than most, but on the other hand, Softlavender is correct that the misconduct (which surprised me) was serious and we need a stronger commitment that harassment and socking will never, ever happen again from this editor. I suggest that we ask this editor to return in mid-January instead of three months from now, and that they offer a more detailed commitment to avoid disruptive behavior at that time, with an understanding that any more misconduct will result in a much longer block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  I also agree with Softlavender that the original socking was indeed egregious, but you do realize all that really bad stuff was two years ago, don't you? I'm surprised that you seem to think another six weeks will make any difference. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Either they are ready, or they are not. Holding them for another 6 weeks seems purely punitive. I don't see the extra purpose it's going to serve to add that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support unblock now, good editor, no reason to leave blocked. Legacypac (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Earlier this year, the user joined a harassment campaign against me, which ultimately forced me to go to low activity for some time. Whereas it is good that they are capable of self-reflection, I would like to remark that socking was not the only problem with them, and I do not see references to problematic interaction with other users in the request. I will probably not oppose an unblock at this point, but I would like to see assurances that if problems re-emerge, and the user is incapable of addressing them, a block will be quickly reinstated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Split the difference Taking into consideration Ymblater and Softlavander comments I think we should wait a little longer so I support Cullen328 proposal --Shrike (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Again, I really don't understand how "a little longer" makes any sense at all - there isn't a specific timeout period after which it's all fine, and unblocks are decided by the quality of the appeal and not by the calendar. (Even the SO period is only a suggestion). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Yes, the SO is early, but editors of "sufficient standing" (no sitting down on the job please!) have been impressed by the thoughtful and nuanced unblock appeal to outweigh the red tape of waiting another few months. I agree that the worse behaviour was "a long time ago", while also noting that it is not long enough for the WP:ROPE to have run out.
  @Ymblanter: it is a little unfair to blame TGS for making a single comment in a discussion that involved five others, and where your severest criticism came from two admins, not TGS. ——SerialNumber54129 08:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  It was not a single comment, but a series of comments, in several discussions. And, as I said, I am not opposed to an unblock, I just want to make sure it does not happen again.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  And to make a more general point here, we all do different things and are known from different sides. It I take myself as an example, for not offending anybody else, people who work on CfD know me (hopefully) as someone who does the necessary job on a regular basis and makes sure it does not stay there longer than necessary, people who work on the Wikiproject Russia know me as a content creator working on Russian localities, and some other people who have little interaction with me beyond drama boards know me as someone who occasionally has rage outbursts and rarely says anything wothwhile listening to. Well, this is a fact, does not matter what I think about it, and I need to find some way of working in the project which would maximize my interaction with the first two groups of users and minimize my interaction with the third group. The same is valid for all of us, and the same is also valid for TheGracefulSlick. Some people know them as content creator, but some other people know them as a problematic user who can come out of nowhere to attack someone they never interacted with before, and even to engage in socking to make this more efficiently. We should show first where the bright line is - and I see a reflection on this point in the unblock request. But we also need to help them to find their place in the project provided they do not cross the bright line - and in this sense all comments are valuable, because different users know them from different sides, and having the big picture must help them to orient and to adjust their behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support The appeal, above seems sincere, and there's always WP:ROPE if it goes pear-shaped. Hopefully it doesn't. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• It would be interesting to see a count of what percentage of ROPE unblocks end up reblocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• In some sense, every indefinite block that gets lifted is a ROPE unblock. Heck, every block that gets lifted is a ROPE unblock.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose unless full disclosure of wrongdoings When you were blocked and apparently emailed some admins, you were told that if you appeal in six months or so, you have to be transparent about everything. Maybe you were transparent about your feelings, but you only stated that you socked because you wanted to get caught. Since the socking that led to the block isn't documented at SPI, we have to read what users like Softlavender know about it. Softlavender writes that at first you did not even admit to socking, which is pretty concerning. So it would be important to recognize all the wrongdoings at this stage to know if you own up to it. --Pudeo (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Since Alex Shih wrote that message on TGS's talkpage, it would be good to have his input here. Softlavender (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The impression I get from this unblock request is that TGS seems to implicate that for whatever WP:THERAPY reason, they started socking and hoped someone would block them for doing so. This seems to contradict the fact that the sock account Nobody's Keeper was created four months before I made the block. I wouldn't be opposed to early unblock but to me this unblock request is not only too early and also incomplete. Alex Shih (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Pudeo:, since your comment was seeking a response, I feel I should clarify something. Softlavender is referring to my 2016 block when I did, admittedly, deny any socking, despite obviously being behind it. I do not recall denying wrongdoing with this current offense and described everything I did here at my talk page, per Bbb23’s request. Hope that helps address your concerns.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC) (Copied from user talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC))
• Question: How do we know that TGS is being honest about the reason for his recent socking? He blatantly and brazenly lied 24 times about his earlier socking: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. This recent time, he socked to !vote twice in a borderline RfA. He says in his unblock appeal that he socked in the hopes that someone would notice and block him. If he wanted to be blocked, he could have easily asked for a self-requested block -- he's been around long enough to know about them. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Every single example of lying you have pointed out there is from two years ago. Do you have any evidence of any recent lying? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose until disclosure of wrongdoings As mentioned above. He should at least admit to what he has done before an unblock. Still, it's easy to do this kind of write-up. Stand your guards until he admits. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Just so Oshawott 12. You are clearly speaking from the experience that led you to warn an IP that had been blocked nearly an hour and a half earlier... ——SerialNumber54129 10:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh. uhm... That was embarrassing. I saw his talk, saw no warning for blanking ANI, and thought he wasn't blocked. Apparently I was wrong. By the way, I voted before I did tried to warn, so you could have noticed that too. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I did notice, thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 11:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oshawott 12: Have you read the discussion on the user talk page? What is it that you think he has not yet admitted? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't know if he's honest about everything yet. Even if he is, I still think he needs more time to reflect. He deserves at least 4 months before he should return. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 14:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

So you have no idea whether there are any other undisclosed wrongdoings but you're happy to accuse him of them, and you think he'll suddenly turn honest in another four weeks? Have I got that right? And where does the simple passage of a fixed amount of time for an indef-blocked user come from? What policy is that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support: They're either going to return as a good productive editor, in which case there's nothing to be served by keeping them blocked for longer, or they're going to return to their disruptive and deceptive practices, in which case we will have to deal with that when it happens. There's still nothing to be served by keeping them blocked for longer if that's the case, since we will still have a massive ANI thread and lots of bullshit being spread far and wide if they repeat their previous behaviour. I would also add, for the avoidance of doubt, further fucking about will result in my endorsement of a 2 year ban. Nick (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Question:"Harassment" is discussed above, and I may have missed it, but I do not see the TheGracefulSlick addressing it. Do they have anything to say on that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It's encouraging to see TGS open up about past mistakes. It shows an objectivity which will help control problem behavior in the future. TGS has a record of excellent article creation and expansion work in music topics, and I will be glad to see an unblock. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - TGS is a great net-plus editor, I think they have learned a lesson, no need to enforce the whole SO in this case. I think Nick hit the nail in the first part of their cmt. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Yes the behavior was egregious. Measure that against past and possible future contributions. And, we’re closer to four months than three. But mostly, this is the best phrased appeal I’ve seen in ages. O3000 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Nick, and noting TGS should be aware they're on their very last chance here. Courcelles (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen (i.e. I endorse Cullen's suggestion to wait longer). I'm a strong believer that users who genuinely recognize their mistakes in a block appeal ought to be given a chance to demonstrate their sincerity, especially those blocked for socking since so many just go on socking. On the other hand, I'm also a strong believer that outright harassment should be punished, and in the preventive value of deterrence blocks. So, I realize this may be an unpopular opinion, but if treating this harasser harshly deters others from engaging in harassment, the block is preventive and I support it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  The suggestion that a block should contain an element of punishment is not merely unpopular, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Isn't that rather at odds with WP:NOTPUNITIVE? ——SerialNumber54129 17:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Boing! said Zebedee and Serial Number 54129: WP:NOTPUNITIVE is a contender to be the most misunderstood policy on Wikipedia, and no, Ivanvector isn't violating it here. Yes, blocks shouldn't be used purely to punish, but blocking to act as a deterrent is not only permitted, it's specifically advised in the blocking policy. I'm not saying I agree with Ivanvector here—I don't see who is being deterred by leaving TGS blocked since no other harasser is likely to be aware of this case, and if anything leaving him blocked sends the signal "once you're out you're not getting back in" and we have another Thekohser or VX4C on our hands—but his is an entirely valid viewpoint. ‑ Iridescent 17:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The operative phrase—deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior—specifies the disruption has to be ongoing, and I think anyone would be hard pushed to argue that disruption can be on-going after a three-month block. Sans socking of course. ——SerialNumber54129 17:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Hmm, OK, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  On reflection my rationale is unfair in the context of an unblock discussion, and I have struck the bolded part of my comment. What I wrote is also my opinion with respect to WP:ROPE. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Extremely cautious support - I'm conflicted about this. This person has demonstrated a huge capacity for malice and deception, and I don't think "it was 2 years ago" is a good reason to ignore that; on the contrary, we can't ignore it. TGS has demonstrated that they're able to be willfully and persistently malicious over the long term, even to antagonize their supposed 'friend', and then turn around and play the innocent, sympathetic victim in order to escape the consequences. They had previously made a perfectly reasonable unblock request in order to get their sock unblocked so they could continue being abusive, and that was nearly a year before the socking even came to light. In that incident, they disingenuously accepted unblock conditions, which they proceeded to ignore. Once they were blocked for socking, they repeatedly played an innocent victim. Then, as of this year, they're still socking. I'm definitely more hesitant than these other supporters to take their statement at face value; this is clearly a person who knows what they're supposed to say, but not necessarily someone whose words should be trusted implicitly, and I'm wondering why everyone is so impressed by it. That said, TGS is a huge asset to the project, and, as far as we know, is currently only blocked for double voting in an RfA. But if that attempt had not been caught, I wonder how far the socking would have gone. I'm inclined to support an early SO unblock, but it should be understood that this is certainly a 'last chance', and I would also support a long term ban should there be any further issues.  Swarm  talk  17:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Swarm: They also double-voted at an AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support TGS's work on another Wikimedia site (as they said in their unblock request) shows they can be productive again and they are contrite so I would give them another shot. JC7V (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Cautious Support - I'd like to support unreservedly because of the many extremely productive things TGS has done here, and I've certainly never had anything but positive interactions with them. But TGS has also shown a callous, manipulative side which is hard to ignore. I'm supporting because I see no difference whether we unblock now or unblock later. If no further disruption occurs then I'm mighty glad and welcome back! If further disruption occurs, might as well get it over with. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: I dislike the support votes basically saying that there should be one set of rules for editors perceived as "extremely productive" and another for everybody else. I too have seen the callous, manipulative side of Grace, and that combined with the actions that led to her block in the first place have not really engendered any sympathy on my part pbp 18:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no reason why we should not take the utility of an editor into account when considering an unblock. That's not to say that highly productive editors should get a free pass on disruptive behaviour, but there's certainly far more logic in unblocking a productive editor than one whose editing history is, for example, mostly arguing at the talk pages of contentious articles. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional support - I support the use of rope, provided we aren't fooled more than once by sincere heartfelt appeals from the same editor. We either get a productive editor back, new and improved, or we shorten the path to community ban. Either way it's a win for the project. But the italicized part is crucial and, from what I've seen, anything but guaranteed. If the community is unwilling to accept that condition, count me as an Oppose—and as a Strong Oppose in any future sincere heartfelt appeal that I'm not around to respond to. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding the difference between appealing after three months and six months: patience is one of the key desirable characteristics in a Wikipedia editor, particularly one who's had issues with collaboration. Although it can be difficult to demonstrate other improvements in one's behaviour while blocked, demonstrating patience is more straightforward, by waiting for the period of time that the community generally accepts as a minimum. I believe we should be encouraging blocked editors to take the opportunity to show their patience. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose currently / Support after 6 months - I would like to get TGS back to productive editing, but their violations were egregious enough that shortening the time period before the standard offer can come into play does not seem warranted. Double voting at RfA and AfD is, to me, well beyond the pale, as is the behavior described by Swarm, so I see no reason that we should bend over backwards to unblock at this time. So I add my voice to those who hold that TGS should be unblocked as a matter of course, but only after the block has run for 6 months, barring any additional information whichmight come to light in the meantime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as noted above was two years ago. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Usually I would scream "Wait 6 monhths" like a banshee but in this case I feel remaining blocked is punitive rather than productive, The unblock request is very open and honest so in this specific case I would support unblocking. –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Cautious support, primarily per B!sZ. We can always reblock if needed. Miniapolis 23:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Reasons given for sockpupptery are too unconvincing to believe upon. They don't matter much once you have complete the requirement of WP:SO. I would wait another 6 months before supporting unblock. Kraose (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose socking to establish the illusion of consensus has what may feel like a draconian penalty for good reason. I'll support the unblock on February 5, but not now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose; while the request for unblock is self-aware and fairly complete, it does not convince that the actions won't occur again. Sure they were taken in order to be obvious and get blocked and thus be able to stay away (i think i'm summarising correctly here), but what's to say they won't again? Nothing convinces me that the user won't get into a similar situation and feel again that they have to be disruptive in order to have action taken. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support TGS is a good editor who is a good team player. I don't get some of the opposes - how would he disrupt Wikipedia if we unblocked now, but not in a few months' time? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"A good team player", @Ritchie333:? I'd be hard-pressed to think of anything less "being a team player" than socking to get one's way in a discussion. pbp 18:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree entirely with Beyond My Ken's comments. Their behaviour two years ago was appalling, and I cannot get past the double voting in an RfA and AfD as recently as August. Their reasoning that they were doing it to attract attention and get blocked I find difficult to believe, I'm sorry. They should be made to wait the full six months.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support-ish. This would not be the first time that someone engaged in socking specifically to get blocked and have a forced wikibreak. It's a poor idea, but we've let people back in before after they make it clear they know it was a bad idea and that nothing like it will happen again from their quarter. I agree with Mandruss's conditional approach. If this turns out to be a clever ruse, it will be the last one. This doesn't read like a ruse, however. I remember TGS as a productive editor, not a source of problems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Echoing other arguments, TGS is only playing themselves if they're just going to start socking agian. It wouldn't make any sense and they are a postive for the project, other than the socking.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• faint support Kinda a net positive, though sometimes it's hard to see.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: faint support  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support The offenses amount to a terrible abuse of the community's trust. However the contrition sounds sincere and their record as a productive member of the community is substantial. That said, if there is any repetition it would probably be time for the Bell, book and candle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2018 (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.

TBAN 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.

---

Hi, I am here by requesting appeal against the TBAN which was enforced almost a year ago on me on the all AFDS, so now the minimum time duration of TBAN 3 months have passed reequest and appeal to lift TBAN please. I have read and understood the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines as well. JogiAsad  ^Talk 14:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The topic ban was imposed in this discussion. It was appealed in this discussion (May 2018), this discussion (September 2018), and this discussion (November 2018). JogiAsad seems to post these "please lift my ban" messages intermittently, then wander off without answering any questions. He did answer a question last time, but he did so by editing the archived discussion after it had been moved to an archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

JogiAsad, on 30 September, Galobtter asked you to provide "an explanation of how your understanding of notability has improved so that your behaviour at AfD will be better". You did not respond at that time, and now you are back here with another appeal that again fails to address the problem that led to the topic ban. Your topic ban was imposed on 9 April 2018 so that is nowhere near a year ago. Accuracy is important. What you must do is convince the editors participating here that your understanding of notability has improved and that you will not be disruptive at AfD in the future. Stating that you have read GNG is not enough. Until we hear from you in much greater detail, I oppose lifting the topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup, appeal is obviously inadequate; the repeated appeals without being able to explain himself are further concerning regarding his competence to evaluate sources for notability. Oppose obviously, and suggest a further six month moratorium upon decline of this appeal. JogiAsad please provide that explanation to show that you have "have read and understood the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines". Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as per the above, and endorse Galobtter's suggestions of a 6 month moratorium on appeals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• After the dialogue in the section below, I maintain this position. The OP does not believe he or she did anything wrong to deserve a TB, and therefore it is impossible for them to assure the community that their future behavior will be different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It was my comment that JogiAsad responded to in the Archived post. Their editing is so sporadic that there's no real way of determining that they really do get what they are topic banned for. Furthermore, as has been said, the appeal statement is inadequate. --Blackmane (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and support moratorium per Galobtter; it's slightly worrying that these appeals keep getting made, and the same questions ignored, with no actual reflection—perhaps even understanding—at all. ——SerialNumber54129 10:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Unfortunately, if this sanction passes appeal is denied, and the OP comes back after 6 months and appeals without responding to questions, I think the next logical step would be a CIR-based CBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting of the topic ban and support a 6 month moratorium on any further appeals. GiantSnowman 10:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Editor refuses to engage in timely discussions over his prior behavior, or demonstrate that he intends to change his behavior. Also support the 6-month moratorium on appeals noted above. --Jayron32 13:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of the topic ban for @JogiAsad:. Period. A bad faith user who still hurling canvassing accusations at me. --Saqib (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the Tban, and support a 6-month moratorium on appeals. While JogiAsad might have an intermediate linguistic competence in English (that's purely a matter of which grade a certification examiner gives you), their communicative competence is clearly not sufficient for participation in XfD discussions - their statements and responses in this thread make that very clear. On top of that, there is still a refusal to listen, not just an inability to understand, and that has been part of the problem all along. --bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Response by JogiAsad

Hi Everyone, I have read all the General Notability Guidelines (GNG), and you may ask me anything about the GNG I would respond. And regarding those who said above comments that I have appealed repeatedly, no I just had replied to the comments and when I was advised to appeal and then I appealed, and I have some personal reasons that I didn't be active all the times. I did replied to the archived due to there was asked me queries during which I was not active/online, and when I managed to be active or online I had no choice but to respond and I am sorry for that If I have replied in the archived discussion. The and this discussion was a misunderstanding the the nominator, which I had not done any spamming and neither I did any on-wiki canvassing or any kind of off-wiki canvassing, all those users voted as per their own. Even if some of the users who are saying that my this appeal is inadequate, sincerely I didn't have any idea how to appeal in a better way. So here I request that this TBAN be lifted as I have understood all the GNG, you may ask me anything about the GNG. Expecting a positive and a dignified role from you and I request arbitration committee to do a justice please. Thank you all...JogiAsad  ^Talk 17:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You have not beeen asked to repeat by rote what you just read, you were asked to provide:

• "an explanation of how your understanding of notability has improved so that your behaviour at AfD will be better"

Please do so now. Be certain to focus on your behavior, and how it will change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, could you please guide me or provide me the sample how to respond to that query's which you have written in italic. Or should I repeat each and elaborate each words in GNG i.e. what is Reliable, sources, primary or secondary etc?, Here I ensure that I have read and understood all the GNG and I ensure that I have and I will show an improved behavior at afds.JogiAsad  ^Talk 17:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be drifting into CIR territory. John from Idegon (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the OP appears either not to understand, or not to want to understand that the question is not about his or her knowledge of the notability guidelines, but about how that knowledge will change their behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I have an intermediate understanding of English in written, reading and listening, The question was about the GNG not about WP:CIR, If you ask me anything about GNG I would answer.JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

And despite of assurance by me about GNG and improved behavior at afds, If any user is still Oppose or in favor of TBAn ,Then its making a sense to me that nobody wants me to remain here as a Wikipedian Editor and they wants me to leave Wikipedia forever.JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Well nobody has said that as of yet, but you're making a pretty good case for it yourself by your inability or refusal to answer the question put to you. Again, no one wants to quiz you on GNG, what everyone wants to know is this: Now that you think you understand GNG, how will you behave differently? Can you please answer that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The answer is simply yes, I Think that I have understood the WP:GNG after reading it, and I ensure that I'll behave well manner.JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

JogiAsad please explain what you mean by, "I'll behave well manner." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll behave well manner, means that I'll follow the GNG guidelines when participating in discussion and I'll try to respond timely as well.JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Let's try again. JogiAsad, why were you topic banned from XfDs? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• I was Topic banned because the nominator assumed that I have done any kind of On-wiki canvassing, Which I had not....JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• OK, you're off to a bad start. The first step to having your topic ban lifted is to recognize what you did wrong which deserved the TB. If you don't know what was wrong about your previous behavior, there is no way for you to change, and that's what the community is interested in knowing, that your behavior will change.
  I'll stop now, as there's little point in proceeding. I maintain my position as above: no lifting of the topic ban, and a moratorium on appeals for 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand why was topic ban, but how can I recognize, I didn't any wrong neither I had done any canvassing, but If you look at User:Saqib canvassed onwiki-canvassing by asking an admin to participate in the discussion, I have ensured that I have not did any wrong or any type of Canvassing, If I have not did any wrong or Canvassing, why should I recognize such activity which I have not done.JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Idea

It seems JogiAsad is having trouble articulating what he would do differently in AFDs were the topic ban to be lifted. Does anyone think it would help if, for a period of time (let's say one month), JogiAsad keep a sandbox in user-space where he links to some current AFDs and writes (on the sandbox page - not on the AFD itself) what he would write if there were no topic ban? That way we can better judge if his understanding of GNG and his discussion rationales have improved. Then he can come back here and we can try this again with something more concrete to go on. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in knowing why JogiAsad wants so badly to be able to edit at XfD. Is there some problem that they are seeing that only they can fix? Maybe it's my own relative disinterest in XfD, but it seems to me that a ban from XfD is one that would be very easy to endure. Why is JogiAsad so determined to delete articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not determined to delete any article.JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Then are you determined to save some kinds of articles? Why is editing at XfD important to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I am also not determined to save any article if it does not meet the criteria of GNG.JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• I was keeping this question for a later time, glad to see Beyond My Ken asked already. But User:JogiAsad has either not understood the question properly or decided not to answer it. If there is nothing that you want to delete or save, then please explain why it is so important for you to contribute at AfD ? Are there any problems you are facing with this BAN ? XfD contributors should have enough language competence to be able to review multiple sources and understand the policy and guidelines. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no problem but If the time period of TBAN is passed and I am appealing with ensuring that I have read and understood the GNG and I ensure that I would be politely and will not vote for any save or delete article afds until that article don't meet the criteria of GNG. so why still this ban is lingering over me.JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, as to ONUnicorn's suggestion: I doubt it would be of much use, since the majority of problems at XfD have to do with interactions with other editors and behavior related to it, so a "dry run" sandbox just wouldn't be the equivalent, in my opinion. If they were TB'd because of canvassing, why would they be tempted to canvass to a sandbox, since nothing is at stake? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

And Here I say that I have not canvassed in any way neither I did any on-wiki canvassing nor I did it through any type of Sandbox, try to understand my point of view that I didn't canvassed neither I determined to save or delete any article unless it meets the criteria of GNG.JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• User:ONUnicorn, nice idea but oppose this idea for now. May be we can do this exercise to gauge his understanding, the next time JogiAsad comes up with a decent appeal. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you please guide me how to appeal decently, is there any sample of previous appeals which I could read and get an idea how to appeal decently?, And please put some light on which type of understanding you intends to gauge?.Thanks..JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you answer this Question I added above ?--DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I have answered please read...JogiAsad  ^Talk 20:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

So based on your answer, it seems it is not important for you to participate at AfD, then I see no pressing reason to remove the ban. This ban was an indefinite ban, and it will continue to linger because the community feels that your answers and understanding of Questions are not sufficient in convincing them to lift this ban, at this time. So just wait some more and contribute in other areas where you are not banned for now. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The Ban was for 3 months which have passed, and I have tried to convince and assure that I have read and understood the GNG and will participate politely as well.JogiAsad  ^Talk 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

JogiAsad, with all due respect, you have been given a great deal of guidance in how to "appeal decently", but it appears that you are unable to follow that guidance. I can't help but think that your somewhat weak command of English is part of the problem (you call it "intermediate, but I would judge it to be less than that). In my opinion, judging from this discussion, your English language abilities are not sufficient for you to be editing or creating articles on English Wikipedia, or to be participating in XfD at all. I note that you are a sysop at Sindhi Wikipedia, where you have twice as many edits as you have here, and yet en.wiki is marked as your home wiki. I think this is a problem. Writing an English-language encyclopedia requires a high level of English language competency, which you do not seem to have. There are still many things you can do to contribute here which don't require such skills, but I'm afraid that with your current ability with English, writing and editing articles and participating in XfDs is simply not one of them. I know this is a harsh appraisal, but it is the situation as I see it, and I think you're going to be caught in this loop for a long time, and perhaps eventually be site banned from en.wiki, if you don't recognize it and adjust your expectations accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

All that you asked I responded in well manners, you asked me "Now that you think you understand GNG, how will you behave differently?", I answered I have understood the GNG after reading it, and I have also ensured that I am not in favor of any save or delete any article until it doesn't meet the GNG Criteria. are these not sufficient answers? so satisfy your query?. And regarding my English language command I have appeared in the Competitive Examinations of Pakistan CSS and I also write in newspapers and blogs as well, English Wikipedia is my home wiki because its where I had started my journey as a Wikipedian in July 2011, and since then I have contributed in enwiki. English language is not a problem, almost all over the world people read, speak and talk in English even if its not their native language, so sorry to say your judging and appraisal is not 100 percent precise. If you people are stubborn and insist on embargo, then its very disappointing for a sincere contributor. JogiAsad  ^Talk 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry to say, my judging is quite correct, and the paragraph above is an excellent example of the problem: you don't know English as well as you think you know English, I'm afraid. I salute you on the ability to speak another language to the extent you do, it's one that I don't share, but the harsh fact is that it's just not enough to be working on articles here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No your judging and appraisal is not correct dear, and you are neither here certificate issuer nor here is the test of English competency, So please avoid personal statements.JogiAsad  ^Talk 21:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, you provide us all with an example which verifies my estimation. You might wish to read First Law of Holes, because you're not doing yourself any good. And, BTW, don't call me, or anyone else that you do not know very well, "dear". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay I take back that word and dear word be omitted, and thanks for sharing the First law of holes.JogiAsad  ^Talk 21:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, AFAIK, home-wiki is nothing but the wiki, wherein the account was first registered. Many editors do register in en.wiki (courtesy it's prominence), then move to own-language-wikis, once aware of it.∯WBG^converse 20:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

WBG, Thanks for elaborating it .JogiAsad  ^Talk 21:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Mine as well. I also understand that the prominence and influence of en.wiki is why many other-languaged editors wish to edit here, but sometimes that unfortunately gives rise to situations such as what this seems to me to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

After reading this lengthy exchange, I want to reiterate my opposition to lifting the topic ban. JogiAsad, congratulations on performing well on your English proficiency exams in Pakistan. You definitely speak English far better than I speak Urdu or any other language. But I am sorry to have to say that you are not fully fluent in written English. You have made quite a few English mistakes in this conversation, but that would not be a problem if you had given fully responsive answers to the questions you have been asked. If you had, minor errors in grammar and phrasing could be excused. But you have failed to convince me that you fully understand the question and your answer seems pro forma to me, and unresponsive and inadequate in the final analysis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 Thanks for drawing my attention towards my English fluency in written, may be I am not fluent in written English and thanks for excusing my minor errors in grammar and phrasing but I have tried my best to answer the queries which were asked here, and I'll also try me best to convince you and respond to your queries in better and concise way.JogiAsad  ^Talk 09:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@JogiAsad: I have had to work with a very large number of people in real life who do not speak English as a native language: as such, I'm familiar with the issues involved. I'm afraid I agree with what others have written above: your English is not quite good enough for us to remove this topic ban. Part of why I say this is that you still seem to believe that your ban was a temporary one, that would be lifted in three months if you did not misbehave. That just isn't true. Your ban was indefinite; it will remain until you can show us it is not required. To do that, you have to explain what was wrong with your behavior in the first place; and despite a number of requests above, you have not done so. It's not that you've been rude, or that you've behaved badly; it's that you haven't understood what's being asked of you. In fact your request for a "sample" is a part of the problem: if you need to copy a "sample" to be able to provide an answer that's satisfying, it's clear you haven't understood the question in the first place. This isn't an English language exam: it's a place where we need to be able to communicate clearly, and you're not able to do so. This isn't a moral failing on your part, but it seems fairly clear you are not able to understand the complexities of discussions on the English Wikipedia, and you shouldn't participate in them until you do. In fact I'm hesitant to even suggest you should stick to working on articles, but at the moment I'm okay with that. I would suggest that this appeal be declined, and that you do not appeal again for a few months, because people are going to lose patience with you if you keep doing so. Vanamonde (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Also: while I applaud ONUnicorn for their abundance of good faith, I cannot support their proposal unless and until we have a set of editors willing to take on the role of mentoring JogiAsad through the XfD process. It's not a responsibility I'm willing to take on; I cannot inflict it on someone else unless they're explicitly stepping forward to take it on. Vanamonde (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

First of all let me clarify that I have never ever been rude, neither I am rude nor I can think so and I have never misbehaved, I am always remained polite. Initially it was stated that TBAN is for 3 months after that can be appealed so I appealed here after some users advised me to do so, My behavior in the first place was not rude never I intends to be rude. I have ensured that I have read and understood GNG and I'll never be rude neither I have been rude ever nor I intends to be. And if you perceive that this appeal be declined and I shouldn't appeal for a few months, then its Okay I shall keep patience, do so what you think is right at the moment and also let me know how much time (months) I shouldn't appeal and I know there is also Wikipedia Teahouse where some senior Users teach and mentor.JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@JogiAsad: Do you have any plans to go to deletion review for Iqbal Jogi and Amb Jogi? --Saqib (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Further evidence of English comprehension related WP:CIR by JogiAsad on Vanamonde93's talk page--DBigXrayᗙ 08:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Here as well. I can't unravel this at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Review

A question was asked of JogiAsad in the previous section, if they intended to go to Deletion Review about two deleted articles. I have a question for admins: since JogiAsad is topic banned from XfDs, and since Deletion Review is a place where XfDs are discussed, does JogiAsad's topic ban preclude them from participating at Deletion Review? My inclination is to say that it does, because topic bans are generally held to hold anywhere on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

"JogiAsad is indefinitely topic banned from all deletion discussions (known on en.wiki as "XfD"). This editing restriction may be appealed after three months of the closure date. Clarification: the topic ban includes all deletion discussions, including deletions for review and requests for deletion."—WP:RESTRICT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Mea culpa, I should have checked the original ban notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Thanks for elaborating it, And what is closure date?JogiAsad  ^Talk 07:49, 24 November 2018 (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 Lurking Shadow blanking entire important articles on grounds that they "were created by a copyright violator"

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 am a content creator, I don't pay much attention to administrative goings-on and I was shocked this morning to find that an article I re-wrote and have maintained for years, Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire had all its content removed, completely blanked and replaced by a notice that it was up for speedy deletion -edit summary 'delete|per Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114 and WP:copyright violations#Addressing contributors; created by copyright violator'. This is an important article that gets up to 1000 views a day and is linked to on many other pages. Blanking it is very very disruptive, I would call it vandalism.So when I look at that page Contributor copyright investigations/20100114 I see diffs from when the article was created back in 2007, apparently by an editor suspected (?) of copyvios. I left a note on the talk page of the article saying that the article has been completely re-written since then,Lurking shadow, who blanked the article, says it doesn't matter, it has to be deleted anyway. No evidence has been supplied that the article currently contains any copyvios or that it ever contained any copy vios, just that the article was created eleven years ago by someone who somebody else put on a list of "copyright violators" although that editor wasn't blocked for such activities. Lurking shadow did the same thing with Criticism of the Catholic Church , Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, Heresy in Christianity,History of the Eastern Orthodox Church,History of Christian theology, Catholic Church and slavery, History of the Russian Orthodox Church , and Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States, without supplying any evidence whatsoever that the articles contain copyvios, only that they were created by supposed "copyright violator"s and has made it clear that this is only the start of a campaign to delete thousands upon thousands of articles. I restored all the articles. If there are copyvios in these articles, they should be identified and re-written or removed, not have the whole article blanked because all versions are "tainted" by being created by a "copyright violator" (also asserted with no evidence). This must stop now.Smeat75 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I have placed a comment on Lurking Shadow's talk page: with 175 edits to the project, they're not in any way qualified to be deleting huge chunks of articles based on the vague possibility of copyvio contamination. I have strongly suggested that they stop, and report their concerns to admins and experienced editors who work in the copyvio area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Although there is a campaign to delete thousands and thousands of articles(in a RFC), these articles were merely a test on how long such a process needs. I will not continue such things until conclusion of the RFC(and then there will be likely a more drastic measure taken).

But these deletions are actually not vandalism at all. They are based on policy. Addressing contributors allows everyone to assume that all contributions by repeat copyright violators are copyright violations(because there is no trust that they are not, and a pattern of violations. It allows full removal of any and all content needed to be removed to fully heal the copyright violations if the community is unable to examine these suspected cases in detail.

As there is a backlog of over 80000 contributions to be checked(these were from 2010), this is obviously the case. Unfortunately, this old backlog necessiates the deletion of thousands of pages, maybe even nearly all 80000 pages - some with thousands of versions - but the exact method is something I won't do on my own anyways.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, someone who doesn't even know how to properly indent their comments is just not the best person to be blanking articles because of copyvios. I suggest that if Lurking shadow returns to this behavior they be temporarily blocked until they agree to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I have asked on the talk page of CCI that an admin or editor experienced in copyright violations comment on this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The basis of these page blankings is highly suspect imo "all versions are tainted because the article was created by a copyright violator." User:Pseudo-Richard created Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire and look at that editor's block log, he was never blocked for copyvios or anything else. On what basis is he labelled a "copyright violator"? Certainly not a reason to insist that an important article be deleted.Smeat75 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Derivative work is an issue with articles that once were copyright violations. If an article gets to the present state through incremental editing of a previous copyright violating version, then it could be considered a derivative work and thus a copyright violation itself even if it's fairly different. If at some point someone decided to throw out the old article content wholesale and to write their own version (as I did on Coropuna here, notice the odd mismatch between my first edit - which was on a sandbox version - and the preceding edit - which was on the overwritten page) or if the current version is totally, completely distinct, then it may not be a problem. Does it apply in this case? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Another question is whether the presumptive removal of suspected copyright violations is appropriate in this situation. Sometimes it is. Is that the case for this copyright violator? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said in the comment previous to yours, where is the evidence that User:Pseudo-Richard, the creator of these articles that were blanked today, is a "copyright violator" at all? He was never blocked, there are no warnings on his talk page about copyvios (although he might have removed them of course). Somebody decided to list his articles on WP:CCI "Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114" Open investigations seven years ago, that's the only evidence I can see. An investigation is not proof.Smeat75 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Examine this section.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114 a substantial part of the reviewed contributions were identified as copyright violations. The answer is yes(This is the oldest case still open(from 2010) so part of the work was already done(although more than hundred pages remain).Lurking shadow (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If a page has been up for 10 years it is going to be tough to prove copyvio. Wikipedia gets copied all over the place so many hits will be copied from here. Lurking shadow seems ill prepared for dealing with such a difficult area of editing so early. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

But that's literally the point - there is already evidence that the contributions could be copyright violations(because the contributor made many copyvios) and this means that you need to prove that every of their contributions to the page is not a copyright violation.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've taken a look at Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, created by Pseudo-Richard. If someone has a substantial record of copyright violations then policy does permit us to deem their other contributions as copyvio even if we haven't got hard evidence of that (which for edits of this age is going to be difficult anyway). The editor in question here does have a significant copyvio record, even though they weren't blocked for it (they were desysopped).
  However Lurking shadow is taking this rather too far in blanking the entire article. Policy only allows you to blank Pseudo-Richard's contributions to the article, not the article itself. Although Pseudo-Richard did create the article originally the edit summary indicates he merely copied the text from another page. Some of his additions do smell rather strongly of copyvio, e.g. [31], and [32] also appears here (which claims to predate Wikipedia's existence). However this text appears to have been edited out of existence in the intervening decade, so it can't be used as a reason to blank the article now. I am aware of one important case in which we did pre-emptively blank all pages contributed by someone with massive copyright problems, but that was a very different situation and it isn't general practice at all. I suggest that Lurking shadow stop blanking these pages unless s/he can get consensus for it somewhere. Hut 8.5 21:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"However this text appears to have been edited out of existence in the intervening decade, so it can't be used as a reason to blank the article now" Thats not actually the case. See Jo-Jo's explanation above. Even if the original text has been removed, if it was a copyright violation, the incremental editing over time taints all subsequent versions unless there is a very sharp cutoff. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If the intervening edits are enough to effectively constitute a rewrite of the content then it's a rewrite and not a derivative work. Hut 8.5 22:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Only if done in a short enough timespan that rev-deletion of the affected content is feasible. Given you said 'in the intervening decade' that is way beyond the span of time where that is possible. (in the event the original content was a copyvio). Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there may well be some copyvio revisions in the history and it wouldn't be practical to revdel those, but that's not a big deal. Provided the current version is clean we can leave those if necessary. We certainly wouldn't delete an article just because the edit history has too many copyvio revisions to revdel. Hut 8.5 22:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

These revisions are copyright violations - they can not just be left alone, they have to be deleted(and that's not possible without making further copyright violations. The result is the deletion of the entire article(or, in one case of these, the revert to the version before copyvio("reverted to version X by Y") and the revision deletion of every edit in between)Lurking shadow (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You are not listening to what people are saying here, you do not get to pronounce that important articles "have to be deleted". If you do not drop this I think you should be blocked.Smeat75 (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I am listening. Did you see me undoing your edits or writing new speedy deletion requests?Lurking shadow (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• A useful piece of information in all this would be Lurking shadow's previous edit history under whatever other accounts they've used before. The odds that this meets WP:SOCK#LEGIT hovers around 10%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  I am actually not a sock. I edited under IP for a long time(and not only here), then made this account. Shortly after, for reasons I will not disclose here, I stopped editing, mostly. Until - now.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

1268 edits by scores of different editors suggests what exists today is incrimental creation. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• You should read what User:Jo-Jo Emerus said about derivative works.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• The people commenting here are all long-term experienced editors, so you can assume that they've read this relatively short thread before commenting here. Jo-Jo Eumerus's opinion is certainly to be given weight, but so are those of the others commenting. What you should be taking away from this is that dealing with copyright violations on Wikipedia is not as cut-and-dried as you appear to believe it is, it's a complicated thing because of the way our cumulative copyright works. And please note that even Jo-Jo Eumerus has not said that your blankings were justified - they were certainly made without due consideration for the overall status of the article. The long and the short of it is, you are simply not qualified to be making those blankings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I actually considered that all the full deletions were subject to tens of big edits by the copyright violator. Yes, copyright is complicated, but these deletion cases are cut-and dried: A repeat violator edited them in a manner that could violate copyright, I am allowed to assume that they made copyvios, revision deleting copyvios isn't possible but necessary(versions are distinct articles and copyrighted versions need to be removed, obviously; but revision delete creates further copyvios), which means total deletion.Lurking shadow (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I am allowed to assume that they made copyvios - says who?Smeat75 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Lurking shadow can take the fact that an article has been created or edited in a major way by a person suspected of serial copyright violations as a reason to investigate those edits, or, better still, to report the articles to CCI, where people competent in copyright can examine it, but Lurking shadow cannot simply blank an entire article and the contributions of all the non-violating editors who contributed to it on the mere assumption that there must be copyright violations in it. I know of nothing in policy that supports that contention. If Lurking shadow has a policy to cite to back up their statement, I think everyone here would like to see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Copyright violations#Addressing Contributors;Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Accepted Cases(Sentence 4);WP:CRD(criteria for revision deletion, not possible)Lurking shadow (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Accepted Cases is not a policy, it is an instructional page for dealing with the CCI process. It is addressed to editors who presumably have sufficient judgment to be part of such an investigation. Sentence 4 does say:

• If contributors have been proven to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and thus removed indiscriminately, in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

But it is immediately followed by sentence 5:

• If such indiscriminate removal would be controversial or cause considerable collateral damage, an effort must be made to assemble a volunteer force sufficient to evaluate problematic contributions.

The fact that we are here at AN is a pretty good indication that your removals have been deemed "controversial". Your judgment in these matters is being questioned and found wanting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

and then it is followed by sentence 6: If insufficient volunteers are available to manage clean-up, presumptive wholesale removal is allowed. The current state of WP:CCI is very good evidence that this is the case. There are not enough volunteers to manage it. Yes, the removals are controversial. But no, the volunteers are simply missing since 2010.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Lurking shadow, I must point out again that you don't know how to indent your comments correctly: any response to a comment should have one more indent that the comment itself. (I fixed yours above.) This is a totally trivial matter, but I point it out because it's a clear indication that you're trying to fly a commercial jet liner when you've only just learned how to walk, and haven't quite tackled running. Again: dealing with copyright violations is, at this time, well above your pay grade (mine too, for that matter), and you should not be blundering around in it. WP:BOLD has limits, and you have hit one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, please note that the standard in written English is to put a space between the end of a word and the open parentheses mark which follows it. You constantly write "word(like this)" when it should be "word (like this)". As to what you are "allowed" to do -- the bottom line is that you are not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia, which is what you are doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• What is your point about "derivative work"? A derivative work generally creates a new copyright for parts of a work that were not in the original.[33] The copyright is then held by the creator of the derivative work, and if the derivative work is created on Wikipedia it is under a free licence. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Question. User:Lurking shadow are you going to stay away from copyvio voluntarily or should we be formalizing a topic ban for you? Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  I will certainly not continue any mass deletion(or something like that)of copyvios unless it is being agreed upon(which I currently do not see here, there is significant opposition). I am reading what you say(did you see me continuing mass deletion?). What I'm trying to do here is to convince you that I'm right.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• That's not responsive to the question. Again, will you voluntarily stay away from anything dealing with copyright violations? If not, then someone here is almost certainly going to craft a proposal that you be forced to stay away from it by a community topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm writing as someone active in copyright who still manages to get yelled at. We have too few volunteers willing to work on this largely in this area, so I have mixed emotions when I see someone interested in helping yet stumbling a bit. I'd like to make an observation which will lead to a suggestion.

Copyright review is hard. While some investigations are almost mindlessly easy, that's a trap, as some others look almost identical yet turn out to be reverse copyvios, or properly licensed (with a proper license on an obscure sub page) or other minefields. There are three main areas in which volunteers can work:

• Copypatrol
• Copyright problems
• CCI

These are roughly listed and increasing orders of difficulty, for the simple fact that copy patrol deals with very recent (last day or two) edits, copyright problems deals with older edits, and CCI deals with edits that might be many years in the past. The main problem with age is the proliferation of Wikipedia mirrors, and the tendency of some lazy writers to create content by copying from Wikipedia. The Wayback machine helps, but is sketchier on older information.

I suggest that an editor with very little copyright experience should not start with the toughest of problems with the easiest of problems. It would make some more sense for @Lurking shadow: to start there for several reasons:

1. these are the easiest to evaluate (but I'll emphasize the scale doesn't run from easy to hard, it runs from hard to hair pulling)
2. the tool makes it easy for experience copyright review is to monitor the actions of others
3. mistakes can be easily rectified and are somewhat less significant (accidentally removing a two day old article is a little less upsetting than removing a 10-year-old article; both require fixing but if fewer ruffle feathers)

I can't speak for @Diannaa:, but I hope that she would agree, along with myself, to monitor some of the decisions and provide counsel. I do say this with some trepidation, because I take on board the comment by @Beyond My Ken: that someone who doesn't know how to indent on the talk page is raising some red flags, but my hope is that understanding wiki markup and understanding copyright are very different skills.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

For my part, if someone with a strong copyvio background would volunteer to mentor Lurking shadow in copyright matters, and if Lurking shadow would voluntarily agree not to make copyvio-related edits except as approved by that mentor (with the exception of talk page comments), until the mentor agrees that LS is ready to go it alone, then a formal topic ban may not be necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Why?

I blanked and tagged a few articles for deletion that happened to be made by a copyright violator. I assumed that WP:CCI and WP:Copyright would allow that, and that it was necessary(and I still think it is). Someone complained, and we talked about it.

I continued to defend what I did until the matter landed here. There are comments in this discussion that some of these articles might really have to be removed, although more people argued against. It is a mere disagreement - nothing more. Lurking shadow (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Lurking shadow, The CCI page clearly states that blanking is permitted if there aren't enough volunteers to address it as clean up. I think reasonable people can disagree whether that situation applies, but I think it's clearly a good faith assumption, given the volume of old CCI's, that we are short of volunteers to do the cleanup. I think this is merely a matter of disagreement not a fundamental misreading of the instructions. That said, I put some time into a good-faith proposal which deserves a response.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lurking shadow. User:Sphilbrick pinged me to comment here. I noticed yesterday your report at WP:CP about Health in Rwanda, which you noticed had a lot of overlap with this page. Have a closer look at the page: it's a copy of the Wikipedia article on Rwanda - it's got section headers, notes, references, external links - what to me are obvious hallmarks of what we call a Wikipedia mirror. In other words, the Wikipedia article Rwanda is the source of some of the content in Health in Rwanda. This type of error is not helpful; in fact it generates work for other users. I do wish more people would help with copyright cleanup, but I don't think you have the experience or skills at present to do the work effectively, and I don't have time to assist you. My opinion is that you need to find a different way to contribute please, unless there's someone who has time to mentor you for this extremely complex and time consuming task. Blanking or deleting articles is not a good solution, because it does more harm than good. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I know that content from Wikipedia can also be copied somewhere else, but I erroneously skipped the part with the import and just assumed that the contribution had been made in 2018 - an error I will strive not to repeat.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful comments User:Sphilbrick and Diannaa. I hope User:Lurking shadow will heed them. On the talk page of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations [34] Lurking Shadow has declared that he is on a mission to delete every article that was ever edited by any of the "copyright violators" on the main page, some 80,0000 articles. He doesn't think that would be any big deal [35] The deletion of 80000 articles is not the end of the world. He caused a lot of disruption yesterday and must stop before causing any more.Smeat75 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

In the absence of any positive response from Lurking shadow:

Lurking shadow is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits anywhere on Wikipedia in regard to copyright violations, with the exception that they may comment about copyvios on any pertinent talk page. Specifically, but not exclusively, Lurking shadow is banned from blanking any article or removing any material from articles which they believe to be copyright violations. The editor may report suspected copyright infringement to CCI, WT:CP if they can show that they have investigated those suspicions to a reasonable extent, but repeated false CCI reports may lead to an extension of this ban to cover those reports as well. Lurking shadow can appeal this topic ban after 6 months from its imposition, and may do so earlier if they engage as a mentor an admin or editor experienced in copyright matters to advise them and guide their actions.

Edited to change "CCI" to WT:CP per Hut 8.5's suggestion below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per above. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support per nom. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the avenue for reporting copyright violations, while CCI is the avenue to report editors who repeatedly violated copyright and need their contributions checked. Banning me from the former while allowing the latter does not make any sense. I made a mistake(in labeling Healthcare in Rwanda as possible copyright violation) and I made a decision to ask for the deletion of pages that was disagreed with. You are trying to ban me from copyright violation investigations just because you strongly disagree with the deletion(understandable) and because I made a mistake(which unfortunately can happen, but should not happen repeatedly).Lurking shadow (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support absolute refusal to understand they are going about this wrong and the stated desire to kill 80,000 articles is the wrong attitude. Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. It is very troubling that the editor continues to insist that there is no problem or that the problem is minor, despite many more experienced editors telling them that they are unprepared for this highly complex and sensitive work. Their refusal to back off is disqualifying. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Lurking shadow has not accepted any of the advice given him above but continues to insist that we are all wrong - I blanked and tagged a few articles for deletion that happened to be made by a copyright violator. I assumed that WP:CCI and WP:Copyright would allow that, and that it was necessary(and I still think it is), What I'm trying to do here is to convince you that I'm right, among his comments from the above section. He has not backed off his plans for further disruption and there needs to be action taken to prevent any more.Smeat75 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support doesn't appear to have the necessary judgement/skills to work in this area (which is tricky and not very suitable for inexperienced editors). I suggest that the exempted venue for reporting copyright violations be changed to WT:CP, as WP:CP is the usual venue for general copyright investigations. Hut 8.5 18:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have made that change, if anyone wishes to reconsider their !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support amended proposal. Lurking shadow doesn't have the experience or skill set to do this work unsupervised at this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, per everyone above. When someone simply won't listen, there's little option. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support Per support comments above, and also after witnessing the blanking of the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without a satisfactory explanation or warning on talk. I also don't see any reflection on the part of this editor to indicate even the slightest understanding of the problems s/he is causing. This approach to editing is wp:disruptive and should stop. Dr. K. 01:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Question- Since there is unanimous support here for a topic ban for Lurking Shadow as defined by User:Beyond My Ken, except from Lurking Shadow of course, why doesn't an admin go ahead and impose a topic ban? I have never understood why clear cut cases like this one need to be dragged out the way they are.Smeat75 (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• I assume that admins are simply waiting to see if anyone else chimes in with an oppose, or if the SNOWing will continue. In any case, as long as Lurking shadow doesn't start up their behavior again, there's no particular rush to impose the TB -- although that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be put it place, it should, if only because the editor has not acknowledged the problems discussed here. It may also have something to do with the extended Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have acknowledged the problems discussed here - I already said that missing the backwards copy was a mistake I don't intend to make again, and I have acknowledged that there is not enough support for the deletion of the articles at present(although I still disagree with that, but that should be ok). Right now I am waiting for this discussion to be closed(whenever this is).Lurking shadow (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• You have not acknowledged the sense of this discussion that you lack the experience and judgment to work in the copyvio area. The fact that you are "waiting for this discussion to be closed", presumably to begin taking similar actions again, is an indication as to why the topic ban is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for close

• Once again I ask that an admin act on the unanimous request for a topic ban on Lurking Shadow. Or tell us that we are all wrong. Or something. Rather than just letting this sit here until it is archived.Smeat75 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that this really should be closed with suitable action per the clear consensus of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Admins have been preoccupied with having their accounts hacked lately, and some threads like this one are falling by the wayside. Thanks for your patience. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 27 November 2018 (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.

When is a name problematic enough to be immediately hardblocked?

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 noticed earlier today the block of User:Nevergonnagiveyouup69 by User:Drmies as a "Username violation, hard block" one minute after creation of the account, and without any edits. I feel that this username, while it can be read in ways indicating disruption, isn't unambiguously so, and could just as easily be the name of an innocent, well-meaning editor. Drmies disagrees, stating "The combination of rickrolling and 69 (sex position) should be enough". Some clarification would be nice whether such a name really warrants immediate hardblocking without warnings or explanation towards the editor, or whether such blocking is WP:BITEy. Fram (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Is someone naming themselves after a years-old meme likely here to contribute constructively? I don't know, I probably would have waited for the account to edit, but WP:DISRUPTNAME is probably not too far off. I pretty much just assume Drmies knows what he's doing - the fact that the account was one minute old might be more relevant to this than you can see on the surface. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Unless there's something oversighted, awful block. Drmies, what the hell? Rick Astley is still a huge star in the UK (I can't speak for elsewhere) and there are about a zillion legitimate uses of the number "69"; this editor could have been born in 1969, be a fan of Deep Purple, the Magnetic Fields or Bryan Adams, or just be the 69th person to use the name somewhere and have accepted the autosuggestion. ‑ Iridescent 19:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Without comment on the block, there is nothing oversighted here, Iridescent. Courcelles (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an EEng-worthy comment.  Swarm  talk  03:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

    Glances around uncertainly. EEng 05:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• In the last week a bunch of odd username accounts (if there are references to memes or other stuff, I have no clue). Just like the one blocked by Drmies, none of them edited except one, who made one vandalistic edit. I blocked that one user, left the others alone, mainly because of my cluelessness in this area. Iridescent, please try to be less tactful in your comments. Far too sweet.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• It's borderline, and I'd have erred on the side of not blocking. Waiting for the first edit on borderline accounts is fine by me. I usually only instablock accounts with obviously vulgar (the seven dirty words is a good start), bigotted, or otherwise obvious-its-a-returning-troll type stuff. For things that are just mildly rude (like the number 69) or questionable, I'll keep their contribs list tab open on my browser for a few minutes just to see if they do anything that is a problem. Otherwise, I'll let that stuff go. This one, to me, is clearly in the "watch but don't block yet" category. "Fuckrickastleysmother69" would be the sort of thing i'd have instablocked. --Jayron32 20:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• The worst thing here is that I now have that damn song in my head. I'm literally mad with with rage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • IF you click this link it will solve your problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oh, I see. This is actually just a move in a pissing contest at Drmies' arbcom election questions page; Fram's just digging thru Drmies' contribs, looking for ammunition. Which is a dick move and shouldn't really be rewarded. But since the affected user isn't part of the muckracking, and since there's clear consensus here that the block was too soon, I'll unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's fine, Floq, thank you, but be careful with handing out ROPE to an editor when Fram is involved. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • ??? @Drmies: care to explain? In what way is "handing out ROPE to an editor" (i.e. unblocking an editor who has not yet vandalized) something where people need to be careful with "when Fram is involved"? Do I have a history of unfairly asking for unblocks or something similar? You are aware of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, I suppose, so please explain what you meant (with some evidence) or retract this. Fram (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    • reping: @Drmies:. Fram (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • BTW I don't think that the unblock is a reward for the dick move. If there's a consensus to unblock, there's a consensus to unblock, which I gladly accept--the unblock is on the merits of the case, not a comment on who brought it up, and I thank Fram for bringing it up. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • But... that's exactly what I said... ---Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Wait, I think I misread; you're agreeing with me, right? For some reason I read that as a disagreement the first time thru. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
      • |Hmm "dick move" may be true, who knows, but the unblock, if by consensus, is fine. And if the unblock is fine it doesn't matter who brought it up or for what reason. Is that better? ;) So I agree with your unblock, and I don't agree with seeing it as a reward for a dick move, and so I think you don't have to feel bad about it (if you were). Now let's all have some hot chocolate. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
        • There's more than one sex position? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, there are two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Events had moved beyond this thread before I saw it, but for what it's worth, I think this was a reasonable username block. The odds that this is a good-faith editor are minimal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  What are the odds of any new account being a good-faith editor? DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  This question probably has a precise answer (which I do not know), but my guess is above 99%.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  By DuncanHill's logic none of us should be having this conversation. We were all babies once. It's a bit paradoxical as who would there be to block the new users.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Not my logic, Brad's. DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  The odds are low. Most accts that register never edit. Those that do often never get past a coupel edits or some messing around in userspace with no benefit. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reactions and unblock. As for "Fram's just digging thru Drmies' contribs, looking for ammunition. Which is a dick move and shouldn't really be rewarded." I wasn't aware that looking at the edits and admin actions of an editor up for ArbCom was "a dick move" and not due diligence. Blindly voting based on reputation and personal interactions only is not what we do for RfA, so why should we do it for ArbCom candidates? And this admin action happened the same day I reported it, not some obscure long gone action. Keeping quiet about it because Drmies is an Arbcom candidate would have been a dick move though. Fram (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could have asked Drmies about it on their talk page first, and only run to the WP:Dramaboard if they kick up a stink and say "no, I'm right and you're wrong" (which they didn't). You'd have probably got the result you wanted, but without the Rickrolls. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I asked him about it first, and their full answer was "The combination of rickrolling and 69 (sex position) should be enough, given Template:Uw-uhblock: "...suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia"." Which is not "kicking up a stink", but seems pretty close to "no, I'm right and you're wrong". I came here to ask for the opinion of others, as we clearly differed on interpretation. I got sych opinions, and an unblock based on it. My post did what I wanted (get some discussion), without much drama. Continuing a discussion about policy interpretation between two editors isn't always the best option, certainly not when in the meantime an editor remains blocked, diminishing the (small) chance that they would ever return after a rather harsh initial welcome. I don't share your optimism that further discussion at Drmies' talk page would spontaneously have led to an unblock, but we'll never know of course. Fram (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I must be dense then; I did a search for your name on the current iteration of User talk:Drmies and the only mention is the notification of this thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you're not dense, just looking at the wrong page (perfectly understandable though). Here is his reply to my question. Fram (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2018 (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.

Vandalism.

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.

---

Someone just added nonsense to Trade union. End communication. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverted and warned: but Hamster Sandwich, it doesn't take an administrator to do those things. You could have done it yourself. I think you know that. Vanamonde (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want me to report vandalism as I find it I will do so. Or I will leave it as I find it. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism is reported at WP:AIV. How someone who wants to have admin rights restored does not know this is hard to fathom. That combined with the thread below is causing thoughts of a compromised account spring to mind. MarnetteD|Talk 05:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not want to be an admin. I do not want to edit in mainspace. Am I clear? It would be disingenuous on my part not to thank you for directing me to the proper forum for reporting. Thank you. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If you do not want to edit in mainspace then what use is your account? Perhaps not compromised but looking at this you seem to be trying to make a WP:POINT. It would be better to not continue on that path. MarnetteD|Talk 05:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hamster Sandwich: If you report an editor to AIV without warning them, your report will probably be declined. Reporting an editor without first reverting them is just silly. And if you repeatedly report editors to AIV expecting administrators to warn and revert, odds are you may be asked to stop making reports. If you are interested in fighting vandalism, then please do it properly, by reverting and warning editors, and reporting them if and only if they do not stop. Wanting to fight vandalism while refusing to edit in mainspace comes very close to pointy behavior. Vanamonde (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Then I will follow your direction, as it pertains to my own desire to make no further edits to mainspace, and leave vandalism as I find it. Well done. End communication. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2018 (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.

History-merging :: help needed again

• Someone has dropped 28 more history-merges on me in a few hours: see Category:Candidates for history merging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• I have got through them with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MergeHistory. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Killiondude

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Killiondude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: DeltaQuad, Worm that Turned, BU Rob13.

For the Arbitration Committee;

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Killiondude

For the arbitration committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Return of tools

The Arbitration Committee has verified Killiondude is back in control of their account via multiple methods. Therefore the committee reinstates their administrative userright, which was previously removed by motion. The committee also urges them to enable 2 factor authentication on their account.

Supporting: KrakatoaKatie, Callanecc, Newyorkbrad, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned, Opabinia Regalis, Mkdw, DeltaQuad.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Return of tools

For the arbitration committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Rogue civility sanctions in edit notices; non-admins adding AC/DS sanction templates to talk pages; permission needed to clean up this mess

In this AN discussion last week we had unanimous consensus to vacate the "civility" sanction on all pages affected by {{American politics AE}}. I made the change to the template and relevant edit notices. I later came across {{Post-1932_American_politics_discretionary_sanctions_page_restrictions}} which is basically a sister template to "American politics AE" but without the civility sanction. Because the sanctions are now identical with only minor differences in the templates themselves, I've started replacing the "Post-1932..." templates with the "American poligics AE" template which has better documentation and a sub-template to use in edit notices. However when I started looking at the corresponding edit notices for the pages affected by the "Post-1932..." template I noticed that some of them made reference to the "civility" sanction. So there was a discrepancy between the talk page notice and the edit notice. I initially assumed the discrepancy was a result of widespread copy-pasting of the edit notice code without paying close attention to the sanctions on the page they were copied from, but the few that I spot checked showed that it was User:Coffee who added the civility restriction (presumably forgetting to update the corresponding template on the talk page). Would there be any objections to me removing these rogue civility sanctions from the edit notices as I find them? ~Awilley (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Another problem I'm encountering is that there are a lot of talk pages with DS templates that don't have the required corresponding edit notices. Initially I thought this was because of sloppy admins forgetting to create the edit notices, but it has come to my attention that non-admins have been adding the templates to talkpages. Here are 5 examples of just one user creating talk pages with the DS templates, having copied them from other American Politics talk pages, and apparently thinking they were Wikiproject banners: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. I haven't counted, but I would guess that there are about 50 pages that have the template on the talk page but no edit notice. The most straightforward way of correcting the problem would be to simply remove the sanctions templates from pages that don't have an edit notice, but doing that I risk reversing DS placed by an actual admin. That leaves us with the slow method of digging through the talkpage history with the wikiblame tool to track down who placed the notice, and cross-referencing with the last couple of years of AE logs (I don't trust that admins who forgot to create an edit notice always remembered to update the log). That's more work than I'm feeling like doing at the moment. May I just remove the talkpage templates from all the pages that don't have edit notices, and then make a note of those pages in the AE log? ~Awilley (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• From my reading of the discussion, it seemed like everyone was pretty much on the same page—deprecating the 'civility restrictions' en masse was mostly viewed as an uncontentious procedural measure, due to the fact that the concept of civility restrictions is redundant, unused, unenforceable, and pointless; effectively, not even a real restriction. I don't think it would be contentious to remove the outstanding civility restrictions as you come across them. The articles with no edit notices are a bit more tricky. The edit notice requirement is fairly new, having only been added this year, so it's likely that you're seeing some older pages that have never been updated, some admin laziness, and some non-admin additions. All the older articles in the logs should probably be reviewed to make sure they have all been updated with the required editnotice, and anything not logged should have any DS notices removed, of course. However, the practical matter of actually making this happen would be so monumental that it's an unrealistic task. So, I would say that yes, your technique is likely the best we're going to get, but rather than removing them outright, leave them be but still make the list and post it in the log, and then we can check them against the log via Ctrl F. Anything not in the log can be removed, anything in the log can be updated with an edit notice, but it would probably most efficient and easy doing it that way.  Swarm  talk  07:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• I think an edit filter should be created to prevent non-admins from adding (or removing) {{American politics AE}} and similar templates, to prevent mistaken additions like that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• An edit filter would be nice. Here's an instance of an IP editor adding the American politics AE template: [41] ~Awilley (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Galobtter and Xaosflux:-- Shall this suffice? ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Winged Blades of Godric, no filter expert but I think per this usually added_lines and removed_lines are used in filters? Looks fine otherwise. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades of Godric: Thank you for working on the filter. Looking at [42] would it not be better to use "{{American politics AE" instead of "{{American politics AE}}" since the template has optional codes like {{American politics AE|consensusrequired=no}}? ~Awilley (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• AFAIC, you may certainly remove the rogue civility sanctions, Awilley, and also remove the talkpage templates from pages that don't have edit notices. And thank you for offering to take care of this mess. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC).

  Can someone please point me to the policy which limits the placement of DS notices on article talk pages to administrators only? It's probably somewhere, but I'm not finding it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's what I was looking for. It would be nice if the policy said, specifically, "Only administrators can..." blah blah blah. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken I think this is only talking about notices that impose restrictions, not the notices that are put on the talk page that inform you that the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions. Natureium (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I see. Does that mean that non-admins can place DS notices on articles that clearly fall with a DS area, but that they should also create the necessary edit notice? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think this really needs to be stated more clearly, but from what I've been able to figure out, I think that the edit notices are for the pages that have DS restrictions imposed. Only admins can impose DS restrictions, and only admins are able to create edit notices. I haven't been able to find anything that states that only admins can place notices stating that an article is in an area subject to DS or that there are edit notices to go with those. Natureium (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I was unaware that only admins could create edit notices (my only experience with them is the one on my user talk page), so if an edit notice is required, and only admins can create them, then only admins can place the DS notice on an article talk page. Still, in terms of what the policy actually says it looks like a gray area which should be tightened up with some explicit language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• On putting sanction templates on talk pages (what was happening here), I don't see that as very gray. It's like a non-admin putting "you have been blocked" templates on the page of a user who is not blocked. The case of non-admins putting informational templates about general topic areas being under general discretionary sanctions, I don't think that's against policy, but I don't know for sure. ~Awilley (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm pretty certain that anyone can put an informational template on an editor's user talk page, informing then that an article is under Discretionary Sanctions. The point of such an action is simply to notify the editor, which does not presume any wrongdoing on the editor's part (I believe the template even says that). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• There are the talk page notices like the one on Talk:Alternative medicine that inform people that sanctions are possible and then there are talk page notices like the one on Talk:Jared Kushner that start with "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" and list restrictions for the page. The latter can only be placed by administrators and I think the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions is clear about that. The former... I don't know and haven't found any where that talks about it. Because you are not imposing any restrictions but rather informing people of the ruling already made by arbcom, I don't see why being an admin should be necessary but it's not really about common sense, now is it? Natureium (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• No, I guess not. DS are a very necessary evil, but they're still basically a bureaucratic tool, which means that the ins and outs of them can be complex. The personal lesson I'm drawing from this is simply to stay away from posting informational DS notices on article talk pages even when it's indisputable that the article falls withing the penumbra of an existing DS, and go get someone of a higher pay grade to deal with it. In a way, that should be a relief for non-admins such as myself, since we don't have to shoulder the responsibility of taking that action. My experience is that the vast majority of active admins are reasonable folks who are likely to respond positively to such a request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• (Just to be clear, DS are very necessary, not very evil.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Basically, the edit-notices are located at places whose roots are forbidden by the Title-Blacklist and anybody who does not have the tb-override flag, can't create such pages. Thus, post the recent grant of abilities to Page-Movers to over-ride Title-Blacklist (for completely different issues), currently any Template Editor or Page-Mover or Administrator can install edit-notices at any page.∯WBG^converse 13:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, here's a list of edit notices that don't currently exist for articles that have sanctions templates on the talk page.

1. Template:Editnotices/Page/Andrew Napolitano
2. Template:Editnotices/Page/Aziz v. Trump
3. Template:Editnotices/Page/Blumenthal v. Trump
4. Template:Editnotices/Page/Bob Menendez
5. Template:Editnotices/Page/CNN v. Trump
6. Template:Editnotices/Page/CREW v. Trump
7. Template:Editnotices/Page/Cannabis policy of the Donald Trump administration
8. Template:Editnotices/Page/Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy
9. Template:Editnotices/Page/D.C. and Maryland v. Trump
10. Template:Editnotices/Page/DREAM Act
11. Template:Editnotices/Page/David Bowdich
12. Template:Editnotices/Page/Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
13. Template:Editnotices/Page/Dismissal of Sally Yates
14. Template:Editnotices/Page/Doe v. Trump
15. Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump Jr.
16. Template:Editnotices/Page/Donna Brazile
17. Template:Editnotices/Page/Executive Order 13767
18. Template:Editnotices/Page/Frank Gaffney
19. Template:Editnotices/Page/Gary Johnson
20. Template:Editnotices/Page/Gays for Trump
21. Template:Editnotices/Page/Jill Stein
22. Template:Editnotices/Page/Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump
23. Template:Editnotices/Page/LGBT protests against Donald Trump
24. Template:Editnotices/Page/Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban
25. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
26. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
27. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016
28. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign political endorsements, 2016
29. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations
30. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump
31. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump
32. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of proclamations by Donald Trump
33. Template:Editnotices/Page/Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration
34. Template:Editnotices/Page/Open space accessibility in California
35. Template:Editnotices/Page/Operation Faithful Patriot
36. Template:Editnotices/Page/President Trump's immigration bans
37. Template:Editnotices/Page/Reactions to Executive Order 13769
38. Template:Editnotices/Page/Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)
39. Template:Editnotices/Page/Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020
40. Template:Editnotices/Page/Stone v. Trump
41. Template:Editnotices/Page/Tim Canova
42. Template:Editnotices/Page/Tootkaboni v. Trump
43. Template:Editnotices/Page/Trump Tower meeting
44. Template:Editnotices/Page/United States Ambassadors appointed by Donald Trump
45. Template:Editnotices/Page/United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
46. Template:Editnotices/Page/Vladimir Putin
47. Template:Editnotices/Page/Voter suppression in the United States

(pats self on back for getting lucky on ballpark estimation of 50) ~Awilley (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've been using the AWB list compare tool to compare the above list of articles to articles that are LINKED from the arbitration enforcement logs back to 2015. Of the 47 pages above, the articles of 44 of them are not linked in the log, and the 3 that are linked (Frank Gaffney, Jill Stein, Vladimir Putin) are links from individual editors being topic banned from the individual articles. Note that I'm only looking at links, not text, so if an admin made a log entry that said "Jill Stein placed under 1RR and Consensus Required" without linking Jill Stein I wouldn't see that. ~Awilley (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the AE templates from the talkpages associated with the nonexistent edit notices above. ~Awilley (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Also here's a list of edit notice templates that were created but that didn't have entries that I could find in the AE log. Since these were all created by administrators I will create an entry in the log for the items in this list.

1. Template:Editnotices/Page//r/The Donald Lord Roem (forgot to log)
2. Template:Editnotices/Page/2016 Democratic National Committee email leak Coffee (forgot to log)
3. Template:Editnotices/Page/2016 Democratic National Convention Zzyzx11 (forgot to log)
4. Template:Editnotices/Page/Devin Nunes Coffee (forgot to log)
5. Template:Editnotices/Page/Efforts to impeach Donald Trump El C (forgot to log)
6. Template:Editnotices/Page/Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration Coffee (forgot to log)
7. Template:Editnotices/Page/Erik Prince Coffee (forgot to log)
8. Template:Editnotices/Page/Executive Order 13768 Doug Weller (forgot to log)
9. Template:Editnotices/Page/Jared KushnerAd Orientum (forgot to log)
10. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of executive actions by Donald Trump Ad Orientum (forgot to log)
11. Template:Editnotices/Page/Mike Pence Zzyzx11 (forgot to log)
12. Template:Editnotices/Page/Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 Coffee (forgot to log)
13. Template:Editnotices/Page/Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 Zzyzx11 (forgot to log)
14. Template:Editnotices/Page/Roger Stone Coffee (forgot to log)
15. Template:Editnotices/Page/Stop Trump movement El C (forgot to log)

~Awilley (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of these problems would go away if the AC/DS template had a signature field, so we would know from viewing the article talk page who placed the notice and the date when they did so. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'm not sure how to force a signature on a template that is transcluded (as opposed to substituted) but I'll look into it. ~Awilley (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley and EdJohnston:, try substituting Template:ZHYXCBG onto any talk-page and check the result. (Input {{subst:ZHYXCBG}} ) It notes down the signature of the user, (who installs the template), within a comment (which is prepended/appended to the template-code) but the main notice is directly transcluded onto the t/p, as we do now:-)

See this edit of mine, for an example.∯WBG^converse 12:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Reason I will not donate

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 censorship on wikipedia is abhorrent. It seems to go against the very idea of free knowledge. How can we even call it that with such censorship? I cannot donate to a company with an agenda to show you only information they agree is suitable. This is disgusting. Make wiki free for all speech and I will fork over my donations. Otherwise change it to propagandepedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:8401:FE00:194:B010:A1B6:1118 (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia users have nothing to do with the financial side of Wikipedia or the Foundation that operates it. Any donations you make(or decline to make) have no bearing on the content here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for free speech. If you want to contribute to a project more in line with your world view, there are different projects out there, or you can start one. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

IP 2601:80:8401:FE00:194:B010:A1B6:1118 Please read these 2 links below that tries to clear up your misconception.

1. Wikipedia:Free speech
2. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia

Hope that helps, regards --DBigXrayᗙ 12:03, 30 November 2018 (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.

Aditya Birla Payments Bank Undisclosed paid edits

This has been created through by an undisclosed paid editor on Upwork. Jon posted at https://www.upwork.com/job/Wikipedia-Content-Editor_~0167379bb6e4c6a4e9/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.188.64.111 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

the things are wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhangliping (talk • contribs) 15:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Unknown issues with oversight

I am able to see this message on main page history without even logging in. Is there some issue with the Oversight privileges? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xM9FCmBMGwW3Wb4x0nSFI6OOHwOYZHYj/view?usp=drivesdk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.125.251 (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, just something weird with a template not substing properly. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, those edits were not "oversighted" they were only "deleted", just seems like an odd template preview in mobile view. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

190.247.103.23 is still vandalizing wiki

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.

---

Moved to WP:ANI

With this edit. Procedural move, as the appropriate noticeboard. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:25, 1 December 2018 (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.

Fault on trying to move a page

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.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T210739

• Whenever I try to move a page, it shows a pink fault-box with the message "[XAExQgpAME4AAEVyVyoAAAAK] 2018-11-30 12:46:58: Fatal exception of type "MWException"", and the heading "Internal error". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have been getting that too, but only for pages that require deleting the target to be moved over. The patchwork resolution, for now, is to delete the target first, then move the page. bd2412 T 13:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Anthony Appleyard and BD2412: I've opened phab:T210845 - this is also failing on testwiki. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Seems a bug was introduced in Thursday's new MediaWiki software release. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Internal error, Phabricators have been filed. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Merged to phab:T210739. WP:ITSTHURSDAY. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:33, 30 November 2018 (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.

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.

---

Hello, I would like to voice my appeal for being un-banned from the topic of post 1932 politics. In the past few days, I have engaged in edit wars with one specific user, one who hides behind weak sources to peddle his politically biased edits. All edits made by this user are A). poorly written and B). in clear violation of WP:NPOV. I will take full responsibility for the steps I took to undo this users bad faith edits. I have no one but myself to blame for my actions. Still, my goal of making Wikipedia a better place and a neutral highway of information has remained steadfast, and bad faith editors responsible for bending Wikipedia to their will have no place here. I believe that I should be unbanned because I was only trying to do right, and that the editor on the other side of the edit war be looked into as well. It takes two to tango. KidAd (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

No (I'll go into more detail why I think "no" when you go into more detail about the circumstances around your topic ban; there is zero information included here). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@KidAd: I assume the "specific editor" who's edits you are disparaging above is Snooganssnoogans? If so, you need to notify them of this discussion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Tell me what I need to include, and I would be happy to include it. KidAd (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

For starters: who's the other editor? Who banned you? (Those ones are rhetorical, I know it's Snooganssnoogans and Bishonen, respectively). What article(s) were your banworthy edits to? What edits do you think were poor? What did you do wrong? How are you going to avoid doing it again in the future? We need specifics of your situation, and you're responsible for providing them, preferably in the form of diffs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, what Writ Keeper said. However, some free advice: I've looked at your recent contributions, and I would say the odds of a successful appeal of a topic ban on this topic are approximately 0.0001%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

KidAd, could you describe in your own words why you received the topic ban, and what might be done differently in future? —Sladen (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC) (Ideally with a couple of diffs).

Thank you. I was banned for repeatedly attempting to revert content like this: [43] and [44] and [45]. As you can see from the diffs, I am not blanking information, I am attempting to revert it to a more neutral state. For example, the editor I found myself warring with has a habit of labeling claims "false." I attempted to explain [46] that labeling claims as true or false reveals bias towards the claims. Claims, inherently, are challenged and not treated the same as facts. KidAd (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Without even opening the links I'm just gonna have to say you're mistaken: we do label claims as false if reliable sources report that they are objectively false. We are not required to create artificial balance between truth and falsehood. Wikipedia is indeed biased toward reality, which some people do deny for political purposes (e.g. Climate change denial, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and Alex Jones's entire career). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Then that seems like a glaring hole in policy. User:Snooganssnoogans takes this concept to the extreme, arbitrarily labeling politicians claims and views "false" or "incorrect." I don't care about the user's politics, but I do care about neutrality and bias. If I went on Donald Trump's page and began labeling all of his ideas and actions "correct" and "100% true" I would be kicked off this website so fast it would make my head spin. I would also like to point out that luckily, without my intervention, others are taking time to revert edits like these, because they are glaringly wrong, and I don't care which Wikipedia acronym finds fault in that. In the future, I will have to let other editors do the work for me, but users like Snoogans who only edit to make waves and create discourse (and are proud of it) should not be here. KidAd (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

KidAd, erm, which part of this directly addresses "could you describe in your own words why you received the topic ban, and what might be done differently in future?" —Sladen (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding your Trump example, see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. If the relevant sources demonstrate how a statement is false and label it as such, then we have to follow suit.

Looking at the example you provided (which I would assume would be the most damning evidence you can find), the source cited is titled "Former Gov. Pat McCrory falsely says many college students are committing voter fraud." It goes on to say that "McCrory is wrong about this" and they provide proof of this from both the website of the North Carolina Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement and the elections board spokesman. @KidAd: Did you not read the source at all or did you decide that alternative facts were more appropriate? Either way, you're only making the ban appear more necessary.

As you've not provided any indication that you have any plans to truly understand (much less seriously acknowledge) the necessity of your topic ban nor any desire to improve yourself to render the ban unnecessary, but instead are focused on the actions of others, I'm only becoming more and more tempted to WP:SNOW close this. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose Well, let's cut to the chase. This is an appeal; I oppose it. The OP clearly has no real understanding of why they were blocked, and their continuing in the same vein here merely copperfastens that impression. Advice, KidAd: when one appeals a restriction of any kind, one is expected to first demonstrate understanding of why the ban was imposed. This means reflecting on one's own actions in the events that led up to it, not justifying yourself (mitigating the harm being done by a bad-faith editor) or blaming others (ot only does Snoogans write with a strong political bias, his writing is so glaringly incorrect). Pages to read further regarding that are at WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI. ——SerialNumber54129 21:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(Furthermore) this attempted collusion (is it possible for something to be both canvassing andharassment?) smacks of something worse than what was responsible for the original topic ban; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"...really?! ——SerialNumber54129 21:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Maybe I'm too slow for this place. KidAd appealed the ban to me on my page (or so I understood his posts), before coming here — I didn't know he was on his way here until Floq told me. I just typed up a reply of "no" for him, together with some detailed advice about what to do and what to avoid when he went on to either AN or AE: reading WP:NPA and WP:AGF and taking them to heart, talking about himself and how he intends to edit going forward, not talking about other people, etc. A little late to post it now, I guess. I'll give some basic info here instead: My warning to him can be read here, and my ban rationale here. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose - The topic ban was well within discretionary norms. We don't need editors in American politics who appoint themselves arbiters of NPOV; who harass other editors even after being warned; and who refuse to use edit summaries.- MrX 🖋 21:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Question If the consensus ends up being "oppose," would that mean that the ban is now community-derived and not just DS-derived? Or would the consensus need to be "oppose and affirm ban"...? Not that I imagine Bishonen approving the ban or some other admin wheel-warring it, just curious. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would say no, this is just an appeal. If the community declines the appeal, then that is it. It's back to the status quo. ARBCOM gives two ways to appeal a DS ban and AN is one of them. It doesn't say that a decline of the appeal makes it a community ban. We shouldn't discourage well thought out appeals on the chance that a decline would make it a community sanction. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you, Sir Joseph, you're right. It's an arbcom discretionary sanctions ban and logged as such, Ian. According to instructions here, those can be appealed at either AN, AE or ARCA, and so I told the user. He picked AN. If the appeal fails here, that won't make the ban itself morph into a community ban, as I understand it. As it's only for three months, I don't see much point in trying to make it a community ban with some "oppose and affirm ban" magic. It's fine as it is, surely. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

• Right, got it. Figured that well thought out appeals would be excluded, which is why I had to ask for this one. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• "labeling claims as true or false reveals bias towards the claims"--that's like saying "spotting racism is racist". No. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• oppose - based on their statements here and the diffs they provided, KidAd does not understand our mission to present content that summarizes accepted knowledge, nor how we do that - namely by summarizing RS per the P&G working in a community of editors. In particular they don't understand WP:NPOV policy in light of the mission. KidAd, you are at great risk for wider restrictions on your editing privileges. Please rethink your understanding of what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Extend ban duration to six months: Making a meritless and deficient appeal mere hours after its imposition, and without any attempt at understanding the nature of an appeal surely cannot be without consequences? Such willingness to waste editors' time here gives me little faith in KidAd's ability to edit collaboratively in that topic area in future. Pour encourager les autres. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's nothing in this appeal, or in this appeal discussion, to indicate that KidAd understands Wikipedia's policies and norms, and without understanding those, he's inevitably going to do the same kinds of thing again. Further, not to add to my possible reputation as a hanging judge, their misunderstanding is so universally applicable that their edits should be very closely watched with an eye to whether a site ban might be necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• The editor KidAd has in the last 15 minutes blatantly and knowingly violated his topic ban by editing at the pages of Paul Ryan[47] and Pat McCrory[48]. The editor shows here[49] that he knows that the ban covers American politicians. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• I think it is hopeless. While they are apealing a ban, KidAd is still editing and reverting on post 1932 American politics. ~ GB fan 00:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• also this edit on Pat McCrory. ~ GB fan 00:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, you really have to admire that chutzpah.- MrX 🖋 01:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Noting that I’ve blocked KidAd for a week for the topic ban violations above. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Exactly what I was going to do, Tony, same length, same reasons, everything. @KidAd: I guess you didn't read WP:TBAN, as I urged you to do ? It's only ten lines long, and written in a helpful, pedagogical way. Do take this time during the block to read and digest it, it may be your last chance. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC).

• Oppose You were LITERALLY BANNED THE DAY YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN APPEAL. --Tarage (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and make it indefinite with appeal in no less than 6 months, dated from the initial levying of the ban. --Blackmane (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Although I am not a admin, I suggest you wait thru your topic ban instead of doing the things you are currently doing. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban and the banning policy page itself, by going against your current sanctions admins have the right to block you from editing Wikipedia overall. ...……. In my opinion, KidAd should get a Wikipedia editing block instead of a topic ban as the topic ban is doing no affect on them in my opinion. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment does a discretionary sanctions appeal need to be kept open for 24 hours? Even if it does, I think we can forget about this until someone comes along to close in 24 hours. It started off with a poorly worded and thought out appeal, and progressed to ever more blatant violations of the topic ban while the appeal was ongoing until the editor was editing the articles which specifically call the person a "politician" and they didn't even bother to offer one of their "not politics but author" style rationales, resulting in the inevitable block. There's nothing more to say really. Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  I should clarify I'm not opposed to extending the ban, but I also feel this could be easily handled via the discretionary sanctions process so it isn't needed. By handled I don't necessarily mean an immediate extended ban. If the editor comes back and is able to survive against any future blocks for tban violations or other such problems, but then goes back to their problem editing after 3 months, I'm sure a new extended topic ban will come very fast. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand the milk of human kindness that seems to flow through the admins and editors commenting here. We have someone who is making blatantly partial edits, gets topic-banned, claims in an unban request that it was the other guy's fault, and edits in the forbidden area while this is going on. So that's either total flippancy or total incompetency--extend this topic ban, per [[User:|RexxS]]. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. The best case he could argue for blaming the other guy was arguing that a source literally titled "Former Gov. Pat McCrory falsely says many college students are committing voter fraud," which goes on to say "McCrory is wrong about this," providing proof from both the website of the North Carolina Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement and the elections board spokesman -- should not be summarized with "McCrory falsely claimed that there were many North Carolina students who committed voter fraud during the 2016 election." This was part of a campaign to following and reverting an editor on a gross (and completely hypocritical) assumption of bad faith, continually censoring or whitewashing reliably sourced material (sometimes for questionable reasons).

Immediately after the topic ban, they edited an article relating to and argued that the vice-president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute does not fall under the topic ban relating to politics. Ok, so maybe they really just don't get it. They then tried to recruit another editor to edit on their behalf, saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," demonstrating a total WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. They were told that they are not supposed to make any edits relating to politics anywhere on the site, to which they responded by continuing their edit war I mentioned in the second sentence of this post, as well as continuing to stalk Snooganssnoogans into the Paul Ryan article.

And at no point has he shown the capacity to even consider that maybe he is the one who fucked up here. Given his work in articles on minority educators, I can understand some leniency and openness toward him working in other parts of the project. But if his only edits were those relating to politics, it'd be an obvious indef block with the only possible appeal being to agree to a topic ban on politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban, but I also oppose adding any further sanctions at this time. They now have a week to review the multiple messages left on their talk page — let's wait and see if that helps. Bradv🍁 03:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. We have seen again and again some internet warrior getting really upset and making a lot of noise for a few days after being blocked or topic banned. Usually they calm down without any additional sanctions. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban. I say wait to see how he/she responds to User talk:KidAd#What you need to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• He replied.[50] He thinks he is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn speaking out against the the Soviet Unions Gulag forced labor camp system. I guess that makes us SMERSH. :( Extend the topic ban. He is clearly never going to give up this fight. --Guy Macon (talk)

• @Guy Macon:But if he is just ignoring his topic ban, how does the extension of it going to stop him from continuing to avoid it? That is why I suggest in my comment that he should just get a Wikipedia editing block, for disruptive editing. Disruptive editing is a valid reason for edit blocks. Speaking in a sense that his efforts in evading his topic ban is disrupting the communities time in doing other tasks on Wikipedia. The fact that KidAd thinks that way according to his reply on his talk page just says that he might be trying all his might to get his POV only. KidAd is probably not the first user like this I think, there probably were more like him before on Wikipedia, that probably had no affect from topic bans. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban , the edits only get reverted. Thus he is able to do his edits, only the admins or other users get the trouble of having to undo those edits. Thus it seems that KidAd just does not care if his edits are being reverted, all he probably cares about is that his POV is on the text box and the Publish changes button is working. Putting a Wikipedia editing block on KidAd would prevent him from even editing those pages. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Or just indef <personal attack redacted> and be done with it. You know that's where we're going to end up. Nothing of value lost. --Tarage (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2018 (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.

Manual of Style

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.

---

Someone just made a very strange grammatical choice at Record Producer. End communication. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Why do you need sysops? ∯WBG^converse 05:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Kindly... Do not presume to tell me what to do. Do sysops clean up, revert and generally put things right? well then... Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually any good faith editor can clean up, revert and generally put things right. It does not have to be a sysop. MarnetteD|Talk 05:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, I just saw this. @Bishonen and SlimVirgin: would one of you have a word with Hamster Sandwich, since he appears to respect you? I'm not getting through here (see the thread above, also). Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hamster Sandwich to Leaky Caldron on Hamster Sandwich's talk page: "You sound like an out of touch authoritarian. With dissociative tendencies. Now, I've already decided never ever to run for Administrative duties again. If you want to lurk around my talk page, be prepared to get ya self BURNT. Or just go away. Latter suits me fine." This is after Hamster Sandwich asked for the return of "THE HAMMER" on WP:BN.
  Whoever Hamster Sandwich once was, this person is not one we need around here. They had 3000 edits in 13 years, only a third of them to mainspace. They've made 50 edits this year, and the last time they edited before that was June 2016 (12 edits). [51] They're not going to edit articles, and they're not going to fix vandalism when they come across it. They're doing some kind of annoying WP:POINTy b.s. thing with these two reports. Why don't we fix it so they don't have to make any edits to Wikipedia whatsoever? We won't be missing much.
  End communication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Post-close comment - Really, Rschen7754, you decided all on your own that the suggestion of an editor in good standing that an obviously problematic editor ought to be (at the very least) considered for sanctioning is nothing that the community should be allowed to comment on, because it was "not heading in a productive direction"? I have news for you, if Hamster Sandwich is a disruptive editor -- and every indication here is that he is -- then the community has every right to consider whether he should be sanctioned or not. Or did I miss something and you were appointed to be in charge of deciding who is properly sanctioned? Be wary of overstepping your administrative authority, it's not a blanket of immunity, you know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree this was closed rather soon. I want to reply to Vanamonde's request to "have a word" with Hamster Sandwich. I won't be doing that. Hamster Sandwich is a former admin, who asked for the tools back at WP:BN. Being out of the loop, he thought it wouldn't be a big deal, and lightheartedly asked for "the hammer" (in scare quotes) back. Of course it isn't that easy, but he didn't know. The bureaucrats responded politely, explaining that it couldn't be done like that, and he thanked them and said he'd reapply through the normal channels. What Leaky caldron and Iridescent saw in that to make them go on the attack, I don't know. The reasonable thing AFAICS is to treat a returning long-gone editor like a newbie, and not bite. Only after several bites did HS answer back sharply, and I don't blame him. The thread is here. I think he may have missed that actually most people welcomed him back kindly, and some of them apologized for the rough reception he had had. See threads on Slim Virgin's page, on mine, and on HS's own, before he blanked it. And what do you, know, Leaky caldron turned up on HS page and insisted that he had meant every word so nobody had better apologize for him. The reason he gave for insisting was that HS had "turned up out of the blue" (where else would a returning user turn up from, FGS?) and mentioned "the hammer" (obviously jokingly, remember the scare quotes). Leaky Caldron's behavior has been consistently awful, and I'd much rather somebody had a sharp word with him. (It won't be me, though. I have too much experience of his manner to invite dialogue there.) (Moving the "archive bottom" to include later comments.) Bishonen | talk 10:43, 29 November 2018 (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.

Infobox and series on Donald Trump

Hi, in light of the recent publicised vandalism on Donald Trump (The Verge, Independent), we decided to replace the primary target of the vandalism, the infobox, with a fully protected template. This means that once the temporary full protection on the main article ends business as usual can continue. However, given the discussion had a relatively low level of participation, Ymblanter suggested I make a thread here.

Should we keep this template in the article (temporarily) or should we go back to having the infobox directly inside the article? Note that a compromised admin account could technically still vandalise the article, it would just mean they'd have to go through an extra step (that has significantly less watchers). @MelanieN, Enigmaman, Ymblanter, GreenC, Awilley, and DannyS712: Pinging those who were involved with the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk | work) 09:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte, MelanieN, Enigmaman, Ymblanter, GreenC, Awilley, and DannyS712: While I am in favour (obviously) of stopping the vandalism, wouldn't having it located on a page with a lot less watchers be even riskier? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 09:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

In principle, it is correct that the template is watched by a far lower number of people, but as it is full protected, one needs another compromised admin account to vandalize it. So far all compromised admin accounts were discovered within minutes (though it still takes time to lock them). Page as it is now can be edited by extended confirmed users, and we have a plenty of extended confirmed accounts to compromise.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Me thinks this to be unnecessary; though the efforts are quite well thought-out and deserves praise:-). EFs can be easily exploited.∯WBG^converse 12:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is fine as a temporary solution. The problem is that admin accounts have been compromised and the template will have far fewer watchers than the article. A solution that addresses the root cause is what we need long term. Compromised accounts have been editing the article and some related articles for more than two years. They are easily identified by their edit history. - MrX 🖋 14:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• I actually think this is a fine idea and could be maintained indefinitely. The entire infobox has been subject to lots of discussion and is now in a consensus-defined condition - so that virtually all changes to the infobox nowadays get reverted. In other words there is no problem with keeping the infobox in a permanently locked state. We would just have to make sure that lots of us put the infobox template on our watchlists. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be inconsistent with policy. I would strongly object to any article content that can only be edited by admins. Also, nothing prevents a compromised account from removing the template from the article, and restoring a vandalized version of the infobox. Something needs to be done about the cause. In other words, the compromised accounts.- MrX 🖋 14:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• I support this idea for this article only for a period of time needed but not forever. It's not a grand sweeping slippery slope of top down control over Wikipedia content, but a pragmatic temporary solution for a single article under special circumstances. -- GreenC 15:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• I support this as a temporary measure, but in the long(er) term suggest using an edit filter, as discussed on the talk page. This would allow constructive extended-confirmed editors (hopefully like myself) to edit the rest of the infobox, series, etc without needing to submit a protected-edit request. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors copying and pasting barnstars intended for others onto their userpages

Just curious as to whether there's any policy or guideline which addresses editors copying and pasting barnstars originally posted on other editors userpages onto their own userpages. This seems to be what DeanBWFofficial has done. While I understand that awarding yourself a barnstar might not be seen as inappropriate but not a policy/guideline violation, copying and pasting those posted by others on another editor's userpage (including signatures of other editors) onto your userpage seems like it might possibly be a problem per WP:CWW and WP:UP#NOT. DeanBWFofficial appears to be a new editor and I'm not trying to get them blocked, but maybe someone can advise them as to whether this kind of thing is allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not think we have any policy on this, and I do not think we might undertake any action. This is clearly a signal that the user is not yet fully ready to edit Wikipedia, and possibly that they confuse it with a social media site, and this means their contribution might need some inspection, but that's it.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, these appear to have been borrowed from The Banner's User talk:The Banner page; and now already removed/reverted by User:Abelmoschus Esculentus in Special:Diff/870093581. —Sladen (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

These users should be too embarrassed to do this, but I don't think heavyhanded action is called for. But it might be construed a misuse of userspace. A gentle word would probably be best. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Did I merit the "Barnstar of Telling the Obvious" for remarking that using the name "DeanBWFofficial" together with asserting I am also work for International Badminton World Federation as a editor team is not so obvious ? Pldx1 (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I reverted some of his disruptive talk page edits which pasted the whole mainspace page verbatim, but I was reverted by Denisarona (talk · contribs) who seems to view my removals as vandalism. I did, however, repair the attribution that was lacking but necessary for the Wikipedia CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensing. I do not see the need to have the mainspace pages' content replicated on the talk page. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's interest in Asian beauty pageants and page-moving them smells much like Wurtzbach (talk · contribs). 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked user Deanarthurl (talk · contribs) seems quite interested in someone named "David Lim" - coincidence? 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I take this as flattery...

But in the past there were several sockfarms editing articles about pageants. I think this is a reincarnation of one of the socks. (But I do not dig any deeper) The Banner talk 15:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't consider that this might be a case of WP:SOCK, only that it seems inappropriate for this editor to copy and paste barnstars you have received from others onto their talkpage. A "gentle word" about this seems fine as some others have suggested. If, however, there are serious concerns of socking, then maybe a SPI would help clarify whether this is the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I would agree pasting barnstars including the signature of another editor is inappropriate. It may lead others to believe that the person gave a barnstar to someone they didn't. Anyway I noticed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help:Reverting which reminded me of this thread. DeanBWFofficial and User:DPIDAMU have been blocked as socks. Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hzh at Sci-Hub

• Hzh overall edit count - 88,527 edits, most edited articles are American Idol, History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C., List of American Idol alumni album sales in the United States, Pipa, List of American Idol alumni single sales in the United States, etc. Pop culture and sports.
• Hzh's editsat Talk:Sci-Hub 183 since Oct 16, per page editing stats, is #1 contributor there, followed by me and Guy.
• article contribs (only 3, which were edit-warring against another editor and me over "fraudulent" with respect to Sci-Hub's use of other people's credentials.

prior discussions

• User:JzG -- thread opened by Hzh 16 November; closed 17 November as "content dispute"
• Talk:Sci-Hub#RfC_on_word_usage RFC posted by Hzh, withdrawn after only a little bit of fuss, as being not-neutral
• RSN posting by Hzh
• warning from me about making misrepresentations on the talk page
• last warning from me about making misrepresentations.

The content dispute is about how to describe a) how Sci-Hub obtains credentials and b) how Sci-Hub uses credentials it obtains. (Briefly, Sci-Hub obtains (through various means) legitimate user names and passwords, and presents them to libraries, misrepresenting itself as the person to whom the credentials were granted, in order to get access to paywalled content, which it then stores on its servers).

Per the stats above, this posting is about Hzh's behavior at Talk:Sci-Hub. It is not about the content dispute. They have

• a) WP:BLUDGEONed the talk page (the 183 edits);
• b) continually misrepresented what other editors are saying and what sources say (see two warnings above for examples; I can provide more -- this has been incredibly frustrating); and
• c) has always said "not this" or "not that" and never helped propose comprehensive content summarizing what the sources actually say about how the site obtains credentials (e.g diff, diff; and
• d) in their "not this" comments, consistently
  • (i) criticized the content of the sources (e.g here with opening ground-shifting snark and here, and here) and
  • (ii) demanded that content quotes the sources, instead of summarizing them (e.,g diff, diff) and
  • (iii) constantly ground-shifting, making it impossible to move forward and resolve issues (snark diff above, see also diff, diff (what does that comment even mean?), diff bringing up other issues about "dangers" which this RfC proposal was not addressing - ARGH).

If you try to review the talk page, you will find that almost every section is derailed, mostly by Hzh. We have not made progress resolving the issues after more than a month. Their very first comment argued strenuously that there is some actual difference between "piracy" and illegal copyright infringement. That is pretty much how it has gone since then. Guy has said to them many times that WP is not a place to RGW or where we can act as though law is not what it is, first gently and then with increasing clarity. (this is what prompted Hzh's ANI filing). To show the depth of the RGW/IDHT here, in this diff they compared copyright law to laws making homosexuality illegal. That is about as close to the Godwin's law as one can get without going there.

This has been the definition of tendentious behavior at a talk page, and is wasting everyone's time. I am not sure what the most appropriate solution is, but some kind of restriction seems appropriate, so that we can get work done. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• This shit again? Remind me again why Hzh wasn't TBANned after the last ANI? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Reply I think it should be noted that this ANI came about after I requested opinions on RSN on a source given by Jytdog to support the content he added - [52]. He said I had misrepresented the source - Another misrepresentation, and made two demands to change. For the first demand, as I explained, it was his own confusion of "review process" with editorship (the two things are different for publication of research papers), but although many would consider the review process to be essential, it is not that an important point on the question of the validity of this particular source to waste time arguing over, I struck off the wording. However I refused to accede to his second demand, at which point he decided that I had been disruptive and that an ANI is necessary. Note also that the RSN came about only because I had questioned the source in a number of places (it was also questioned by another editor Smartse [53]), but Jytdog indicated that he would not reply to me on the source because I did not discuss it at the section he wanted it discussed - [54]. This I duly did, [55], but he chose not to reply, at which point I took the issue to the RSN [56].

I'll address the issues involved as best as I can:

• The questions I raised in the Sci-Hub talk page are related to the basic policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Allegations are stated as facts in the article, Where words like "allegedly" [57] or "publishers have alleged" [58] are found in the sources, they are ignored. I raised some of the issue at Talk:Sci-Hub#Problematic wordings.
• If it is necessary to summarise the sources, then the sources actually need to say what the content says. Words in the sources like "allegedly" should not be ignored, and accusation should not be stated as fact. In the case of the "black market", the validity of the Scholarly Kitchen source is being examined in the RSN, and the only valid source given did not use the word "black market", and it also did not offer any evidence for the claim. Although it is asserted that the content is well-sourced, when examined closely, the sources are problematic, for example the SK article in the RSN.
• I'm just one of a number of editors who objected to the way the word "illegal" is used (e.g. Kashmiri), and our objection had been accepted. A number of other editors also agree on NPOV, e.g. Elephanthunter on the use voice of Wikipedia [59], Guy Macon and others. The discussion on piracy is quite wide-ranging, and I would suggest that those who want to take a close look then should read the full discussion rather than address the specific here (although I won't mind discussing it here if others want to).
• The RfC was due to the claim that proofs are unnecessary for the claims made by Guy in the article [60]. Since this is a violation of Wikipedia policies on WP:V, it made it hard to phrase it in a way that does not tell us what the answer must be.
• As for the warnings, Jytdog issued a 3RR warning for the 2 reverts I made, but ignore the 2 reverts made by another who agreed with him [61][62]. He asked me to discuss when I was still discussing. He had actually decided to edit the article on the contested use of such words [63][64] just saying that he would not discuss further [65]. Other warnings appear to be his misunderstanding of what I wrote, and he appears to ignore my explanations. He warned about mispresentation (which appeared to his misundertandings), but misrepresented the source given (claiming that it better supported the content when that is not true) as well as what I did on the talk page e.g. You have never offered any content suggesting how to better summarize the sources, when I did in a few places, e.g. [66][67], one of which he even accepted [68].
• I have no idea where the charge of ground-shifting comes from since they refer to different things, for example. one is about his use of a self-published attack site [69], another is about the validity of the source Scholarly Kitchen (a blog established by Society for Scholarly Publishing, therefore an organisation with a conflict of interest), while a third is a discussion on the word "fraudulent" that is not supported by the sources used, including the SK one, etc. I'm not aware that you need to discuss only one topic in different discussions. I'm not sure what issue Jytdog has with the others since it is quite clear what I wrote, for example, I stated my concerns, and that we can go back to it later. Everything may become clearer when other issues get addressed, and the RfC may become simpler. I simply don't see how I could be derailing anything. As Jytdog himself later objected to Elephanthunter's proposal, his objection should not be taken as derailing the discussion, nor indeed in other parts where Guy has agreed with my suggstions but Jytdog had objected [70]. This is just part and parcel of a discussion.

It should be noted that many of the issues had been caused by edits by Jytdog. His behaviour has not been helpful in the discussing his edits, for example making trivial complaints about the word "darknet" I used, insisting that I used "black market" [71], then saying the two words have no important differences in meaning [72], then complained that I was too "literal" in demanding sources that support the wording [73] when the sources used don't mention "darknet" or "black market". The wording should be how he decides it to be, even when it is contested, for example the use of the word fraud and fraudulent I gave earlier - he stopped discussing [74] then made these edits [75][76].

As for the edit counts, since I started commenting on this talk page, I have made 95 signed comments (9 more are duplication by Jytdog as he wanted to reorganised the comments), Guy made 91 (11 more are duplications by Jytdog in the reorganisation), Jytdog made 77 (these are rough counts, but the true number should not be far off). I have a higher edit count as I tend to copyedit and adjust before anyone else has replied, which is acceptable practice per WP:REDACT. If racking up edit counts because of copy-editing and adjustments before someone else has replied is not acceptable, then I apologise and will refrain from doing so again. The reason I did not make more edits to the article itself is because I thought they should be discussed properly first before they are added, and talk page is the place for discussion on contentious edits. Hzh (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC) (adjusted)Hzh (talk)

To cut down on the number of edits due to copy editing and adjustments, try using 'Show preview' before you publish your changes. Preview can be used repeatedly until your edit looks the way you want it to. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That is true, and I do use it, but I will use it more often. I guess I developed the habit to avoid edit conflict where a large edit sometimes becomes lost when saving, but I guess a wall of edits by one person can be off-putting to others, so I will try to cut it down next time. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What Hzh did there with "darknet" directly on point. They have been insisting on literal support for the negative ideas -- this has been a constant theme. So no, the exact word is not trivial to them at the talk page. So you see, they misrepresent things (now their own behavior) even here. Their post in general is full of distraction and ground-shifting. This is what we have been dealing with at the talk page. It is not about content. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hzh's comment entirely exemplifies the problem. See, for example, the comment on the word "illegal". The article changed to "piracy" (a term Sci-Hub apparently embraces), but for weeks afterwards, Hzh challenged use of the word illegal even on Talk on the basis that taking credentials to which you have no right, using them to download copyright material, and offering that copyright material free to download, is somehow not "illegal" in some corner of the world he has yet to actually identify. He also relentlessly opposes the use of the term computer fraud to describe the use of other people's credentials to take material from publishers' servers, mainly because it contains the word "fraud" and in Hzh's mind Sci-Hub are brave mavericks, not crooks. The possibility that one can be both at the same time, as pretty much every single sources says Sci-Hub is, does not seem to be a valid argument to him. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems like you are arguing you should be able to use any word just because it is the talk page, whether it is correct or not. For example you insisted all over the talk page that copyright infringement is theft, just a few here - [77][78][79], when the US Supreme Court has already specifically ruled that this is not so in the Dowling v. United States (1985) case. Perhaps if you are more careful with your wordings, others wouldn't challenged you, or are you arguing that you shouldn't be challenged in your assertions and say anything you want in the talk page? Hzh (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'm involved, but this is just an ordinary content dispute and I see no need for administrative action. SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe we could have worked out this content dispute a long time ago, if it weren't for Hzh's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• TBAN please. Hzh is basically sealioning and has been for weeks. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• @JzG: - What should be the scope of the TBAN? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thus far I have seen the issue only at Sci-Hub, though presumably we'd also have to include Alexandra Elbakyan. There's been none of the pointy removals of links to Elsevier or addition of other dubious "free" links that we saw with other users. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't remember how I originally found the article. I came back to it because Guy invited me to on my talk. I helped negotiate the "piracy compromise" IIRC. I tried to come back to it a couple times, but the discussion was so disjointed and exceedingly difficult to make sense of, it just crossed my eyes and I went on and did something else instead.

Umm...Hzh is incessant at editing their own comments. So any raw edit count is pretty misleading as an argument for bludgeoning. From what I can tell, they've not been super congenial on the talk, but neither has everyone else. There's walls of text here and there for sure, but they don't all belong to Hzh, nor the longest of them as far as I can tell. There is likely a good argument to be had that, when using controversial terms, we need to stick closely to what the sources say. It is perfectly possible that Hzh is only slightly sympathetic and is being wrongly characterized as (to borrow a phrase) "a fanboy". Which that phrase is not terribly helpful even if true. I don't like the idea that if "I have friends and you don't, and you're civil, then you're sealioning". That's not always the case. I tend to agree that this is a content dispute and repeated efforts by the more noticeboard-savvy-side to file noticeboard complaints is probably less evidence of a problem, and more evidence that the more noticeboard-savvy-side has tried repeatedly to seek sanctions and has failed.

I've worked with and disagreed with both Jyt and Guy. And I admit to just not caring enough about SciHub to invest that much personal time. But it's hard to see this as more than a content dispute. GMG^talk 00:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Revoking rights of the following users

• Frankie0607 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• JDiPierro (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

These users were indefinitely blocked as a compromised account, their rollback rights have to be removed. --B dash (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Why? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I was kind of wondering. Now, I get that rollback was abused by whoever compromised the account; however, the account is globally locked and can't to anything at all at this point. Since the original owner does not appear to have attached an email address, it is very unlikely the true owner would be able to regain access to the account, so the global lock is (in all likelihood) permanent. Removing the permission won't have an impact on the account. B dash, is there some other reason to do this? Maybe we're missing something. On the other hand, I have no opposition to stripping any compromised accounts down to "confirmed user". Risker (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
      • No, just for security concern, regards. --B dash (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
        • If they do somehow regain control of the account (and it's unlocked), they would need to be given back rollback, taking up a bit of time that would have otherwise been saved. Currently, they can't do anything with it since they can't login. I don't see a reason to remove the permissions. Vermont (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The accounts are globally locked, meaning that login and authentication abilities for them are completely cut off and across all WMF sites and projects... they're essentially completely dead accounts and 100% inaccessible and unusable by anyone. Hence, there's no need to remove the user permissions from these accounts (see this section of Wikipedia:User access levels for the typical norm regarding this situation). If a Steward decides that unlocking the accounts are appropriate, it's because they have checked, verified, and are satisfied that the rightful owners have regained access to them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well technically, as the footnote you linked says, it's because we had an RfC about this, which confirmed that there's no reason to remove perms like this in situations like this. Stewards don't make enWiki policy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit filter 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.

---

This may not be the place to ask this -- if not, I'd appreciate being directed to the proper venue.

One of the current memes of the extreme right is that certain organizations and ideologies which are pretty much universally considered to be on the far right, are actually on the far left. This most usually happens with Fascism, Nazism, and neo-Nazism, but I just undid a change to Ku Klux Klan.

Because of this, it seems to me that an edit filter which stops the direct replacement of "far-right" or "far right" to "far-left" or "far left" might be a good idea. (I'd ask for the opposite as well, but I've literally never seen a case of it.)

Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. All the best, Miniapolis 23:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, head to WP:EFR for that. Home Lander (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2018 (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.

Duplicate article cleanup request

Last evening I tagged a revision of Webb's City and the Civil Rights Movement of St. Petersburg, Florida for deletion as a test page, but before it was deleted, the user overwrote it with an article that is essentially an overhaul of Webb's City. A hist-merge seems appropriate, but I'm not certain that their new version is ready for the mainspace yet. Requesting sysop evaluation and cleanup. Thanks! Home Lander (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've merged the two pages together and started a bit of a cleanup to the page. For full disclosure, I work with Wiki Education and monitored the class in question. I think that it should be OK now, but I'll still get the student to fine tune the page since there are other elements about the store that need to be fleshed out (and needs more sourcing). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ReaderofthePack, thanks for all the help there. Home Lander (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• No problem! I'm just sorry that the student made a separate page rather than moving content into the existing article to start with. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Request to undraftify Draft:Martial law in Ukraine

Hallo, This article was moved to draft at 16:11 today as "undersourced" by @Whispering: but I have now clarified its four "External links" as proper references to reliable sources. I think the article ought to be in mainspace now, before someone creates a duplicate article on the topic. I've asked the draftifier on his talk page to move the article back to mainspace, but I suspect that he can't do so any more than I can as the redirect from mainspace has been edited (with a CSD) so a non-admin can't make the move. He hasn't edited since 16:11 when he did this draftification, so may not be online anyway.

Could an admin please move this article back from draft to mainspace? Thanks. PamD 17:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

PamD, I moved the redirect elsewhere to clear the way and accepted the draft. The leftover is nominated for deletion. Home Lander (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Let me just remark here that the article is clearly POV since it fails to mention the upcoming elections in Ukraine and blames Russia in Wikipedia's voice with the only two sources for that sentence being official Ukrainian documents (primary sources). Just a remark, it happens quite a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I got busy with work, good to see it all worked out though. Whispering^(t) 17:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Permission error

An editor at the Teahouse reported that there was a permission error on trying to create User talk:Pavan_Kumar H L, and this is indeed so, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pavan_Kumar_H_L&action=edit . Can an admin please sort it out? --David Biddulph (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk page created, so you can send a message; but the blacklist entry needs sorting as it will currently affect this user's whole user space. BethNaught (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

SPA activity at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Hardy (singer)

There appears to be some suspicious single-purpose account activity at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Hardy (singer). TwoThree recently-registered accounts have just happened to stumble across the article very shortly after account creation, and one of them has commented at the AFD using a signature that is, to put it mildly, eerily similar to that of the the article's creator. I have to be AFK for a bit, but figured I'd mention it here for other admins in case anything potentially actionable happens in the interim. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• The article creator created a small sock army to promote and try to keep the article (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tunesywikier55). Given they created the new title to circumvent the decision to decline the article at AfC and likely to avoid scrutiny through the repeated recreation of the original title, I would just CSD Cameron Hardy (singer) if I could find a viable criteria. Perhaps someone out there is more creative than me and can get it done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That was quick. Much appreciated, Ponyo! --Kinu ^t/_c 22:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Hillenburg page being attacked with penises

Not sure where else to get a quick response... Anyone available to block User:Nighthawkzx, a spam-only account who will not stop adding penises to the Stephen Hillenburg article? Nohomersryan (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added that image to the bad image list, and the account has been blocked by Widr. Looks like another compromised account. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, this addition can be removed as the image has been deleted from Commons. Home Lander (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Now locked by Trijnstel. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Titanica

moved to WP:RSN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is Encyclopedia Titanica a reliable source? It's used extensively in Titanic-related articles such as Passengers of the RMS Titanic, Margaret Brown and RMS Titanic. My concern is that the site is based on user-generated content [80][81] and their editorial/fact-checking policies are unclear. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC) I share your concerns but the proper venue for this discussion is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC) No, near-certainly. But, RSN is a better venue. ∯WBGconverse 03:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I opened the wrong tab. Feel free to to delete this discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Appeal my 1RR restriction

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.

---

About 2 1⁄2 years ago, following my successful appeal here against a community ban, I had three restrictions applied as conditions of the lifting of that ban: a topic ban from units of measurement, 1RR on the rest of Wikipedia and being limited to one account and prohibited from editing whilst logged-off. About 17 months ago I successfully appealed the general 1RR restriction and about 14 months ago successfully appealed to get my topic ban on measurement converted to a 1RR restriction.

Today I am appealing to get that 14-month-old 1RR restriction lifted please. I have, to the best of my knowledge, never contravened that restriction - having made around 3000 edits in that time - generally turning to discussion rather than continually reverting. And to be honest, I plan to continue keeping reverts to the minimum and using the discussion route to improve articles - I have found discussion to be more productive, resulting in a more stable article than is achieved with continuous flip-flopping of content.

The main reason for my appeal is to continue along the path back to full good standing within the community. Please give this appeal your full and careful consideration. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto: While in theory I would usually support such a request, please would you explain this sequence of edits from just a month ago and explain how they do not breach 1RR: [82], [83], [84]. Thanks. Fish Karate 13:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Also these two: [85], [86] Fish Karate 13:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC) My error. Fish Karate 14:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fish and karate, my 1RR only applies to units of measurement related stuff, I am completely unrestricted (other than by the general 3RR, etc.) on the rest of Wikipedia. I hope that answers your concerns. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it does, I realised this and just edit-conflicted with you trying to correct myself, apologies, I do see these sets of reversions aren't related to units of measurement. In that case I have no objection to lifting the restriction, with the usual caveat about backsliding into old habits will be viewed dimly. Fish Karate 14:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - A hallmark example of a community banned user successfully returning to the project. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support this seems likely to be non-controversial; from a quick review this is a constructive editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Can we get a close for this, please, it seems uncontroversial (which is probably why it hasn't had many contributors). I'd do it but I've already posted just up there ^^ Thanks. Fish Karate 09:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) - perhaps unneeded given the request for a non-controversial close, but just felt I should add my own $0.02 as a clearly suitable alteration - indeed, the gradual reduction in tailored restrictions is almost a template for how it should be done. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2018 (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.

Topic ban appeal by Sbelknap

• Sbelknap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sbelknap is currently topic-banned "from all articles, pages, and discussions involving finasteride, dutasteride, or sexual health, broadly construed" (per AN discussion). The user approached me a day or so ago requesting to lift the ban. I observed he had been editing and commenting on topics related in my view to sexual health, and asked to confirm he was sure he wanted to appeal to this noticeboard, noting possible adverse outcomes. In response, he explained that in his view my description of a ban on "sexual health" was vague, and so he presumed the scope of the ban based on a perfectly relevant technical criterion (you can see this conversation on my talk page); in a nutshell he interpreted "sexual health" as "sexual dysfunction", and then made every effort to abide by that restriction. I believe this misunderstanding to be genuine and in good faith: Sbelknap is a medical practitioner who has published research in this area, while I spent much of the last decade working for a sexual health education advocacy organization in an administrative capacity; it's natural that our interpretations of the broadness of "sexual health" would not align perfectly. At any rate, no other editors have seen reason to object to Sbelknap's many content contributions in the interim, as far as I can tell, except for one incident which he himself noted (again, see my talk page). As such I believe that Sbelknap has abided by the restriction in good faith (in that he has not deliberately tried to game the restriction, for example), thus I am presenting this appeal to the community without prejudice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support in the spirit of the standard offer and AGF, with the understanding that a return to the previous form will likely result in more extensive sanctions. ——SerialNumber54129 17:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Am posting a notice of this at WT:MED.. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think so. This was just over 6 months ago and his editing was egregious, vanity spamming and pushing a POV that he hoped to elevate from its current fringe position by popularising it through Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. In May, I described Sbelknap as a "bullheaded editor claiming some special level of expertise as justification to push their own point of view". Before lifting the topic ban, I want to see convincing evidence that this editor has abandoned bullheadedness and POV pushing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• oppose per Cullen --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the important part of WP:SO is not merely the six month wait, it's the convincing evidence that they have changed and improved. Absent clear evidence of that, the standard offer is not automatic, and I'm going to have to agree with Cullen on this. If we don't have evidence anything has changed, we have to presume they will continue. --Jayron32 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose What Jayron said, basically. No evidence of intent to do differently, then no change in the status quo. Courcelles (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Also per Cullen328. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• weak oppose - I like to assume good faith, but an appeal after six months is premature without substantial evidence of a change in behaviour. I might support an appeal in the future, e.g., after 12 months, if there are no further incidents of concern.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I have made every effort to comply with the topic ban. The topic ban did not provide much detail, so I interpreted it as covering topics related to the ICD-10 schema for sexual dysfunction. (Shortly after the topic ban, I suggested to Doc James that he add a meta-analysis to the testosterone article, but then learned that even posting a suggestion on a talk page on a banned topic might be considered a violation of the topic ban, so I haven't done that again.) I have made more than 1,000 edits since the topic ban; I believe nearly all of these would be considered constructive by any objective standard. I have also resurrected a redirected stub for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans wikipedia article - expanding this into a decent article, and engaged in productive collaboration with numerous editors on multiple topics. (For example, chlortalidone, Long-term effects of alcohol consumption, metformin, amoxicillin, chloramphenicol, Ford Taurus, moose, and others). The question you all are asked to answer is this: does six months of diligent effort as a wikipedia editor, with many productive contributions, constitute evidence of improvement as an editor? Sbelknap (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Well Sbelknap is getting better, they still regularly forget to sign their talk posts. And still provide undue weight to specific positions. So not ready yet for a very controversial topic area. Would recommend they try again in another six months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Serial Number 54129's reasoning. We actually need subject-matter professionals, working in the topics they know well. I think the opposers are asking to prove a negative. The editor hasn't been in "bullheaded editor claiming some special level of expertise as justification to push their own point of view" trouble since the T-ban (that I know of). Utter temperamental perfection isn't something we demand of people, and what is or isn't due weight in medicine is a hotly argued topic (see WT:MEDRS and its very long archives, and intense topic-by-topic debates about sourcing at topics like e-cigarettes, etc.). So there's not an objective, diffed fault I see here, but a subjective, loosey-goosey feeling, like not quite a full pound of flesh has been extracted yet. Finally, many first-time topic bans are only for 1-3 months; 6 months seems like a reasonable timespan to appeal one, by someone who's not some asshat here to convince the world that [insert religion here] is the one true way, or blithely running toward a site-ban due to aggressively promoting some company or product. PS: forgetting to sign posts, and other such trivia, has nothing to do with the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• weak oppose Sbelknap believes very strongly in evidence-based medicine (EBM) (like a lot of members of WPMED) but (like a lot of members of WPMED) can take that too far into advocacy; overriding descriptions of medical practice and guideline recommendations with his best reading as an expert of the evidence. That tendency, along with their passion about the finasteride class of drugs, is what led to the TBAN. What I have been looking for is self-moderation of the EBM advocacy and self-awareness about it. There have been two incidents since the TBAN was put in place where this arose - on the alcohol stuff that led to the ANI (it wasn't horrible but very present) and recently at metformin (where it was very present; this has been managed without dramaboard). With that underlying issue not self-managed yet, unTBANing would put us in the nearly the same bucket we were in before at finasteride. So not yet. There has been improvement, but not yet. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

undo page move

I had moved Dave Long (American football) to Dave Long (American football, born 1944) in order to make way for Dave Long (American football, born 1998), but I feel I should undo the page move and make the new page at David Long (American football). Can someone undo the page move for me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I think this is not the correct place for this. I think you should move this request to Wikipedia:Move review which would look to be the right place, for the request that you are making. Just make sure you follow all the instructions and rules on that page. I hope all the best with your contesting of that page move. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold this is not a contested move. I moved a page and less than an hour later I realized I had made a mistake. I am just trying to move it back to where it was previously stable for over 10 years. I'll put it up at WP:RM under uncontroversial technical requests.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger:Just for my clarification, you were the one who performed the move, or was it someone else? If it was you then you could undo I think the way you did it before. But if it was someone else who did the move action it self, and you only requested it originally, then there must have been some sort of discussion over it. Any discussion over it then closed means that if you want to undo it, you have to contest against that discussion meaning Wikipedia:Move review. But, if you were the one doing the move action it self then I think you could do it at WP:RM. But, then again you can do the undo without asking if you originally did it without asking in the first place. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I would not put pages for different people at David and Dave. I'd leave it the way it is. Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

IP trying to reset password

• 189.51.98.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) tried to reset my password today. This is associated with the thread above about multiple log in attempts, but I couldn't post there because of edit conflicts. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Here is a good advice when editing a page, section, or a talk page. If the edit is a single paragraph addition like yours above, copy your portion of the edit before hitting the publish button. If an edit conflict occurs, paste your intended edit at the correct place. Attempting to retype your edit on a very active page will almost always lead to another edit conflict. Question, when you were editing did you edit by section, or by the entire page? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This is fairly standard even on dull days, and (as long as your email is secure) you can safely ignore the reset requests. If the IP is already blocked you can usually double-ignore them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(multiple ec) Thanks for the advice Aceing, which I started giving out several years ago following a problem at ANI or here. Zzuzz, it's happened to me maybe once or twice in all the time I've been on Wikipedia, so not fairly standard! DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There are one or two serial crackers who are (I'm guessing) going through alphabetically; seems that Ms and Ds are the target for today. It's not unheard of; just make sure you have a good password (change it to a good one if necessary or if you feel like it) and carry on. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the same person who has been doing the multiple log in attempts referred to above, and vandalising the RefDesks. That is why I wanted to put it there instead of in a separate thread. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Question. I looked at your user page and user page categories and see that you are not a Checkuser. My question, is how did you know it's the same exact person? Did you request a CU check, and that is how you found out? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

IPs are disclosed with password resets, and the IP's contribs kinds make it clear who's on the proxy, in addition to the behavioural coincidence. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

1) No point pinging me, it gets lost in all the other notifications (see thread I referred to above) 2) Please stop editing your replies after posting them, it creates edit conflicts when I try to reply, 3) Strong behavioural evidence, including much that is no longer visible to you. See also the thread I referred to above. DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

What's going on here?

I'm not the only person who sees all of these completely benign edits oversighted, right? Is an admin/oversight account compromised or something?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If there is a lot of time between when problematic material is added, and when it removed, then every version between those times has to be oversighted. The non-oversighted material is all still here on the page, you just can't see the incremental additions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've always found it weird that we do this. Redacting diffs which are still represented in the text must surely breach the requirement for attribution, which is a key part of the licensing terms. As tough as it is, I'd have thought a full revert to the last good version is a necessity in this situation. Not that I'm an expert or anything, so perhaps I'm wrong.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Content was reverted and oversighted after it had been sitting on the noticeboard for a good while. Reverting to the last good version would have rolled back 88 other edits. That's rather a lot of collateral damage. I guess Worm That Turned Could have rolled them back and then re-added them, but that's a bit bureaucratic, surely. Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Not really, no, because copyright law (and law in general) isn't that black and white. Generally speaking, CC licences say attribution "may be done in a manner reasonable to the means, medium, and context" which leaves a lot of room for interpretation, especially if keeping intermediate revisions may violate some other law. --Deskana (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From a copyright/attribution standpoint, the legal requirements are met by the existence of the names in the edit history which are still viewable by anyone (and the actual diffs are also viewable by individual oversighters who can specifically attribute content if called upon to do so). To use a real life example, if you go to any of the PediaPress books that reuse our content or make a book of an article yourself, what you will see is a simple list of every person who has edited the page. It will not list who added what. Doing this is sufficient for the terms of the license. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI I started a discussion about a possible fix at Wikipedia talk:Oversight#Problems with the oversight tool. 28bytes (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine Arbcom restrictions and the Balfour Declaration

According to the huge edit notice that comes up on Balfour Declaration editors of the page "must be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days tenure". So how come an IP just edited it? Is the restriction not enforced technically in any way? DuncanHill (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration only had extended confirmed protection for the day it was the featured article (November 2, 2017). That edit notice is the standard WP:ARBPIA notice. No comment on why it doesn't have extended confirmed protection now. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 12:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It has ECP now, indefinitely. Courcelles (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles: thanks for the protection, but please have in mind that according to the Arbcom decision all ARBPIA extended-confirmed protections must be logged here. I personally find this a pretty bad decision, which creates extra works for admins with no benefits, but, well, it exists and is compulsory for everybody.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging @Doug Weller:, also thanks for the recent extended confirmed protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblockself right removed on wikimedia wikis

Per T150826, admins and crats can no longer unblock themselves, unless they placed the block initially. SQL^{Query me!} 02:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• It should be noted for the record that this change was unilaterally and globally implemented by a few WMF devs who were aware of an ongoing discussion at WP:VPP, and arbitrarily decided to ignore it. Thanks WMF!  Swarm  talk  03:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Discussion link SQL^{Query me!} 03:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: It certainly makes a change from the self-same WMF devs generally ignoring and then taking months to implement community decisions :D ACPERM, anyone...? ——SerialNumber54129 08:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Minor correction. Years, not months. --Jayron32 17:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Counterexample:

Community making a decision: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Closing comments for above RfC: "From the below discussion, there seems to be a consensus for Question 5 (As far as possible/practical, should referrer information contain no information? (silent referrer))." and "The majority seem to favour prioritising user privacy over assisting external sites."

WMF Ignoring the consensus of the community: Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy#Response to RFC.

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• On the whole, I'm mostly unconcerned about this. I voted the other way in the discussion, but I can also see where recent compromises to site security may have pushed the devs hand to move faster than the community would have otherwise. The self-block exemption removes most of my objections anyways (my only block was an accidental self-block that I reversed a few seconds later. It's not that hard to do when you have multiple tabs open and click the block button with the wrong tab open...), and it allows us to more quickly respond when another compromised admin account goes rogue. I'd rather it didn't have to come to this, but wishing we didn't live in a world where this was probably necessary doesn't bring that world into existence. --Jayron32 17:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Hopefully there is also a block rate limitation, so that out-of-control blockers can be limited in their damage. Perhaps one block per minute is acceptable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Checkusers often block many accounts (easily 20 ) in a single click from the CU interface.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In that case we may need a limit of say 100 per hour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Or 10 admins per hour... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That would do! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been proposed in the phabricator ticket, i.e. introducing a rate limit on blocking only when blocking users who may block. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Theoretically, couldn't someone compromise an admin account and then block all the other admins, and essentially destroy the site? I mean, the odds are pretty low, but...💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 12:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Such a situation can be fixed by some kind of "Super user" that I am sure exists. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It is technically possible to wipe out Wikipedia via a compromised account - until the Stewards nail them. A few years back this happened on a site I helped run - a retired admin who we forgot to desysop properly took exception to a post, deleted two admin accounts, wiped the discussion boards and Twitter feed, and blocked anyone from posting. Fortunately, I had root access to the server and backups :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is basically exactly, to-the-letter the thought I posted here, so either the dev(s) who implemented this had the exact same thought or happened to read what I said. If it's the latter I apologize for sowing the seed, I obviously intended the proposal to be discussed first, even though the net result isn't necessarily something I disagree with. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Orangemike

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: BU Rob13, Premeditated Chaos, Opabinia regalis, Mkdw

For the Arbitration Committee;

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Orangemike For the arbitration committee; --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Holy shit! Mike is Good People, I hope he's OK. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Refdesks and deny

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science is currently semi-protected. A clever template ({{pp}}) puts a look-at-me box at the top announcing that sock puppets have forced protection of the page until November 30, 2018 at 9:00 pm UTC. Doesn't that encourage the troll? Rather than WP:DENY, the banner announces the troll's success and gives them a handy time to mark on their calendar for when they should return. There must be a less exciting way to describe the situation. Why not remove the box and rely on the boring fact that non-autoconfirmed users will not see an edit link? People will be inconvenienced and some will be puzzled but with that reward there is no reason to expect the current situation to ever change. Regarding the protection, why not set it to infinite and have a convention among admins who patrol the area that someone will remove the protection at a suitable time—without making a public fuss? Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree. Usually when I do small=yes the banner disappears, but it doesn't disappear in refdesk's case. Strange. Someone else can figure this out, but a larger banner to encourage ref desk troll to troll more is certainly unnecessary and counterproductive. Alex Shih (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

|small=yes was overridden from the master header of all refdesk subpages. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. Now can we have a consensus to un-override small=yes from all refdesk pages, and indefinitely semi refdesk pages for a while? It looks like the refdesk troll will be with us for another while so let's think long term. Alex Shih (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with indef semi and agree the big banner congratulating the troll on getting what he wants is a bad idea. DuncanHill (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the idea (in the past anyway) was that since the refdesks are places where new, often unregistered editors end up, it would be helpful for them to clearly see why they cannot edit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The it could just say vandalism, no need to mention sockpuppetry (which may well mean nothing to new users anyway). DuncanHill (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course, long-term (or indefinite) semi-protection of the Ref Desks means admitting that the Ref Desks have entirely given up on being anything except a hangout for the 'regulars'. I guess we're okay with that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Or a few more admins could keep an eye on them and on RPP. Of course that's just pie in the sky thinking. But as long as it takes half an hour or morwe to get an admin response when the IP vandal is posting multiple times a minute (and reappearing immediately protection expires), and sinebot is preventing rollback, then long term semi is the least worst option. DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it's trivial to disable sinebot if consensus is established on the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Reducing the banner at refdesks is a bad idea for the reason already mentioned - the newbies who are the target audience of refdesks do not know about reduced banners. I would recommend using {{pp-semi}} rather than {{pp-vand}} or {{pp-sock}}.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

OK that sounds reasonable. DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that we need the banner. Precisely which banner probably doesn't matter so much, although we have had people confused in the past about why the page was protected. I settled on pp-sock as the most informative banner which when no info was given on who the editor was probably didn't give them much recognition but am fine with a different banner. I suspect that the greatest recognition for the editor is the protection anyway, and these discussions like those on ANI or WT:RD second. Unfortunately their editing is bad enough I don't know what the alternative is. When we have these discussions, we could try not to get so angry at each other as happened here and at ANI as I suspect that is also giving this LTA far more than the banner ever is, but that's probably a forlorn hope.

BTW, as for the time thing, while it's fine to consider different ways of protecting the desks and unprotecting them, in relation to the time shown on the banner, let's remember this editor is using lots of different proxies (I think taken from a random anonymous proxy list) using ROT13 and a large variety of other means to get around edit filters and to post several times a minute, sometimes for up to 30 minutes at a stretch. They've been bothering the RD in one way of the other since 2010 or earlier. The chance they haven't figured out how to read a protection log without relying on banners is close to zero. Their scripts may even do it automatically. In other words, deny recognition sure. Giving the info the editor doesn't already know, almost no chance of that. The time will benefit true newbies but it won't benefit this editor other than in such much whatever recognition/sick pleasure it may give them. (And yes unfortunately these comments probably help that, but as I said earlier I'm not sure what the alternative is.)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume someone has discussed this in the past, but why wouldn't pending changes work? Sure, it is a fairly high-traffic page, but many of the people who do visit it are autoconfirmed, and in addition it has several thousand watchers, including many admins and reviewers, so I doubt it would be much of a problem. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Israeli settlements

The page List of Israeli settlements was recently created. Can an admin do the WP:ARBPIA paperwork? ECP is probably necessary, as well as endorsing the talk-page Discretionary Sanctions notice. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I extended-confirmed protected and logged the protection at the Arbitration enforcement page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. (it only occurred to me now that RFPP would have worked for this; oops) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: RFPP might have been better, but then I wouldn't have seen this and put up the editnotice ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 04:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

More compromising

I'm pretty sure User talk:[email protected] is a compromised account. And User:Nabo0o, blocked by Alexf. Question is whether we should fully protect or not; certainly I hope some admins will keep an eye out and block immediately. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• I see that zzuuzz is on the case. Good, then I can go to work. If anyone from the WMF is reading this, please give zzuuzz a raise, or put them on payroll if they're not already. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Locked out of precaution. — regards, Revi 16:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

User:-revi, I saw the note you placed on that Chasenstark talk page--thanks. This is the first time I've run into an obviously compromised account, so I appreciate the guidance. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I did just block another, so everyone please keep an eye out. I'm doing some cooking at the moment (mmmm), so my reactions are going to be a bit slow for a short while. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you, now. I'll gladly have your dinner for my lunch. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Page merge cleanup

Could someone please cleanup the attempted merging by Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:A5D8:C533:FB3C:B98F of Disney's Animated Storybook: The Lion King into Disney's Animated Storybook. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Elisa Rolle's articles

Hi all,

I have had an off-wiki request from Elisa.rolle (talk · contribs), who was blocked indefinitely in August and does not want to return, saying she would like to delete all of the articles she has created. The motivation for this is several of her articles, such as Thomas Francis McCaffry have been nominated for AfD by Dlthewave, including claims of copyright violations by Justlettersandnumbers, and (without trying to prejudice the result) seem destined to be closed as "delete". She appears to have lost confidence in any of her work, and would rather put it on her own website where Wikipedia policies don't affect her. I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing, just reporting what I think's going on.

As a basic rule of thumb, Elisa's creations can be found at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Elisa.rolle. I'm hesitant to go through the lot and delete them per G7 / G12 (if the latter applies) as I believe this would be controversial. So I'd like to ask the community what options we've got. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid we need to open a CCI, which will probably take forever since this is I guess the most backlogged area of Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A CCI has been open since March; I linked to it above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I see, indeed. Well, then we have to go through it and G7 delete what it could be deleted, and remove copyvio where it could be removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• The usual rules for G7 should apply, "If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author." Andrew D. (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We could delete her articles, per WP:G7, If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author; but, with the amount of time that's passed, the latter seems unlikely. In fact, I might question whether even the former applies. ——SerialNumber54129 11:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The specific request I got read as follows : "I do not want to save the articles, as you may have notice, I have copied all the articles about LGBT people on my own website, that yes, has already started to appear before Wikipedia in specific "queer" searches. Actually I would prefer for my article on Wikipedia to be ALL deleted, but I cannot do that." I would prefer to get a consensus that it's a legitimate good faith G7 request, and not simply a reaction against being indefinitely blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this; unfortunately, the request clearly fails the made in good faith requirement then. ——SerialNumber54129 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's either good faith to stop us spending time at AfD or CCI, or it's bad faith because she wants to delete her work in order to compete with Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I've had some dealings with this editor, and my guess is that it's the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that you're absolutely correct, BMK. ——SerialNumber54129 12:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that sour grapes can really be regarded as a good-faith motive, but I suggest that this request should be accepted as if it were. The CCI backlog is almost 95000 articles and growing steadily, and this is an opportunity to reduce it slightly. Given the extent of the problems with this editor's work (see the CCI or, e.g., Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb, entirely copy-pasted from the two non-free cited sources), all content written by her will anyway have to be removed; in articles with no substantive contributions from other editors, deletion is the most effective way of doing that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose bulk deletion based on the request, on the face of it, absent any other reason for deletion. The editor released their contributions under CC BY-SA when she published them, and if she has now copied them to her own website then they are required for attribution. If they turn out to be copyright violations then nuke them, but it seems that requires investigation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support bulk deletion in spite of the bad-faith request. Commons has something called the precautionary principle, and something similar should start applying to mass copy-vio creators like this. Get rid of all of it, save a lot of hassle investigating, and what was truly notable and able to be sourced will eventually be re-created without the risk of a copyright-violating creator. Courcelles (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Courcelles, we do already have a principle similar to the Commons one which can be applied in CCI investigations: presumptive removal. However, a concise and clear-cut general policy similar to the Commons one would save untold hours in copyright investigation and clean-up, and I've long wished we had such a thing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that on Commons, it is easier to apply, since each photograph has only one uploader (if we do not count occasional derivatives). Therefore if copyvio is presumed, it gets deleted. Here, we have many authors, and it is uncommon to have a foundational copyvio or other serious problems in the article and still after many edits have a reasonable unproblematic page.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this is one of those rare examples where WP:IAR applies. Regardless of if it's in bad faith, or process, this is a time where just dumping those articles is better for the project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

We do have a policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors - "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed that all of their major contributions are likely to be copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately". Maybe it could do with some clarification as to how and when it could be used? I usually use this for copyvio sockpuppeteers. Support presumptive removal. MER-C 03:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, nuke from orbit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'll help with the CCI. 2000 substantive contributions will realistically take months of work, but I can make a bit of a dent in it at least. /wiae /tlk 00:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of ticket system by site-banned user to get warning about abuse of email removed?

[87]

Courtesy pinging TheDragonFire (talk · contribs) although I must stress that this is not about them, as I suspect that there's a conflict of policy on this point, and at the very worst TDF made a good-faith mistake in carelessly not reading the messages they were blanking.

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) last week sent me an email that would have been somewhat offensive if it didn't consist of laughably silly request that I not accuse him of being a Malaysian IP that harassed me a little before that (I had actually only mentioned him to say it clearly wasn't him or anyone who had interacted with me before 2018, as it they seemed completely unaware of my conflict with Catflap), and a year or so ago he sent me a much longer, more abusive email, which fact I was unwilling to disclose at that time. After the more recent incident, I requested he not send me any more emails or I would request his email access be revoked, and a week later the page was blanked. Curiously, he does not have talk page access disabled, so he is perfectly free to blank his page himself if he thinks policy allows him to do so, so using the ticket system is ... well, weird. It looks like he knows he's misbehaving and so wants to trick other people into covering his tracks for him.

He's been evading his ban by editing while logged out, and his continued use of email clearly implies he does not intend to respect his SBAN, so I'm wondering what could be done about it at this point? Just remove talk and email access and leave a notice on the page asking other editors to be careful if they receive requests to "courtesy blank" the page?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Users are entirely free to remove messages they receive on their talk pages, and it is very standard practice for OTRS to handle courtesy blanks of user talk pages to help users move on a little. If however, this user is continuing to cause disruption then by all means remove email access and SPI into oblivion. TheDragonFire (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

it is very standard practice for OTRS to handle courtesy blanks Okay, so that's the "conflict of policy" thing I mentioned above. Our policy on blocked editors is not that they are entirely free to remove messages they receive on their talk pages when those messages are appeal denials, and while that doesn't necessarily apply to non-admin, involved warnings about abuse of the email system, we must also bear in mind that Catflap is not just blocked, he is subject a site ban (those exact words were used) and so is no longer considered to be a member of the English Wikipedia community, so standard practice when it comes to editors editing their own user pages also doesn't necessarily still apply. And yeah, Catflap has most definitely been abusing his continued permission to use email, was probably abusing the ticket system given that he still has talk page access enabled, and has been actively evading his ban apparently whenever he feels the urge to do so, so ... yeah, I think email access, and probably also talk if he's gonna continue using the ticket system, also needs to be withdrawn in this case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The guideline only relates to what the editors themselves may do, not what we may do. In any case it's irrelevant here because Catflap08 did not have anything on their page which couldn't be removed (unless it was removed before). There's definitely nothing in the guidelines which apply to warnings about misuse of the email system whether from admins or anyone else. Those can be removed at any time, just as with any other warnings.

Also I think it's clear from many previous discussions that our blanking policy still applies no matter whether editors are cbanned or whatever else. No matter how atrocious an editor's behaviour is, we do not punish them by leaving around unnecessary content. We only keep stuff we've determined we should keep for reasons of administrative efficiency, tracking misbehaviour etc.

I don't see any evidence of abuse of the ticket system. The fact that talk page access remains doesn't mean they are forbidden from using the ticket system to ask for stuff to be removed from their talk page especially if they are unclear on what they may do. Anyone who has dealt with this before knows there's a lot of confusion about what editors may remove from their talk page and when, and your own comment seems to support this. In fact this case seems even more confusing since IIRC they are still ibanned from interacting with you and while it seems a moot point while they are cbanned, they could have had apprehension about removing content you posted.

I do agree from your description they have misused email and there's already justification for removal and it definitely should be remove if it continues. While I'm not completely opposed to removal of talk page access especially since they have been socking plus misusing email so are unlikely to be able to file an appeal anytime soon, but there also doesn't seem to be any real reason to do so since it doesn't seem like they've misused access. I mean they didn't even blank like they were allowed to but instead asked for it via a ticket.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: It's peripheral, but no, Catflap08 is not technically banned from interacting with me, except insofar as interacting with me on-wiki or by means of inappropriate use of the email function could be considered a violation of his site ban. And he knows this, because his last logged-in edit was to remove a message from me, specifically informing him of the discussion on this noticeboard to remove our IBAN. So good-faith apprehension about removing a message from me would not explain the use of OTRS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I would personally suggest that moving (calmly I might add) off-wiki after being sanctioned shows more restraint than most banned users have. Either way, if someone really wants to unblank their talk page then go right ahead, but I think it's needless grave dancing. King of Hearts or Oshwah, if you consider it prudent please flip Catflap08's TPA and email bits, and we can all have ourselves a beverage of our choice. Cheers. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I suggested talk access be removed not because I think Catflap08 has been abusing his talk page privileges (how could he, when he hasn't used them in 20 months?) but because he is already acting like it has been removed. I can take that or leave it. The email thing, though ... well, I received a forwarded email from User:Sturmgewehr88 back in April 2015 that was essentially a coy, passive-aggressive forerunner to what became Catflap's recurring "Hijiri 88 and Sturmgewehr 88 are both neo-Nazis" schtick (out of context, which is how it was originally received, we both agreed it looked like weird but benign tomfoolery, but given how he later harped on about our Nazi-like usernames in public it was clearly meant as a threat), the harassing message he sent me in July 2017, and the above-mentioned email from last week, combined with the fact that he was almost definitely using email to violate our IBAN by proxy back when it was still in place ... I can't honestly think of any reason why his email access would still be enabled. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to restore remove the user's talk page access if others believe it to be necessary - just let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: There seems to be a misunderstanding. Cetflap08 already has talk page access enabled, but used the OTRS system for some reason that is difficult to take in good faith due to his block evasion and abuse of the email service. I'm fine with him maintaining talk access as long as he's not abusing it -- and I recognize that acting like he already doesn't have it is not in itself an abuse -- but he probably should have email disabled. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I used the wrong word in my response - fixed. I'll be more clear in my response here: If he's not abusing talk page access directly, then we should leave it alone. OTRS has the ability to handle issues of abuse if it's deemed to be necessary (like removing email access) - I'll leave that for them to do. If the community has any concerns or reasons why talk page access should be revoked, let me know. I apologize for my ambiguity earlier. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• @TheDragonFire: I've reverted your non-admin closure per WP:BADNAC, as you appeared to have missed the part where I asked for Catflap's email access to be removed because he's been using it to harass me. Whether I can prove that I "need" this because my mental and physical wellbeing has been damaged by my my interactions with him or I just "want" it because it would save me a bit of trouble every now and then is actually irrelevant because either one is a pretty small ask when the user is site-banned and shouldn't be using the email function for anything other than appealing his ban to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Files for discussion backlog

Greetings, can someone take a look at the backlog in Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions? There are some old discussions which I am involved in so can't close. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Where to report IPs attempting to reset passwords?

Where is the best place to report IPs attempting to reset passwords, so that they can be blocked? If they have no edit history then AIV seems inappropriate. One can message individual admins, but that is dependent on the chosen ones being available at the time. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think only a global block will prevent an IP (even if locally blocked) from trying to reset an account's password. Can someone confirm or correct that assumption? 28bytes (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocking an IP will not stop them from attempting to reset passwords, as far as I know. Maybe a steward could help you out? Stewards can be contacted through meta: meta:Stewards' noticeboard is for general questions of the Stewards, and meta:Steward requests for specific requests. --Jayron32 19:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If I recall a discussion I had with Ajraddatz properly, only a global block of an IP prevents resets (if they are coming from multiple projects). I should point out that the only "harm" done by password resets is irritation. In "my" case the IPs were also known to belong to a globally locked LTA. Finally, the ability to make global blocks is limited by collateral damage and IP hopping. It's often not the best use of a steward's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, one can only mark 25 notifications as read in a time, so that if someone has notifications enabled and gets 1000 notifications about the reset attempts, it takes quite some time to get rid of them (and useful notifications can get lost)--Ymblanter (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

True. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• I asked where I could report them to get them blocked. I didn't ask "how do I get them prevented from making password reset requests". I believe that IPs which deliberately try to disrupt Wikipedia should be blocked. I do not think that is a controversial or minority position. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The answer is 'blocking will not stop them resetting passwords so its a waste of time'. Even if someone was to block the IP locally, it would not be a perm block (as IPs are not blocked indef) and wouldnt stop the behaviour anyway. Blocks are to prevent disruption, blocking would not prevent this disruption. The advice 'ask a steward' is the most apt as they may be able to prevent it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It would stop them engaging in other disruption. It may come as a surprise to some of you, but vandals and trolls do engage in a variety of disruptive behaviours, and in my experience today may try to reset passwords and also vandalise multiple articles. The sooner the block, the less the damage. DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

So you want the IP's blocked temporarily to prevent them from engaging in further hypothetical disruption? Which they wont even notice because blocking doesnt prevent them trying to reset passwords. It also wouldnt have much effect if they actually manage to compromise an account. Much like the stewards, Admins generally have more important things to do than play whack-a-mole where there is no actual disruption to the encyclopedia. See previous answers re 'contact the stewards'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There is disruption (not least that mentioned above by Ymblanter), there is evidence that IPs which try to reset passwords also engage in other forms of vandalism (see my post earlier today). DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

See previous answer 'Contact the stewards'. I am not sure how many other ways I can say this. Stewards you contact yes? You, stewards, contact. Contactez les stewards.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if a global block would prevent the password reset requests. If you provide an IP that is actively being used to notify you, I'll check for collateral and give it a try. I also thought you could disable password reset notifications, but the only option I see in my preferences is to disable failed login attempt notifications. Have you checked if that works on password reset notifications as well? If not, maybe that option could be added in. There's a community wishlist proposal that would require both the username and correct email to be entered in order for a reset notification to be sent; hopefully that will be implemented at some point in the future if technically feasible. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the notification issue. I have wikipedia notifications for failed login attempts and everything else for which it's possible enabled but I received no on wikipedia notification when I tried to reset my password just now. I tried using a VPN which I'm pretty sure is not associated with my account a browser in private mode, still no on wikipedia notification. Reading the previous discussions it's not clear to me anyone is actually receiving on wikipedia notification for password resets. (Failed login attempts sure although the on wikipedia ones should be combined into one notification AFAIK albeit if you are active at the time you're likely to see them lots of times, and whatever the case you will received several emails if you have that active although again they should be easy to filter and better email systems will probably combine them into one thread.) I do receive password reset attempts by email but it's only possible to send one in a 24 hour period and also they should be easy to filter with most email systems, just don't forget you made the filter if you ever really have to set your password. Also blocking on en.wikipedia is useless isn't really true. For both issues, there are some additional complications, but I can't outline them per WP:BEANS. Email me or ask me to email you if you want to know details. Nil Einne (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no on- or off-wiki notification for successful resets in my experience, only for reset requests. This is a serious weakness. DuncanHill (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There are plans to deal with this in phab:T145952, by requiring more than only one identifier (the status quo) in the request field. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You should've supported this. As I see, this is within top 10, so unless CommunityTech thinks this is flawed idea, they'll make it done by next year (hopefully). — regards, Revi 06:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Revi: Well, I did supported it, unless you're replying to all of us. Nonetheless, it's all OK since it's in the top 10. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be a separate issue namely daily password reset emails are annoying. While IMO the solutions should be looked at, as I mentioned a simple interim solution for most editors would be to simply automatically filter the emails, just don't forget you set up the filter. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's the same issue (password reset by trolls) which caused the proposal. The daily is the volume of the trolls hitting people's password reset. — regards, Revi 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I should clarify that I meant the password reset email. You appear to be right there's no notification of a password reset/use of temporary password. I agree such notifications should be sent, also IMO for password changes.

That said, I don't it's actually that serious a weakness especially when off-wiki notifications can only be sent to the same email the password reset details are sent. (If notifications could be sent to a different email address or by SMS things might be a little different although I'm not sure how many will bother with such things.) Remember that the only real likely scenario someone could have successfully reset a password would be if they obtained access to your email account. But if someone has access to your email, then there's often no guarantee you will see any notification. It could easily be deleted or filtered by whoever obtained access to your email. I mean there is a chance you will notice this especially with push notification. And perhaps a fairly clueless attacker or someone simply fooling around e.g. if you left your email logged in somewhere, won't do this.

But for a slightly sophisticated attacker, I wouldn't count on email notifications to the same email they likely have access to as they were able to reset your password. I guess there are some scenarios where they may be able to reset your password without full access to your email account including flaws in the WMF's security, as well as MITM attacks on the email (whether DNS poisoning or getting between the WMF mail agent and the recipient mail agent) but the chance of these isn't likely to be very high.

As for on-wiki notifications, well again they will dismiss them so unless you often check out historic notifications or happen to have very good timing, you're not likely to know. More significantly I think there is already an indirect notification. From my quick testing, using the temporary password to reset the password will terminate any login sessions (as often happens for various reasons). Therefore you already get a defacto notification, when you found yourself logged out and are unable to login because your password is wrong. Assuming your notification isn't finding that your account is globally locked as compromised.

As said I do think notifications should be an option for both use of a temporary password and password changes. I simply don't think the absence is quite so serious. I had thought the 'login from unknown device' thing should also sort of tell you when someone has managed to successfully reset your password as you will receive a login notification. But I couldn't actually generate any of these notifications even when using different browsers and various VPN IPs. Maybe the VPN IPs were to similar or something, I'm not sure.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

DuncanHill there is a huge flood of these attacks going on (see above threads). At this point, reporting individual ones is probably not helpful. I'd like to hope that WMF security knows about it and is working on it. I can tell you that the dotcom sector suffers from the same issues (paradoxes around password recovery, etc.) and there aren't any really good solutions. I expect the devs are familiar with current trends but in the end we all just muddle through. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Bullying

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.

---

Does someone remember who that socker was who tried to create all kinds of meaningless bullying-related articles? User talk:Bigtime1234567890 is yet another one. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Never mind--it was User:Brandon5015. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2018 (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.

A close 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.

---

Can someone close Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Appeal_my_1RR_restriction up at the top of this page please - it should be straightforward enough, I would do it but I've participated in the discussion. Cheers. Fish Karate 09:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Vanamonde (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2018 (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.

Close requested

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.

---

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive "dumping" in threads, and activism against notability guidelines by James500?

From James500 here:

I have experienced a deterioration in my health during and because of this ANI case. I must therefore protest at the use of DNUA to keep this thread open till at least the 3rd of January without regard for the effect this will have on me (and presumably the next step will be to extend that deadline ad infinitum). I can see no reason to assume this thread will be closed in a reasonable time or at all (the admins have already had more than a reasonable time), and it cannot remain open forever.

The thread has been open since 11 November 2018 and an WP:ANRFC close request was made 17 November 2018.

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support- this has gone on long enough and is not accomplishing anything useful. Reyk _YO! 08:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I think everyone wants the thread to be formally closed. It's not that anyone wants the thread to remain open but rather it's felt if it's allowed to be auto archived it won't ever receive a formal close. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have been asked to close the thread off-wiki, but must decline as I have argued with James before on something so would consider myself WP:INVOLVED. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'll do it. Give me an hour to read through it all. Fish Karate 10:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  Didn't take an hour. It's long but there isn't much of a difference in opinion really.  Done Fish Karate 10:58, 4 December 2018 (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.

The Daily Mail and RGW

It appears that some people have decided that consensus of the Daily Mail decision was wrong and needs to be overturned. Interested parties may want to weigh in at the newly minted RFC. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Lest we forget:

• That Viral Story About a Japanese Man Crushed to Death by His Porn Collection is Totally Fake
• My Year Ripping Off the Web With the Daily Mail Online

My conclusion: Any use of The Daily Mail as a source has a high probability of linking to a copyright violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That's nice... PackMecEng (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you've got nothing. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Who me? I was commenting on how irrelevant those sources are to the discussion going on over there. Unless you were referring to Guy Macon. Then I agree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Riiiight. The following well-documented facts have nothing at all to do with the question of whether The Daily Mail is a reliable source:

* The Daily Mail regularly fabricates direct quotes, including entire interviews that never happened.

* The Daily Mail regularly photoshops news photographs

* The Daily Mail regularly steals work from lesser-known publications, changing a few things to make the story more salacious, then publishing the resulting copyright violation under its own byline.

Yup. Exactly what Wikipedia is looking for in a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

More the sources listed all predate the change in the editorial board that is being discussed as a reason for lifting the ban. That is like saying I banged my knee this morning but I found a source from years ago saying it is fine so it must still be fine. I personally have not weighed in on the RFC over there but it looks like the sources you list here do not mean much to the current debate.PackMecEng (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2018 (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.

Rollback 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.

---

Could I bother someone to please roll back the few dozen contributions of Kerneguez Goulwen? (all except the first one, a new draft) They are all unsourced personal sightings of bird species that have no place in the respective articles. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I have reverted all of the edits as unsourced, and left the editor a note to that effect. However I'm not sure why you couldn't have undone them yourself & warned the editor per WP:WARN as is standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, the OP didn’t have rollback. They do now. Courcelles (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I didn't want to hop through 40 cycles of prev -> undo -> summary, and Twinkle is spouting error messages at me when I try to rollback. Your industrial approach was appreciated :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Courcelles! That'll cut down on future requests; much appreciated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:08, 6 December 2018 (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.

Password attack

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.

---

Just an FYI at this stage, just received a "There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device" message from Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

DuncanHill, if you haven't changed your password recently/if you've ever used your password on a different website, I would recommend changing it to a strong password. If you do that, you shouldn't have to worry much about a compromise at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(Undone close. –Davey2010^Talk 18:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC))

I'm not entirely happy with the close. This may be related to the long term abuse at the RefDesks, given the timing and my recent edit history. DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean, maybe? Also might be related to the large number of compromised accounts we've seen recently. But it doesn't really matter if it is or isn't; there's not really anything we can do about it, so there's not much to do in this section but close it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

DuncanHill, if you would like to enable 2FA as a non-admin, you can request a steward enable it at meta:Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_other_global_permissions. The name of the permission is OATH tester. Regarding the ref desk troll, I'm not aware of them trying to compromise any accounts. As for the other account compromises, my advice above is true for everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(so many EC) I'm up to 54 attempts. There has been a recent spree targeting accounts including of admins which has affected the main page and elsewhere. I initially thought the login attempts were related to that but since you're also affected I suspect you may be right and this is related so said LTA. (Although it could still be something else e.g. large number of editors and coincidence or targeting recently active editors.) But at the same time there's not really much that can be done other than making sure you have a secure password. It may be useful to post on WTRD though and I'll do that. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

My latest notification shows 1692 failed attempts in the last few minutes. And I'm up to about 30 notifications today. So yes if anyone's concerned request or enable 2FA. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

...and for the love of all the gods, take care of your scratch codes Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've undone the close as seems stupid to leave it be, That being said I don't really see what AN can do about it ..... the refdesks could all be related but on the otherhand it may not be, ANyway reopened. –Davey2010^Talk 18:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks all, I was aware of the attacks on admins. I've had the occasional attempt over the years but never a spate like this. The timing, with the propose indef semi on the desks above, seemed suggestive to me. I do have a "number 1 fan" but his MO is to vandalise articles I've edited and post childish abuse, so I don't think it's him. Leaving the thread open gives us a chance of seeing if others are affected, and then perhaps to find a connexion. DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure of the details but I think the non admin accounts have been used to vandalise Donald Trump's page and other high visibility pages which are currently extended confirmed protected. Because of the way Siri and some other external software display wikipedia content, it can affect things even when people aren't directly personally visiting wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I just got that notice is as well. It's happened to me twice today, and has never happened before. I changed my password after the first attempt. It's pretty damn strong right now, and I'm also on 2FA. The first attack started about 2 hours ago, and lasted only 4-5 minutes. The second attack started 42 minutes ago, and is ongoing. As I am typing this, notices are refreshing every few seconds about the attack. Just FYI. --Jayron32 18:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Just had the RefDesk troll on my Talkpage. DuncanHill (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

He hit Nil immediately after you. I'm just waiting for my turn. --Jayron32 18:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

We had a similar attack earlier this year, on one day then I got several hundred attempts which completely flooded my notification list.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Is there some way of throttling log in attempts? DuncanHill (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Grafana graphs for those interested. Set to last year for context. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I complained about the RefDesk troll and am now getting password attacks as well. So I guess yes it is that person . Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've had a bunch of attempts just now as well and I'd have to dig to find the last time I took an admin action at the refdesk or the Donald Trump article. Doesn't mean it isn't related to those but could mean something else is up. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If it is the same it might be interesting to see what overlap you have with their interest. For instance I see you removed a bunch of changes by an ip recently to Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) but the ip is not on an open proxy list so that doesn't count. I'll have a quick look to see if I spot anything real. Dmcq (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

So from what everyone is saying, this appears unrelated to the recent compromises in my opinion since it is a different MO. It might be the ref desk troll, but I'm not sure on that point. The behavior here seems to indicate it, but we also had a mass brute force attack this summer that people thought for a second was related to an ongoing arb case, but was actually just a general brute force attempt on Wikipedia accounts. It can be scary, but having a strong password is the most important thing you can do here. If people want 2FA, they can request it on meta at the link I provided above. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If it is the RefDesk troll they will very possibly continue doing this for weeks and they will mount attacks from different ips using open proxies. The open proxies I've seen them using are all on public lists so could be closed automatically. I put a note at User_talk:Slakr#Proxy_list_probably_being_used_by_a_troll about this. Dmcq (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2018 (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.

Multiple attempts to log on to my account

There have been over 400 attempts to log on to my Wikipedia account, and the number is growing as I speak.

They aren't going to succeed -- my passphrase consists of 256 random characters generated from a hardware random number generator -- but I thought that somebody might want to track the IP address being used and see if they have an account. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup, see the section right above this one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Just use "swordfish" as your password.[88] They will never guess that one. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It took a lot of patience but I managed to type the entire script for that scene and gain access to Guy's account. Whether or not to include the knocks and count them individually or just as "[knocking]" threw me off. I'll set your password to the script of the 2001 movie "Swordfish". It's far more secure since no one will want to sit through it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I like that film. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Does 2412 attempts sound like a lot? And what happens if I'm logged in - will attempts always fail? Has anyone ever reported a successful break in? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123 recently there have been a few admins (mostly inactive) whose accounts were hacked and I have a memory that the same occurred many years ago. There have been other editor accounts compromised over the years though I couldn't give you any names due to dusty memory banks. I've had over 400 attempts today as well so they must be using some kind of computer program to generate these passwords. Several of the names above have dealt with the ref desk troll over the years so that it is likely the same person - or a copycat at any rate. MarnetteD|Talk 19:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Nuts - messed up the ping so here it is again Martinevans123. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How exactly does one see how many failed log in attempts there are? I've gotten several pings/emails but assume those represent multiple attempts. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Curiously the Alert messages seem to change. Now all my alert messages just say "There have been multiple failed attempts to log into your account with a new device." But while it was actually happening (and I had up to six alerts in the unread stack), the top alert told me a total number. I have now just checked my emails and I have 48 - all with the same generic message, with no number. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC) p.s. thanks very much for the info User:MarnetteD.

You are welcomne M. I had the same experience with the alert ping. It first stated 408 attempts and then changed to the same multiple attempts message that I received as multiple emails. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

[ec] Attempts will always fail unless they guess your password. If your password is listed on on our List of the most common passwords page, you have a problem. :) If you are following my advice at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Macon's Principle you have no problem at all.

Realistically, they are most likely running a "most common passwords" list against a bunch of accounts, looking for the idiot who thought that "secret1" was a good idea.

Here is one list of the 1000 most popular passwords: https://www.passwordrandom.com/most-popular-passwords

-Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy that is all very useful. But I meant, if they did "guess" and they broke in, would I expect to be told? Are multiple sessions from different machines even possible? I'd guess the first thing they would do would be to change the password on this account. Would I not know they had done this until the next time I tried to log in? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I use multiple sessions all the time; I prefer editing text on the computer, and uploading photos from my phone. I'm logged into both simultaneously, and switching between them without logging out or back in. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What's that laddie? You have a telephone that takes pictures??! What will they think of next! "dilly ding, dilly dong" 123 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Multiple sessions from different machines are possible. If they got into your account you'd find out from the compromised block notice. I strongly recommend establishing a committed ID using Template:Committed identity, in addition to whatever other precautions one would take. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Forgive me being "Lord Dense of Thickness" here, but how does that "compromised block notice" get triggered? I imagined it had to be requested or added manually (not that I can recall seeing one very often). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: It's one of the regular templates for block notices. Compromised accounts can really only belong to upstanding(-ish) users and are invariably used for uncharacteristic vandalism or the occasional POV-pushing edit war. If someone was going to compromise accounts whose talk pages were covered in uw4 warnings and only use them to engage in apparently good-faith WP:GNOME-ish behavior, they could avoid detection indefinitely. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Still struggling. That template is added by a person, who suspects a compromise, not by a machine which recognizes some kind of aberrant activity, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The blocks are carried out by an admin mostly based on behavioral evidence or possibly a CU. While the site knows if your account is being logged into from a new IP address, there is no automatic system to block such log ins (otherwise my account would have been constantly locked while I was using a VPN in China). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. My only point was that if there is no odd activity, the invader could wait for months, or even years, before they changed the password and wreaked whatever havoc they saw fit. Only then might the account holder notice and alert an Admin. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That's usually what happens with the POV-pushers. The only thing to really be done is make sure you have a unique and strong password and a committed identity. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Strange, I haven't had one at all. ——SerialNumber54129 20:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hm, I wonder what that means... - TNT ^💖 20:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TNT, I'll re-phrase to—err—"for some time", then :D ——SerialNumber54129 21:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If it helps Serial Number 54129 you're not the only one :(, Would be interesting to know why not everyone on the project is targeted .... –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Re "Are multiple sessions from different machines even possible?", I'm almost always logged in from two different computers simultaneously. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Man, you got one of them computers from Wargames?! :) ——SerialNumber54129 21:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, ain't that swell, cousin Zebediah. Over here at Clampett Mansion, me and Elly May, we got enough trouble just gettin' one of them lazy lappy tops to work! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there's a pattern to the attacks. I've gotten word that some non-admins are getting attacked as well. So it isn't just admin accounts. --Jayron32 21:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I can confirm that it isn't just admin accounts. My account is also getting hammered with thousands of logon attempts. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Me too. I'm not an admin, but i had 2268 failed attempts. If someone wanted to, they could check the victims for some commonality. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I've had some thousands of attempts but they seem to have stopped. It is ridiculous that there seems to be no rate limiting on attempts. Some people will use stupid passwords, it isn't good enough to just say it's their own fault and not apply any brake on attempts. And is anyone told where the attempts come from so the ip can be blocked. And as far as the RefDesk is concerned are we going to block the open proxies in current lists of them on the web? A troll can just get a list of 17000 of them and set up a python job to troll Wikipedia and as far as I can see that is exactly what the RefDesk troll has done. Dmcq (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking what is the refdesk troll even doing? It's bad enough to be revdel'd but I have no idea what they're actually attempting to do. --Tarage (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There may be more than one refdesk troll but one of them keeps posting personal information about the family of someone who is recently deceased. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(EC) There is IP based rate limiting. According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive298#Please help- who tried to break into my account? and my own quick tests, it's 5 attempts every 5 minutes, and 150 attempts in 2 days. Before the hard limit, a soft limit where CAPTCHAs are required will kick in. However any competent attacker has access to a large number of such resources. Assuming it is the LTA, we already know this. Remember also that our blocks don't directly affect login attempts. Any limit needs to balance the issue of shared IPs and non-open proxies against the risks to users, especially in an IPv4 address exhaustion world where CG-NAT etc are common. I'm assuming the foundation have a sensible treatment of IPv6 probably treating /64 similar to the way of a single IPv4 otherwise any mildly competent attacker basically has unlimited attempts without even requiring CAPTCHAs for almost no effort. I don't believe there is any rate limiting for accounts. Adding such a limit will basically allow DOSing someone i.e. preventing them from ever signing into their account. BTW with reference to the above comments, assuming that the attacker doesn't immediately change your password and/or email or simply start abusing, you can get notification by email of successful login attempts from unrecognised devices. If the attacker has access to anything which will make their login attempt from a recognised device you probably have big problems so this will basically tell your if someone does successfully compromise your account. It's on by default AFAIK, but you can check your notification settings to make sure. Nil Einne (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I've had yet another ten or twenty thousand attempts I think so that rate limiting isn't working. It may be the rate limiting is per ip and so it would be broken by using open proxies like the RefDesk troll does. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Along those lines, just a week or so ago I tried to log in while on a trip, using a different device. I got the PW wrong twice, I think, then it said that I had to wait 2 minutes to try again, or something like that. If someone is able to make thousands of attempts, they must have gotten around that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The attacker gets around it by having a thousand computers with different IP addresses try to log on to your account. Permanent control of 1,000 infected Windows computers from all over the world costs $25. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been wondering whether to say this or it's alarmism or beans but I figure by now it's probably fine. One thing to remember is that if this is a dedicated attack on a select group of editors, this could involve more than simple generic guessing (including compromised passwords and variations) which I'm assuming is what most other attackers have been doing. The attacker could use info they've gathered from what you've posted here or what you've posted elsewhere if it's connectable to your account here. (E.g. Your real name.) They could also analyse any passwords connected to you that have have been compromised in one of the many leaks looking for any patterns etc which probably won't be automatically picked up by a script. So if your account password is somewhat secure but not extremely so to a dedicated attacker, you might want to consider carefully whether it's time to change it. This also applies to any password for the email address that's connected to your account if it's guessable (including publicly posted). While not very likely (since it's the sort of thing which may attract the attention of authorities and also more difficult to do while leaving no trace or who you are), there's also the mild risk they may try to use these and social engineering to compromise your email by resetting its password or whatever. Admins of course should consider this is always a risk. (It's always a risk to any editor if you're unlucky or piss off some idiot, in this case it may have already happened.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There have been many thousand attempts on my account, and I am not an admin. But if they had researched me in order to make better guesses, they would have found out about my my BitBabbler White TRNG[89] and the 256-character Wikipedia password it generated. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

So if anyone reading this uses the same password on Wikipedia and anywhere else, change your Wikipedia password to something unique now. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

True. But I've now had yet another 8000 attempts. They shouldn't be able to do that in the first place. It's no trouble to them at the moment but can cause trouble here. Dmcq (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong. They should be able to do that in the first place. Assume for the sake of argument that our software limited your account to one logon attempt every 10 seconds. An attacker could buy some machines on a botnet (one vendor is currently selling complete control of 1,000 infected PCs for $25, 10,000 for $200) and set them to attempting to log on to your account a thousand times a second. So after one try, the next ten thousand logons would be rejected -- along with your ten attempts to log on like you normally do. So if implemented, logon rate limiting on your account allows anyone with $25 to lock you out of your account indefinitely. The only way to tell your ten attempts from the attackers 10,000 attempts is to allow each attempt to enter a password. Unless your password is guessable[90] the fact that you know it and the attacker doesn't is how Wikipedia tells your one legitimate logon attempt from the attacker's thousands of bogus logon attempts. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

and now yet another 7000. That's not rate limited. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but anything that would stop that would allow the attacker to lock you out of your account. Think about it: If we set it up so your account would lock out people from attempting to log in after X failed attempts, they just need to hammer your account X times, and now they've prevented you from using it. It's like someone mailing you 500,000 letters per day, and you're asking "is there anyway I can fix my mailbox so they can't send these letters" No, there isn't. The ability of someone to execute attacks like this is limited only by their willingness and resources. All that you can do is have a good password so it won't be successful. --Jayron32 13:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about locking out after N attempts? Just introduce gradual delays as the number of failures increases. Once it's up to 5 seconds or so, the attacker's ability to exhaustively search is crippled, and the real user is inconvenienced hardly at all. Or does this approach have a flaw I'm unaware of? —Steve Summit (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it has a flaw. An attacker could buy some machines on a botnet (one vendor is currently selling complete control of 1,000 infected PCs for $25, 10,000 for $200) and set them to attempting to log on to your account a thousand times a second. So when you go to log on it won't let you even try. Anyone with $25 can lock you out of your account indefinitely. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Another way of doing it would be to allow a user to tie their account to a limited number of IPs and/or devices? Has that ever been possible? Or is it not permitted for other reasons? Maybe it's just technically too difficult. But a truly secure password (and possibly also a committed ID) looks like the best and most flexible solution, I guess. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I’m currently under an active attack - at least 45 and counting by the dozens as of writing. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 13:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

And now I’m up to 546 attempts now. Should I report this to PMA, where I’m editing from? — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 13:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry Matthew. Compared with Dmcq you seem to be getting off lightly. Just keep calm and follow official advice! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC) .....and make sure your password is a good one, of course.

Still ongoing, up to 6446 attempts currently. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 13:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

and now 10476 attempts and at least 200 identical emails. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 13:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, impressive. Getting into Dmcq territory now, I think. I'm intrigued to know what algorithm is being used. I wonder if the attempted passwords couldn't be made public somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) .... except that I seem to recall we've have been here before.... and it's a logical impossibility for the system to record anything unless the password works? And yet it can (and does) record the IP?

So now my second attack in 24 hours has just begun. Is this mere coincidence? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I’ve turned off my notifications and emails for attempted failed logins as they were getting annoying - I’ve still got emails enabled for password resets and actual logins - so far haven’t gotten any of those. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 14:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I notice you reverted and blocked a reference desk ip just before the attempts on your password started. The rate of attack looks like just a single machine. I hate to think what would happen if there was a proper attack by a professional. Yes there are problems with rate-limiting but I'm sure other places have better mitigations - after all Amazon for instance would have much more to lose from having its passwords cracked. Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

They requested another password and Wikipedia has set up a temporary password that they could attack as well. And it is ten alpha or digits, about 50 bits so I don't think they'll have much joy with that either. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Stupid Software There is NO justification for sending you 200 identical emails. The software should send you no more than one per hour, with a count of failed login attempts. Yes, I know that you can turn them off, but it is still stupid. Could someone please try to get the WMF from doing this? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Not only that, but when you get an email saying regarding password resets, there should be a button to click to go "nope, not me, get rid of that temporary password now." The ones that I keep getting are a hundred thousand trillion of times easier to guess than my own (no, really). I do like that they tell me which IP was trying to log in to my account, it'd really be nice if we could see all the IPs that are trying to or have logged in to our own accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree, that we cannot report these attempts and disable the temp password is pretty poor. DuncanHill (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• My account had 2286 failed attempts this morning. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'm yet to receive even a single attempt so they might be targeting random people. Does everyone receiving these attempts not have 2FA enabled? Perhaps that's the link. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I do for financial things but not for Wikipedia. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I posted on Jimbo's page about this issue yesterday. It started with 18 attempts but later it were more than 400. As I also posted there, I was wondering about the possibility of having many honeypot accounts with easy to guess passwords for every real account. One can set this up such that when logged into such a honeypot account the entire Wikipedia becomes your sandbox that is initialized to be the current state of Wikipedia. It then looks like all your edits are actually being made when in reality nothing goes through. Count Iblis (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Ooooh, that's so incredibly crafty it's actually messing with my head!! Could they all get to shoot lifelike Jimbo hosts?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Count Iblis, Kinda like being shadowbanned on reddit - right? SQL^{Query me!} 01:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

In the last hour, I've had 2340 more failed login attempts. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something. If you've edited the ref desks, or reverted the ref desk troll recently then you're probably going to get the notifications. If you haven't then you probably won't. This type of thing should have been throttled, and the devs are looking into fixes. Per BEANS, it is possible to throttle this kind of attack. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

zzuuzz I have not edited refdesk for as long as I remember, and yet I am getting these notifications and mails. Yes, Throttling to several minutes/hours seems to be a good way to discourage such attacks. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray, "Throttling to several minutes/hours" is a terrible idea. An attacker could buy some machines on a botnet (one vendor is currently selling complete control of 1,000 infected PCs for $25, 10,000 for $200) and set them to attempting to log on to your account a thousand times a second. So when you go to log on it won't let you even try. This is one of those security issues where there is an obvious solution that is actually worse than useless. If we throttle logon attempts, anyone with $25 can lock you out of your account indefinitely. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the attacker may be monitoring this thread and trying to guess the account passwords of people who post to it. That's in addition to RD posters (see the RD talk page). I agree that the WMF should be doing something about this. It's possible that they are and we're not hearing about it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not just possible, probable. This happened back in May as well, and I suspect that what's happening now - the account compromises, the newer brute force attempts - are being done by the same person, or at the very least the compromises and new brute-force attempts are. Back then, they did stuff on the backend to try and thwart this, and given how close this is to that situation and the fact the account compromises are also happening, I'd be surprised if they weren't making adjustments on the fly to address this. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it is worth, every single time that I have looked into the details of how the WMF does security (and I don't just depend on what is published; there are insiders who correspond with me in private on such issues) I find that they are doing everything right. They read the same security research papers I do, and every time I ask "are you doing X" I either find out that they started doing X many years ago or that they read a research paper I missed and are doing Y, which invariably turns out to be better than X. I have my problems with some other aspects of how the WMF does things (for example, the email notifications we are getting on this were set up by someone who is entirely without a clue) but the actual security measures -- the stuff that protects us from the attackers? Always top notch in my opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

2FA update?

Going with this, has there been any progress on opening up 2FA access to non-admins so that this becomes a bit more futile? I'd be definitely up to beta-test it as a non-admin (I've switched to 2FA/fingerprint verification with everything possible), but I haven't really seen an update lately to opening it up beyond admins and WMF officials. It may be time to roll it out to more users, especially those who are affected as non-admins (I have not thankfully; the worst I've gotten is the 'at least you tried, you forgot your password' email 'hacking'). I did see that I can request it above, but it should be opened up a bit more. Nate • (chatter) 04:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: it is in constant discussion, see also meta:Meta:Requests for comment/Enable 2FA on meta for all users - largest challenges are that if you screw it up at all there is no official recovery method, so you lose your account forever. There are some unofficial methods, but they may not yet be able to scale to the masses. You can opt in if you want at meta:SRGP. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; just did so. Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:Committed identity work for people who have their password broken? Dmcq (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It helps prove that the account is yours, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't actually log into it--that still requires dev intervention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyway I think we should be doing whatever large companies like Amazon do for most of their customers. They don't do two factor. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

er, Amazon does do two-factor. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 01:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Their implementation is quite different. It does not require any app or timer. You are sent a code to your email or phone that you registered with Amazon. And it uses cookies so you don't have to put in a code if you use the same device you last used. Much better than having to have some app. Dmcq (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

TOTP is a well-accepted standard. Many (most?) major websites have it. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Reddit etc. I don't understand why it can't just be enabled with a warning "hey if you lose this, you'll probably be locked out forever". I literally have over 50 accounts with 2fa and I've never been permanently locked out. Just my $0.02. Frood 03:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dmcq: That method of 2FA is a whole lot less secure than using a separate app. The only way for a hacker to get your 2FA code without you publicising it or them having whatever it is that generates new codes is for them to know your secret key, which is generated every time you enable and disable it. That's stored on WMF servers, I assume. Email and SMS 2FA can be intercepted by ISPs, email providers, telcos, etc, meaning there are a lot more points that could be compromised. SMS 2FA codes can be gotten if someone steals your SIM card, too. 2FA code generators, like Google Authenticator are permanently offline and do not save its content when the device is backed up externally. Computer-based authenticators typically have the option to keep it hidden behind another password (effectively providing 3FA if someone accesses your PC). Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

If people want a system that is secure against the government and you think you need to provide that fine. What I'm talking about is a working system that is secure against most professional hackers trying to amass large numbers of accounts. That is what should be the general use case on Wikipedia and the special 2FA only for admins they go on about they can use for people who are especially paranoid or subject to special individual hacking by professionals. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the WMF is dropping the ball on this one. Whether to enable 2FA should be my decision. I don't need a nanny who thinks he knows better than I do what is good for me. Go ahead and pile on the warnings. Make me type the sentence "Yes, I realize that I might be locked out forever", solve a capcha, and wait 24 hours if that's what makes you happy, but allow me to make the decision (which in my case would be "no"...) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It has been claimed by one user at the VP that 2FA is less secure than using a strong password: that is logically impossible. 2FA is an additional security measure on top of using a strong password and only enhances security, though it can cause some inconvenience and increased chance of being locked out if not careful. Although some variants of 2FA are weaker than others, what is important (so important that the UK National Cyber Security Centre have it in big bold letters on their page about 2FA) is "any two-factor authentication is better than not having it at all.".

"The NCSC recommends that you set up 2FA on your 'important' accounts; these will typically be the 'high value' accounts that protect things that you really care about, and would cause the most harm to you if the passwords to access these accounts were stolen. You should also use it for your email, as criminals with access to your inbox can use it to reset passwords on your other accounts."

Whether you regard your wiki account as important is a personal decision, though the community may well decide that those with privileged accounts need the extra security. The current wiki implementation requires an authenticator smartphone app or program on your PC and this may be limiting for some users. An SMS option would enable those without smartphones who edit on multiple PCs/locations to have 2FA (the NCSC say "text messages are not the most secure type of 2FA, but still offer a huge advantage over not using any 2FA"). In practice, the bad guy trying to hack random (usually anonymous and globally distributed) admin accounts doesn't have the capability to intercept your SMS or steal your SIM, etc. SMS would require WMF to store your phone number, which some may not want. There is presumably a small cost to sending the SMS. -- Colin°^Talk 10:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

New BAG nomination

I have put in my name for consideration of the Bot Approvals Group. Those interested in discussing the matter are invited to do so here. Thank you for your input. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Lookin for a range block please

82.132.219.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

86.187.169.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

82.132.219.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

86.187.170.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

All of these IP's seem to have found fault with AlexTheWhovian over the past few days and all have been blocked or are blocked. The first was a couple of days ago and required RD of their edits. The other three were all today. Right now AlexTheWhovian's talk page is semi-protected but I can't see protecting every Dr, Who episode. So any chance of a range block here? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Looking... Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • To do any good, it would have to be two separate range blocks, one on the 82.132.219.0/24 and another on the 86.187.170.0/22. And both have too high a collateral cost right now. I'm sorry to say. Courcelles (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Courcelles, so, we'll have to stick to individual reports against the IPs and further hiding of revisions for the egregious personal attacks on every current Doctor Who episode article? -- Alex^TW 01:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, You could always employ protection, if the disruption warrants it. SQL^{Query me!} 01:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Lara Robinson sucks!

Can an admin nuke User talk:Lara Robinson sucks! and deny the user talk page rights? This user is a sock of user:Jack Gaines spreading misinformation of Alan Jackson. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Inadvertent violation of banning policy: what to do? (Tarage)

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.

---

Tarage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims "I don't even get the justice of having my case be open for more than 9 hours".[91] The case is question is here:[92]

Wikipedia:Banning policy says "Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." This is based upon Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 8#Proposal for mandatory minimum duration length for CBAN discussions. That RfC specifically addressed the case of a WP:SNOW close and the consensus was to not allow a snow close before 24 hours of discussion have occurred.

Please note that I did not comment in the topic ban discussion (I don't form an opinion on proposed sanctions unless I have extensively researched the edit history of all involved, and I have not done that in this case).

I did a count of the time the discussion was open and found that it was significantly longer than the 9 hours Tarage claims and significantly shorter that the required 24 hours.

Here is the timeline; feel free to check my math.

• 16:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC): Floquenbeam suggests topic ban. [93]
• 16:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC): Bbb23 suggests topic ban. [94]
• 16:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC): SemiHypercube suggests topic ban.[95]
• 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC): Boing! said Zebedee formally proposes topic ban. [96] (elapsed time 0:00)
• 00:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC): 28bytes closes three sections. [97] (elapsed time 7:29)
• 02:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC): 28bytes closes additional section. [98]
• 07:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC): Boing! said Zebedee uncloses. [99] (elapsed time 7:29)
• 18:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC): Sandstein recloses. [100] (elapsed time 18:07)

Total time discussion was open: eighteen hours and seven minutes

So should we:

• Do nothing?
• Re-open the topic ban discussion?
• Something else?

Before posting this I attempted to ask Tarage what his preference is, but his talk page is protected. Clearly he feels that he was wronged and that the discussion should have remained open. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've boldly fixed the userlinks template, Guy Macon to point to the actual user I'm certain is the one you're talking about. Courcelles (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks! Danm typoos! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I found this thread by chance; could you next time please notify the users involved? I'm sorry that I didn't notice that the total time elapsed was less than 24 h; that wasn't clear from the thread itself. I've no problem with somebody reopening the thread again to make more time elapse, if that's what's people here prefer, even if the outcome appears unlikely to change given the near-unanimous consensus. Sandstein 20:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry about forgetting the notices. Note to self: next time. smoke crack after editing Wikipedia. I also didn't realize that we didn't give it 24 hours, and had to search the edit history and get out my calculator after seeing the "9 hours" claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• IMO, let's do it by the book. re-open, leave it open for at least a full 24 hours from the time it is re-opened, and let Tarage defend themselves. Then assess consensus. Agree with Sandstein it wasn't obvious reading the discussion that it wasn't open for 24 hours. A note at the top of the section saying so would have been useful. Courcelles (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• As I was the one who "violated the banning policy" by closing it early, I will explain again why I did so. The discussion was clearly upsetting to Tarage, people were making increasingly pointed comments about his presence on the noticeboards that he appeared to be taking very personally, and there was no sign whatsoever that the discussion was headed anywhere other than a consensus that he stay away from the noticeboards for a while. In short, leaving it open seemed cruel to Tarage with no benefit whatsoever to the encyclopedia. Had I known that Tarage would interpret my closure as an act of "injustice" rather than kindness I would have left it open. Hindsight is 20/20, I suppose. I'm truly sorry that he felt he was being treated unfairly as that was never my intent. I hope he returns to edit once the rawness of this episode has subsided a bit. 28bytes (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would have made the same decision. Alas, the consensus of the RfC (which I just found out about by searching) was that we need to be cruel and leave it open 24 hours. Also, Tarage clearly wants to see a full 24 hours worth of comments telling him that his behavior is unacceptable. I don't understand why, though. Does he imagine that there will be a groundswell of support when the early comments were unanimous? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Re-open Due process is important. Jschnur (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment unless there are at least two editors who comment in this thread that they don't support the current remedy (a 3-month TBAN from AN/ANI) and want to re-start the discussion, there's no need to restart the discussion. Leaving this thread open for 24 hours (preferably 72 hours) is sufficient for the due process concerns, so long as community consensus is unanimous; we shouldn't re-open the previous thread (again!) just out of an excessive sense of jurisprudence. However, if there are multiple editors who support other remedies and want the thread re-opened, we probably should do so, with a separate section for new comments. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Power-enwiki's comment makes more sense to me than re-opening the original. It's also in line with 28bytes' concerns about unnecessary pile-ons, since no-one needs to comment here in favor of the current result, only if they disagree with it. Leave this open for a couple or three days. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Two counterarguments: First, someone who would definitely read and comment on a thread titled "Tarage" might not even bother reading a thread titled "Violation of banning policy: what to do?". Second, it is not at all clear that Tarage agrees that leaving this thread open for 24 hours is sufficient for the due process concerns. We should always give anyone facing sanctions a fair shake, but if at all possible we should also give them what they themselves consider to be a fair shake. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, you already can reopen it according the people who closed it. So, if you think that is a good idea, go ahead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am good with asking the community what to do rather than assuming that I know what is best. --Guy Macon (talk)

I did not say assume. I noted it is a fact that the people who closed it already said anyone can reopen it, which is the standard way discussions are re-opened, anyone who thinks it is a good idea to re-open then does so. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I objected to the first close as it was against policy, no matter how well intentioned. I assumed thhat the calculator had been used for the second close. This thread has been retitled to include the user's name. The master thread, but not the TBAN discussion, has been open much longer than 24 hours, so any last minute supporters couod have chimed in or reopened the TBAN discussion. The best way to remedy this situation is to leave this thread open for 72 hours. We can't really undo what has been done and revoting the whole things is only going to make the hurt worse. I can't imagine 25, 48 or 72 hours would have changed the end result. Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• (EC) I was wondering the same thing when I noticed the extended controversy. Somewhat of an aside but I think this does happen on occasion. I seem to recall another case where a discussion was closed prematurely, I pointed it out and it was reopened maybe after about an hour and then reclosed after about 24 hours from the beginning. While less of a violation and I don't think anyone cared in that case I wonder if it may be helpful to put a reminder in the closure rules to make sure you consider any premature closing time and/or for editors to note when reopening that discussion should be extended to meet the 24 hour requirement. In this case, I would normally say it's one of the genuine IAR and we should just let it be. But since Tarage is unhappy I suggest it will be best to reopen it for another minimum 24 hour stretch. I think most who are aware of the controversy will stay away unless they feel they have something to say which may change the outcome, but of course the discussion will be open so contributors are free to do what they want which is after all the point of an open discussion. It's probably the least worst option we can take here. Also I should say from what I saw I don't find fault with what anyone did. I don't think it was easy to predict how things would pan out and people did what they thought was, and in other cases would have been, best. Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for caring about process. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought the CBAN 24 hour policy was for community bans only, not topic bans... Valeince (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This topic ban is a community ban. "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to impose a topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction (which may include a limited-duration or indefinite block) " --WP:CBAN --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've opened a new comment section right below the TBAN proposal. Left open a full 24 hours, that should fully satisfy the requirement and then some. That seems to meet the thrust of the comments here. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Folks, Tarage was clearly very upset about the outcome and has made it clear he doesn't want anything more to do with us (which I hope changes after he's had a little time, but that's the way it appears now), and I really don't think subjecting him to more of the same is going to help him in the slightest now. I can understand the reason for starting the new section, and maybe it's the best thing to do (though only for the sake of following the rules and making the ban legitimate), but I really don't think it's the best way to deal with Tarage's feelings now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'll just add that yes, he did clearly say he was upset that the discussion was closed early, but he was so obviously upset that I don't think anything we did at the time would have been right by him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't help his feelings. As a friend told me years ago, no one can make you happy or sad, only you can decide to be happy or not. I don't care if no one comments in the new section. At least we can say we all gave the topic the best chance we could given the unusual circumstances. Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: To whatever degree I care about this, it isn't about Tarage's feelings. It's about Macon's opening reasoning, notably the consensus was to not allow a snow close before 24 hours of discussion have occurred. That hasn't been countered, so I'm accepting it at face value.
I generally avoid ANI but said this to Tarage awhile back. I happen to drop by AN now, 15 months later, only to see that exactly the problem I referred to is still an issue. So Tarage's feelings are not high on my priority list, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been through tougher times on Wikipedia & survived. He'll survive, no matter the result. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2018 (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.

Religion in... statistics vandalism

Just raising this here in case anyone recognises it as a returning vandal, and to ask for others to help keep an eye on things. On the 20th November I noticed 83.51.5.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) falsifying cited stats in "Religion in..." articles. Today I noticed an identical edit to one of the articles by 46.6.190.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). IPs are both Spanish. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This is continuing today, latest IP is 83.51.5.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) DuncanHill (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Also 85.192.74.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 83.51.5.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours. 85.192.74.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) hasn't edited for several hours, I do not see a block serving any purpose at this point. Vanamonde (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A new editor, Scgonzalez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now started making similar edits. I have given them an initial warning, and shall advise them of this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

They are up to a Level 4 Warning now, and have made no attempt to respond to warnings. DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• And now 83.51.1.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). @Ponyo:. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Got it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Also note I reblocked Scgonzalez indef. It sometimes makes it easier to request blocks on related IPs via AIV if there is an obvious named account that has been blocked indefinitely, even if it's not the master.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've got a nagging feeling at the back of my mind that there was something very like this a while ago - perhaps years - but really can't put my finger on it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• 88.17.37.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) @Ponyo:. DuncanHill (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• 88.18.43.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at it too. Reported to AIV DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly a determined, long-term vandal. The vandalism is subtle - unless one checks figures against the sources it is not obvious from reading the article. Any thoughts on how better to deal with it? Would a range block be appropriate? DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately a single rangeblock isn't possible and the IPs used are so variable that even a series of smaller range blocks would likely be ineffective. It may be a case where we either need to start using liberal semi-protection, or alternatively WP:RBI.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Still at it. 88.4.152.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Reported as block evasion at ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Got it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Tarage

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.

---

It is time (long, long past time, truthfully) for this discussion to be re-closed, and no one has stepped forward to do so, so I am going to do so now. My original close on December 1, which was reverted for being made too early, read as follows:

I'm going to go ahead and close this, because there is a very clear consensus here, and also because leaving it open any longer will only lead to more pile-on comments and hurt feelings for no benefit. Tarage, consensus here is that you will need to refrain from commenting on any AN and AN/I threads that don't involve you for 3 months. Come March 1, you are welcome to resume commenting but please take on board the concerns other editors have expressed about your commenting style. This isn't permanent, and it isn't a punishment, just a recognition that your current style of commenting is not a good fit for these boards at this time. If you have any questions, feel free to stop by my talk page and we can talk about it. 28bytes (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Although additional comments have been made since the proposal was original closed, the clear consensus from December 1 is equally clear now. As such, I am closing the topic ban proposal as "enacted" per community consensus. Tarage may not post to any AN or ANI threads that do not directly involve him for 3 months. This restriction will automatically expire March 10, 2019.

I will log the edit restriction and place the required notification on Tarage's talk page shortly. I realize that he does not want further contact via his talk page, and has requested it to be fully protected, but after he and others have objected that process has not been properly followed, the hand of whoever closes this thread (lucky me) has been forced and it has to be done "by the books," required notifications and all. I would have preferred we handle this slightly less formally, but it was not to be.

I realize this topic ban may be academic, as Tarage has indicated he has left Wikipedia, but hopefully he will change his mind and realize that taking a break from editing 2 out of the 61,951,689 or so pages on this website is not really that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. I hope he will consider returning to contribute. Taking a break from editing AN or ANI is frankly something more of us should do on a regular basis, myself included. 28bytes (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see the Revisit Topic Ban discussion section below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC) 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'd hoped to avoid this, but I've been disturbed by the aggressive and confrontational approach of Tarage at the AN/ANI boards for some time now. The latest was here, where he called another editor a "little snot". The editor was being problematic, yes, but did not deserve such a personal attack - and the matter was already being dealt with in a reasonable manner without needing Tarage to wade in and add insult. I gave Tarage a warning (I know about DTTR, but he's getting exasperating), and User: Legacypac also asked him to tone down his comments, but his response was to insist that his "little snot" thing was not a PA and I was talking "Absolute nonsense". He removed my warning with the edit summary "No, seriously, have someone else do this next time. Like I asked. Multiple times." He hasn't asked me multiple times, but it's clear that my approaches are having no effect. Recently, Tarage had these ArbCom election comments removed and was asked to "Please keep comments constructive. Please keep in mind that editors are expected to conduct themselves according to in a decorum and with behavior expected by community standards." Prior to that, he removed comments from Winkelvi's talk page (see history) when Winkelvi was clearly a bit stressed, appearing to try to order him around, and even edit warred over it. I warned him here (and I've only just today noticed his comment "Also I'd rather someone else handle this in the future. You've made it very clear you don't like me and are looking for a reason to block me so pardon me if I don't think you're the most impartial," which I think speaks of his response to critique of his aggressive approach - he can give it out, but he can't handle unfavourable feedback). Earlier episodes involve crassly insensitive speculation over the mental health of someone who was asking for help - see here (which was after I had tried to explain the issue at ANI and had got nowhere), where you can see he just doesn't get why we should not do that sort of thing (I'm not linking to the actual comments or the ANI discussion itself out of respect to the person in question, but if you follow the dates you can find them). I subsequently asked him to tone down his comments at ANI but got a negative response - see here. User:Alex Shih also judged some of Tarage's comments as inflammatory - and while User:MPants at work did opine that one specific issue was not inflammatory, he did suggest that Tarage "could have said that with a lot more tact" and that "You are quite confrontational at ANI, and while I don't think that's always a bad thing, it has the potential to inflame things". Generally, looking over Tarage's comments at AN and ANI, they are frequently the most aggressive and the most confrontational of anyone's, often tend to offer the least by way of constructive input, and he frequently just proposes the severest sanction of anyone - I won't diff every one that I think is too aggressive, but regulars at ANI will surely know what I mean. I also note that of Tarage's 3,849 total edits, 1,078 have been to ANI or AN. That's a full 28%, and way more than the 758 edits he's contributed to actual main space encyclopedia contributions. As a comparison, I think I'm a pretty frequent admin contributor to AN and ANI, but my "drama board" contribution amounts to a mere 4.7% of my edits. What do I want here? I'm really not sure. In short, I think Tarage has a chronic record of making what is an unpleasantly confrontational forum even more unpleasant and confrontational, and it's pretty much on a constant drive-by basis. If you all think I'm being oversensitive and it's fine to be this aggressive (and, for example, call people little snots) then I'll take that on board and will just try to ignore him. But I don't think I am being oversensitive, and I really do think Tarage needs to tone down his aggression - and I'd be happy with just a consensus here that he should do that. (See topic ban proposal below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC) This may not be a really useful comment, because I doubt there's a drama-free way to do anything about it, but it's on my mind so I'll make it anyway. I have recently been thinking more and more and more that there are roughly 1 dozen people (approx, I haven't counted, but in that range) that make AN/ANI much more dysfunctional, unpleasant, and actively harmful to the smooth operation of an encyclopedia-generating project. I'd like to see all of them topic banned from the two pages. Tarage is one of them. On the one hand, it seems odd, possibly unfair, to focus on just one of them, when there are arguably even less helpful ANI regulars than he is. On the other hand, perhaps we have to start somewhere? My problem isn't so much with an isolated "little snot" comment here and there (the person he was referring to was pretty much a little snot), but the relentless aggression and escalation that often does make things worse. I'm not looking to make AN or ANI a saccharin fairyland with rainbows and unicorns, but it needs to be a place where problems get solved. Right now, it's become "WP:AN/Votes for Punishment". Is the answer cutting one person out of the herd at at time? A dozen votes for banishment from AN/ANI? A (doomed) effort to come up with general rules of engagement? I honestly don't know. I do think something should be done. Not to prevent occasional "little snot" comments, but to make this a place where problems have a bigger chance of being solved, instead of blown up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Absolutely, yes, it's not the one "little snot" comment, it is as you put it "the relentless aggression and escalation." Would getting rid of the aggressors one at a time help? Not sure, but that approach seems to be working at the Ref Desks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC) After many failed attempts to impose rules, finally the RefDesks got much better (not all better, but much better) after the banning of a particularly troublesome user. --JBL (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC) The little snot comment was a PA and he should have been sanctioned for it, but (for example) the arbcom comments were not just him alone. I think (and have made this point more then once) that he is just a symptom of a general decline in "soft" civility (and may in fact merely be reacting and making a point about that) (such as in the arbcom comments, "if an Candidate can be rude why not me?").Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I have long felt that Tarage's conduct at ANI is gratuitously obnoxious. I would favor a topic ban banning them from ANI with the usual exceptions. Blocking Tarage is a less attractive option, particularly given that we are now having this discussion. As for Floquenbeam's comments, although I am sympathetic to addressing the larger picture, I don't think it's practical. If there are other editors he has in mind, we should address them one by one.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC) There's one point I meant to make but forgot, and I've been reminded of it by Floquenbeam's comment about "relentless aggression and escalation." There might not be any individual contribution by Tarage that in itself would be enough for a sanction, and I think that might make it difficult to do anything about the problem. But his constant, relentless, low-to-mid-level aggression is, I think, very damaging to the functioning of the AN/ANI boards. And I think it needs to be stopped. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC) @Boing! said Zebedee: There is an overall problem with the culture at admin noticeboards. They're full of trolling, incivility and harassment. But that's not unusual. The unusual part is that it's being sanctioned and encouraged by other editors and even administrators. That is a systematic problem.--v/r - TP 16:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC) And that is what needs to be tackled, and I fail to see how targeting Tarage achieves this. Is he one of the users being supported by tame admins?Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC) So, I'll have to disagree. We need to combat the culture AND deal with the worst offenders. This place needs to stop being treated as a game. These psuedonyms are real people and somewhere along the line we've forgotten that. And that needs to be fixed. Treating each other like we're real people is a culture issue and is on all of us. Being unnecessarily dickish is in the individuals, though.::v/r - TP 17:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I would not support any sanction on this user. I think that somebody should ask him to restrict himself to one post per week on Dramah boards. I would be willing to bet a doggy biscuit that Tarage has no idea how obvious this behaviour is, and how it reflects badly on him. I write this because I understand T's motivation, and there but for the grace of wikispagmonster go I. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I agree with TP here. A culture is essentially the sum of its contributors, and targeting the individual contributors who damage the culture is a valid way of addressing it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Except we are not, we are targeting one (who is not I think even the worst offender, at ANI right now we have discussions about how dickishness is OK "because we can do nothing about it". No it is not people like Targe who are damaging the culture. It is the users (and more so) the admins who will fetch up at an ANI and say "but there is nothing we can do" when a users is repeatedly obnoxious. He is not the cause he is a symptom, and you do not cure a cold by chopping of the nose. This is just "doing something" without actually tackling the underlying cause.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC) I endorse Bbb23's observation as it matches mine. I've often noticed Tarage's unusual obnoxiousness in AN[I] discussions, in a sort of a "you probably shouldn't have said that" sort of way, but always when I'm distracted by whatever's actually going on in the thread. AN[I] are enough dramah without users being hostile for no reason. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ::Question to Admins reading this: Have any of you actually asked Tarage about this behaviour, and made constructive comment? Are we going towards a Snow decision for a sanction, without anybody saying, "Please stop, old chap, thanks." -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 18:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Yes here is the most recent example [101] Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Roxy, yes, I have provided links above and have described my attempts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC) So because I removed a message from Boing, who I have asked repeatedly not to constantly come and template me, they start an AN section on me? Is anyone else even remotely concerned by this? Am I not allowed to removed talk page messages anymore? "little snot" was my attempt to downplay my "hostile, agressive, or disparaging" behavior. I'm trying here. I think it's very disingenuous that Boing was the one to bring this. --Tarage (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Also what's being ignored here are the attempts I have made to council users who I felt are worth trying to save. There was even one who I tried to help who ended up being a sock! There's another who was adding poor english to numerous articles. Please see User:Bishonen's talk page to see my long conversation with them. That folks are voting to throw me out without even hearing my side of things, considering this was launched while I was asleep, seems very symptomatic of the very thing people are criticizing me for. --Tarage (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC) How on earth am I supposed to have any idea when you're asleep? Discussions like this go on around the clock and allow for people in all time zones. I'll be off to sleep in a couple of hours myself, but I won't complain that others are not allowed to talk about me when I'm in dreamland. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Tarage, just a few months ago you aggressively called for my removal as an admin because my logging off six hours after doing something was "cowardly", "undefensible" (sic), and that I was a "bad admin" ([102]). Maybe now you can empathize a little bit more about the unfairness of being criticized for not being available 24/7. Fish Karate 11:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tarage&oldid=871392139 So this is what happens. I make comments here trying to defend myself and my behavior and asking questions, and not only does it result in comments here (Which is fine, because obviously I'm reading this page and understand people are going to reply), but ALSO a message on my talk page with roughly the same thing. Saying that I am unaware and that I am posting nonsense. I don't understand how I am supposed to defend myself against this. I find it... telling that the same people who are claiming that I am toxic and harsh are being so to me. Even though I've asked Boing to have someone else comment on my behavior because I perceive an unfair bias against be due to the many threats to take me to ANI they have levied against me on my talk page, they continue to be the one to do so. And then if I act frustrated at this, it escalates to AN. I don't think this is fair. --Tarage (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC) People are being toxic and harsh to you because they have been forced to to resolve many months or years of your toxic negative behaviour.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Years? I never had a problem beyond this last year. Again, I find it bemusing that the very same behavior I am being criticized for is okay to do to me and not criticize it. I just have to be silent. --Tarage (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Twice more people have come to my talk page, including Legacypac who, just after TParis suggested not responding to me there, responds. And then power~enwiki comes in and starts in on me. I don't know what to do to make this stop. Why am I being attacked on multiple fronts? Why do I have to debate people on multiple pages? --Tarage (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC) If you consider [103] to be hostile, I give up. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I didn't say yours was hostile. I never said that. I said I don't want to have to try to fight on two fronts. Also we have a history of not getting along, so I don't know why you are doing this. --Tarage (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Also I thought we just had a referendum on the word "fuck" that it wasn't sanctionable. I feel like every time I try to say something someone else comes in to tell me that I'm wrong and not listening, so I guess I have to just stop trying to say anything and take whatever happens. I'm sorry I was hostile. I'm sorry I started sanction suggestions. I was only trying to help when I saw bad behavior. --Tarage (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I know how this works. I've seen it a million times before. Anything further I say will be used to illustrate how I don't get it or I'm not listening or I'm bad for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if I apologize. It doesn't matter if I say I'm confused because people have told me I'm doing a good job. It doesn't matter if I feel like the same group of people are launching at me over and over again. It just doesn't matter. No one ever changes their minds on AN or ANI except to be more harsh. You're with the clique until you're cast out. It's like highschool all over again, some of the worst years of my life. I'll just stop. I don't have any way to stand up for myself anymore. --Tarage (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I've been a victim of the "trying to explain myself" being used as an example of not getting it; so I empathize. But, I've also seen you describe your own uncivil actions and then use a strawman to steer conversation off course. Something like "All I did was (very bad thing) and (somewhat good thing), and if (somewhat good thing) is bad then I'm sorry" kind of replies. You know what is wrong, you've stated as much, but then you use a strawman to poisen the discussion. Also, I think you're the victim of a false sense of confidence because other ANI regulars, that I've hinted at, have egged you on. There are people here who are encouraging bad behavior - and that needs to stop. Those people have given you the idea that it's acceptable and that you're part of the "in-crowd" because of it. Those people need to knock it the fuck off. But that doesn't absolve you of being responsible for your own behavior. Honestly, you're being played by them. They're egging you on to say the thing they want to say but know they shouldn't. But if you say it, it gets said and they aren't responsible for it. You're their pawn. You should be pissed at those egging you own.--v/r - TP 21:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I said I was sorry. I said I understand. I said I am confused about the very issue that brought things here and what I am and am not allowed to do with my talk page without fear of repercussions. I said I am uncomfortable with so many people coming to my talk page and telling me how awful I am. I tried to explain why I was trying to do what I was doing and that I was only trying to help. I don't know what else I can do. It doesn't seem to matter. I can't even ask someone who has defended me to come say anything either. No one will speak on my behalf, even though so many have told me I was doing good. I give up. --Tarage (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC) You might try to propose an alternate solution to a topic ban. One that offers the same assurances with less restrictions and less formality.--v/r - TP 21:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I said I won't ever propose sactions against anyone else ever again. I won't ever remove anything from my talk page ever again. It doesn't matter. You say humbled, I say humiliated. Either way I doubt I'm going to be contributing much anymore. Like I said, this is like highschool. I have enough wrong with my life. --Tarage (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC) The thing is, neither of those actions are themselves the problem. It's not what you're doing, it's how you're doing it. To take one example, picked at more or less random: the problem with this edit isn't what you're saying. Saying that the claims of people who aren't following community norms don't require particular scrutiny, which I take to be your meaning, isn't bad. Obviously not a universal sentiment, but it's pretty similar to WP:BANREVERT, which is of course policy, so it's not a bad thing to express. The problem is how you expressed it; talk shit, get hit is an unnecessarily hostile way of phrasing it. That one thing isn't bad enough to be worthy of sanctions on its own, not terribly close, honestly. But as a consistent pattern of expression, it's problematic, and I think it is representative of a pattern. That's what people want you to change, and just promising to stop suggesting sanctions or blanking talk page posts (which is a red herring, it's not really relevant) doesn't directly address the problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I realise it is hardly my place to comment on something here but i feel like i should regardless. I read on ANI from time to time and have of course also noticed Tarages comments. But people should not forget that this is an issue about a human being, regardless if right or wrong, and a situation like this is phsycologically demanding, even humiliating and hurtful. Something Tarage himself may have forgotten when commenting about other people at ANI in the past. Even if a person is clearly wrong, a treatment they view as hostile, as unfair, as ganging up on oneself and so on, is hard to take. Just like this is i imagine. Now, i fully realise that being harsh is necessary sometimes, but it can still be hard to take. If they have any desire to stay on Wikipedia, i am pretty sure this experience will change their outlook, no matter if there is a formal topic ban or not, because they now know how such a treatment, even if only perceived to be so, can feel like. I am not asking for leniency, but just ask to put yourself in his position right now, just as he may put himself in the position of other people before commenting in the future knowing how it can feel like. Sorry if this is out of line, but i thought this needed saying. 37.138.75.0 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 37, that was well said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2018 (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. Propose 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 Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC) have re-opened because of the extended discussion below and Sandstein's permission[104], also, so all comments on this will be considered, please close after whatever time is needed. Sandstein's earlier close was as follows: Consensus for a ban is essentially unanimous. Three months looks like the maximum length that has consensus. Note that this is a topic ban, not a page ban, so Tarage is also prohibited from mentioning AN/I, referring to AN/I discussions, etc. This may or may not make sense, but you all explicitly wanted a topic ban, so that's what Tarage gets. Sandstein 17:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)}} In the light of early comments, I propose a topic ban on User:Tarage from the WP:AN and WP:ANI boards, with the exception that he can contribute to any discussion that involves him directly (and any other standard policy-based exception). The length of the ban and how soon it can be appealed I will leave to others to suggest. (I'm adding ths immediately before the topic ban support from User:SemiHypercube below, hope you don't mind, SemiHypercube) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)@Boing! said Zebedee: Don't mind at all, helps sort this discussion. SemiHypercube ✎ 16:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Weak support of topic ban from AN/ANI per WP:CIVILITY. Not sure if this needs to be temporary or indefinite, but one may be needed. SemiHypercube ✎ 16:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support temporary TBAN of 1-3 months. There's definitely a problem here, and one that I don't see being solved without Tarage taking at least a month's vacation from these boards. If there's a different proposal that might do that, I'll reconsider. I don't think an indef tban of one editor will help matters. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support temporary TBAN of 3 months. The administrative noticeboards are important, and it's important to remove disruption that limits their effectiveness when people comment on contributors rather than content. A break from the dramah would do Tarage good. Sometimes it's good to get away from it for a while, and I think three months is a good refresher period. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support Finally! Tarage always advocates for a site ban or whatever would be the harshest response and is very rude. If I see another knee-jerk "Boomerang!" on that board any time an editor posts about a problem, I'm gone as an IP editor. A totally negative presence and can even be demoralizing. Many of the regulars there are toxic, too. 204.130.226.100 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support after the nth aggressive comment was removed from a thread I closed I went to urge him to tone things down and found Boing had the same idea. He gave the wrong response! If this thread were about someone else Tarage likely would post an insult and propose an indef. A topic ban is a kind solution. Good for the soul to stay away from ANi anyway. I hope I'm not on the list of a dozen trouble makers :) Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC) It's the wrong response to remove things from your talk page? I was not aware I was not allowed to remove things from my talk page anymore. --Tarage (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support Tarage's commentary on noticeboards often serves only to inflame already sensitive discussions where tempers can run high. I've openly expressed my antipathy towards his comments (i.e. in this discussion) and believe a topic ban would be beneficial to those who are reviewing cases on noticeboards with an eye to resolving the problems presented as opposed to ratcheting up the drama. There are a cadre of individuals who are far too preoccupied with the drama boards and feel that they need to pipe up with their opinion on the majority of discussions regardless of the soundness of their advice, but Tarage's participation often strays farther over the line of peanut gallery into outright disruption. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Gosh, yes, I'd forgotten about that one - crass insensitivity of an appalling nature. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Have I commented on anyone's mental health or physical health since then? I've been trying. Thanks for punishing me for trying. I knew I'd never get a fair shake from you. --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support indefinite topic ban with the usual exceptions, and excepting that they may appeal to this board when their attitude has improved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support 'Avoid AN/I' is good wiki-folk wisdom and with numbers and participation like this, mandating seems the way to go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support I've had a look through Tarage's recent edits to AN/ANI, or which there are an awful lot, and most of them have a tone which is overly hostile, aggressive, or disparaging. This isn't a great response to being questioned on the "indef the little snot" comment either. There are plenty of other places to contribute here. Hut 8.5 18:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I honestly don't understand this. Am I or am I not allowed to remove messages from my talk page? Do you realize that I was unfairly BLOCKED the last time I removed one? And who unblocked me because they saw that it was nonsense? Boing. If there is a specific rule somewhere that says users aren't allowed to remove ANYTHING an admin posts, PLEASE show it to me, because I am honestly not aware of it. --Tarage (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Oh come on Tarage, this is *not* about you removing stuff from your talk page! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Given the clueless responses, this restriction needs to be permanent. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC) This is what I'm talking about. I'm not being afforded any good faith here. I said "I honestly don't understand this" and I mean it, and what I get back is statements that I'm clueless and should be restricted even more. I am, again, honestly asking the following: What is and is not okay for removing talk page messages? Am I allowed to comment about how I am upset about something in the edit comment? Do I need to be silent? Is there a page where I can find out what is and isn't allowed? Please, someone tell me in a way that isn't mocking me. --Tarage (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I'm not the one from whom you might be asking for help, but I hope you will let me try to explain. The problem really is not your removal of my comments from your talk page or your edit summary. You were perfectly entitled to do both. But what that meant to me was that you were rejecting my personal overtures and that I had no alternative but to ask the community here at AN to look at the issues I wished to raise - you can't really demand that I don't raise them with you personally, but also don't raise the with anyone else at any other forum. The problem, which I have tried to raise with you several times but have been met with intransigence, is that your contributions at ANI have been overly aggressive for a long period. It seems that everyone who has commented so far agrees with that assessment, so you really have no grounds for thinking that it's just a personal issue of mine. And so far, you have said nothing to address my complaints of your chronic aggressive approach at ANI. Does that help explain what it is you don't understand? Anyway, I'm off to sleep shortly, so it's goodnight from me for now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC) So I'm not allowed to "reject your personal overtures" because I feel you might be biased? I'm not allowed to ask that someone else interact with me? --Tarage (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Again, this is the problem. I ask that you not interact with me, or go through someone else, and you flat out ignore that. Every single time. You have no respect for me or my wishes. Even here, when I clearly say "I don't want to interact with you", you are the first to reply. I have no ability to reject talking to you. --Tarage (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I doubt you're still following this or that it will matter, but I want to try to clarify a couple of things. Yes, of course you have a right to reject my overtures and to ask for someone else to deal with the issue. That is exactly what is happening here - I am asking the community to examine my concerns, which is how Wikipedia's conflict resolution works. The fact that you believe I am biased against you is a good reason why I personally should not take any admin action, and I recognize and respect that. But it does not mean that I am therefore not allowed to raise my concerns elsewhere. You have the ability to reject talking to me directly, yes, by simply not doing so - but you do not have the right to reject my ability to ask the community to examine my concerns. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Where exactly did I criticise you for removing comments from your talk page? I didn't. The edit I linked to did not involve you removing a comment from your talk page. It was you responding to a concern from another editor that "little snot" was a personal attack by denying that it was a personal attack, when it pretty obviously is. That suggests to me that you can't recognise what is and is not a personal attack. Hut 8.5 21:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support Floq's right, removing a few people from these noticeboards would not hurt them terribly and should certainly help discussions here. I'm afraid Tarage is one of those. Tarage, there's a lot of useful stuff to do outside of AN/I. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support indefinite topic ban per lack of clue during topic ban voting It is very harmful to the project if an editor is continually seeking the harshest punishment or restriction for others whilst themselves are engaging in bad potentially sanctionable behaviour. I think an long indefinite break from this topic area will also be of benefit to Tarage.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Strong support I'm glad to see this discussion started, as I've been bothered by Tarage's behavior for a long time. His behavior at the noticeboard feels like that of a Buford Pusser wannabe, in which he shows up and immediately adopts a confrontational stance with users in which he is laying down the law. The vast majority of his comments at ANI can be boiled down to either some sort of version of "you must stop this now or be blocked" or "this whole conversation is stupid," both of which almost always inevitably escalate tensions and frequently redirect the conversation away from figuring out what the source of the dispute is to trading blows or voting on the ban that Tarage generally proposes right away. His participation in this thread is a great example of this behavior, and I was especially appalled at the fact that he leveled a fairly serious claim of an editor using racism accusations in order to win content disputes, and then explicitly refused [105] (with some additional rude dismissiveness thrown in for good measure when he re-edited his own comment) the user's astonished request that Tarage provide diffs to back up that claim. ANI is not a showdown where you draw a line in the sand and see who blinks first, and unnecessary aggression isn't needed at a place where tensions are usually already running high to start with. Grandpallama (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Wanting editors to stop calling other editors racist is rude and dismissive? --Tarage (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Alleging editors weaponize accusations of racism to win arguments requires evidence. Responding to a request for that evidence, by the accused editor, with rude and dismissive language should result in sanctions, correct. Also, I realized I needed to clarify: my vote would be for an indefinite topic ban, since the responses here indicate more than just a cooldown period of a few months is needed. Grandpallama (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Both editors were calling the other editor racist in the thread. Back to back. I don't need evidence when they are doing it right there. That is why I suggested sanctions. Because I wanted it to stop. If my suggesting sanctions is a problem I won't ever do it again. I was only trying to help. --Tarage (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I don't want to fully rehash a closed thread, but what was going on there wasn't as simple as two editors calling each other racist until you weighed in and described it as such. There was one editor who was using a lot of racially-charged language and racial taunting, which resulted in the other editor calling those views racist. Then you started weighing in, and while you may have been only trying to help, the result was gasoline on a fire. And an escalation of tensions that derailed the entire discussion, including whether or not the reported editor may have, in fact, been subtly inserting racist views (which a few of us were beginning to suspect) and whether or not the reported editor was fabricating sources to support those views, which Doug Weller may have uncovered. Grandpallama (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support indefinite topic ban with a right to appeal in six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support indefinite 3 month topic ban - The first 3 ANI diffs were enough to swing me here, His comments aren't helpful or even needed, I've had issues with his comments for quite some time so glad to see this has finally been brought up, Probably already noted above but the only exception to this ban should be if it involves their topicban. –Davey2010Talk 21:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Ugh. This all feels very Reign of Terrorish; I know some people I don't think should be participating at AN/ANI (at least the way they normally do) are gleefully voting here. Does it bother anyone else that in trying to solve a general drive-by pile-on Votes for Banning problem, we've quickly jumped to an up-and-down vote for banning? I don't really relish a series of these. I hasten to add that I don't really have a better solution, and I suppose it could be a case of poetic justice, too. But in the future, I'd hope we stick to a more discussion-based persuasion (albeit with an implied threat of a topic ban if things don't go well). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)It appears that the torches and pitchforks have come out. I don't approve of an indefinite TBAN- I think that is overboard and draconian. I'm a fan of the limited TBANS- remove the temptation of getting involved in drama and if the disruption resumes after it expires, then talk about an indefinite TBAN. I certainly don't want to lose Tarage as a contributor. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Always the voice of reason.--v/r - TP 21:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I agree with your concern that we don't want this to just feel like someone is being crucified, but I also think the characterization that what's being addressed is a general drive-by pile-on Votes for Banning problem is not accurate. The problem is not in drive-by votes, and the proposal of bans is a lesser issue; Boing and other folks commenting have made it pretty clear that this is about rude and hostile drive-by comments that inflame, rather than extinguish, problems at ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Floquenbeam - You're more than welcome to start a new thread and have me topicbanned from AN/ANI!, I'm entitled to my opinions and I never expect anyone to agree with me, It's worth noting I comment on a wide range of things here and have on more than one occasion opposed blocks and bans against people .... I don't feel 3 or 6 month topicbans will work but like I said that's my opinion. –Davey2010Talk 23:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC) (If your comment had absolutely nothing then please accept my sincere apologies, Looking through my contribs I've certainly been coming here a lot over the past few months so maybe I too am part of the problem....but as I said if your comment had nothing to do with me then I sincerely apologise. –Davey2010Talk 13:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)) Davey2010-I also have no problem with Floquenbeam topic banning me from AN Main and ANI. A admin yesterday told me that I am only wasting my time here because I am new, but they still said it is up to me if I want to stay here. They told me that there is no rule that prevents new users from expressing their oppinions and views over a specific issue here. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC) *Even though I am not a admin, I would like to say Support strongly. The way the users talk to others is very harsh or unwelcoming. The user should get topic banned from talking on any notice boards and talk pages(with the exception of their own talk page, just for appeals that is.) In a previous discussion where I talked about my opinion on the sanctions that should be put in place against KidAd, Taraje responded with an "attack phrase". On top of that he even showed on that response that he does not know the disiplanry norms of Wikipedia, where a user should never get a indef block immediately from just a week topic ban, unless of course the user is making extremely obscene or extremely harmful edits. This was not the case with KidAd. Also Taraje is making derogatory comments when replying to talk pages of other users, thus creating a hostile environment. Until, Taraje improves the way they talk to other users I suggest that they get topic banned from notice boards and talk pages of other users. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support temporary topic ban As Writ Keeper said, it's not what's being done but how it's being done that's the issue. The dramahboards are toxic enough as it is. Miniapolis 23:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Support - Regretfully. I think Tarage is trying to help and often does, but inflammatory personal comments about people, including editors who deserve to be sanctioned for various reasons, are not helpful to the point of being mildly disruptive. I think a topic ban for 3-6 months should be sufficient to cement the idea that there are live people behind each username, and being kind is a low price to pay for a harmonious Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 23:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Tarage is a symptom of the problem. While his comments may be more incivil than those typically made at ANI, they are of a comparable substance to the average. That's not a good thing. The entire process of being dragged before a public noticeboard to resolve a dispute and be evaluated by the regulars there, and in some cases mocked or joked about, is completely contrary to any best practices surrounding dispute resolution. I still remember how unpleasant it was the one time I was dragged to a noticeboard on Meta, and that was nearly eight years ago now. I support a 3-6 month topic ban for repeated incivil and inappropriate behaviour at ANI, and hope that it sends a broader message that better behaviour is expected in general at that location. I doubt it will, but one can hope. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Oppose per WP:BUTTERFLY and WP:22PRAIRIAL. AN/I has a problem. Tarage is part of the problem, not the whole of it, or, to put it another way, cutting off a branch will not cure the bleeding. The problem we face here is not snark (or even snot) from one editor, but, rather, our equivalent of the Augean stables: A broader approach needs to be taken. Possibly—probably certainly—along the lines that Floquenbeam has already mentioned. ——SerialNumber54129 09:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Revisit Topic Ban discussion Since the 24 hour open requirement in WP:CBAN was not correctly followed (see discussion below, and the new thread further down the page) I am opening a new discussion section for a minimum of 24 more hours in an attempt to make it right. I don't believe everyone needs to vote again, but this is an opportunity for additional comments and votes. If the overall consensus shifts an Admin can redo the paperwork. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Support per my comment here. Tarage's participation adds heat to a venue that suffers dearly from excessive heat. Attack dogs are not what ANI needs. I'd prefer indefinite ban from ANI, as I think Tarage would have changed his or her ways before this proposal if he or she were capable of doing so. But the next chance, should Tarage seek and be granted one, should be the last. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Oppose community ban. Tarage is one of the ANI board regulars, one who often calls for an indefinite block from the word "Go". But he's not the only editor who frequents ANI and looks for the weak gazelle in the pack, which is often new editors who don't know their way around a noticeboard but have just been told to go there to resolve disputes (usually a big mistake). In fact, I think telling brand new editors to file a complaint on ANI over a dispute with another editor is sending them on a suicide mission and should be stopped. They almost never get the resolution they are looking for and they usually find themselves becoming the target. I think a short-term topic ban would be good for Tarage and for ANI but I don't think it will substantially alter the "gang-up on the inexperienced editor" atmosphere at ANI. My only thought is that if Tarage receives a limited topic ban for his adversarial behavior maybe others who frequent ANI to lay down the law will also back off, at least from the most egregious behavior. One can hope! Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Excuse me, but since you say that you think a "short-term topic ban" would be good, why are you !voting "oppose" here? A short-term topic ban is exactly what was being proposed. Nobody has proposed a full community ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Yes, the close (now reopened) resulted in a 3-month topic ban from AN/ANI, and nobody has proposed anything more than that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC) I just did. See my reasoning below. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC) I thought LegacyPac was talking about continuing a WP:CBAN discussion. The topic ban issue had already been settled so I was opposing a community ban. Sorry I got in late to the discussion so I was making a few comments about the entire process. Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Oppose community ban - I've gone over this a few times now and I think that there's a hasty tendency to condemn Tarage in a punitive manner, which is likely what has driven him off the project - whether or not it's temporary or permanent is immaterial. Frankly, very little of what he has said goes beyond the pale of the normal fare of incivility one sees on ANI on a day-to-day basis. I agree with Liz that a short-term topic ban would be a better solution. It would encourage Tarage to consider focusing his efforts on contributing to other areas of Wikipedia besides the aptly named "drama boards".--WaltCip (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Same question as to Liz above; could you please clarify? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Comment I already !voted before the original thread was closed. However, I just want to note that Tarage may have left the project forever. I'm not sure if there's any point (other than for process) for keeping this discussion open, since his "community topic ban" has, in a sense, become a "voluntary site ban". I think we should leave him alone, he wants to leave. SemiHypercube ✎ 12:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC) He got pissed off about being restricted from two pages on the site and left. That is his decision not anyone elses. Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC) One-week retirements are a common occurrence, far more common in my experience than permanent retirements. There's a good essay about that somewhere, I forget where, part of the gist being: Don't do it, it's dumb and makes you look impulsive and foolish. My money is on a reappearance before Christmas. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC) @Mandruss: I believe the essay you are talking about could be Wikipedia:Rage quit? SemiHypercube ✎ 12:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC) @SemiHypercube: I don't think so. That's a humorous essay and I find it hard to see much humor in such things. More likely Wikipedia:Don't be high-maintenance#Frequent threats to leave. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Well this is a fine mess. If someone has an issue with the original close, the proper course of action would be to discuss with the closer (Sandstein) and/or request a close review as a separate discussion. Since the original close, we have at various times had four discussions open regarding procedural issues with the original, and tacking on an "additional comments" section to the original, still closed discussion just introduces a whole new set of procedural issues. Is this a close review or is it a continuation of the discussion? Should editors who have already commented repeat their comments or will that be taken as double-voting? Are we challenging the close or relitigating the ban? Tarage has every right to be upset about how this has played out, and none of us is helping that situation. Tarage has chosen to quit the project, but is free to appeal if they decide to come back, and there's nothing that needs to be urgently settled in the meantime. May I suggest, out of basic decency and respect for Tarage's dignity, we immediately cease all discussions related to this and let things be? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC) See the close review linked from the top of this section. There was pretty strong support for (re)opening a discussion for process sake. No one needs to vote again or comment. This is just to let editors who did not get a chance to weigh in do that. Legacypac (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Well, if that's how we're looking at it, the ban proposal has now been on this page and open to comments for four days. It doesn't look to me like consensus is drifting from the original result, particularly seeing how several of the comments in the "additional" section are objecting to a ban that was neither proposed nor enacted, and one of those is explicitly supporting the ban that was proposed. My point is just that it's all very confusing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC) I'm sorry if my comment made things more complicated and went off on a tangent. I'd cross it out but it sounds like the best move is to close this back down rather than keeping the discussion alive. And that is it for me. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Question: Let's assume for the sake of argument that this proposal gets 5 !votes against a topic ban and 0 in favor. Does that count as 5 to 0 against, or do we add in the previous 16 !votes for a topic ban and 0 against? We did tell those 16 people not to !vote again... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC) No all the earlier votes count. And now someone overrode the process I set up and reopened the entire closed discussion. Whatever, he is going to stay topic banned anyway. Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC) IMO it was better to just reopen the whole discussion in the first place. As you said, ultimately all the previous comments were going to have been considered in any evaluation of consensus at the end of it, and by only opening this sub discussion there's clearly been a lot of confusion since some people seem to think we're talking about something else when we're still just talking about the original topic ban proposal since it wasn't open for long enough. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Support 6 month topic ban: I reject any arguments of the form "he said he was quitting so we there is no need for a topic ban". Editors often say they are quitting and then come back. Also, I think that 3 months is too short. It is pretty standard to ask disruptive editors to demonstrate that they can edit productively on other topics for 6 months, and I see no compelling reason to make an exemption this time. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Suggestion: There was some talk about identifying more AN/ANI editors who should be topic banned. Might I suggest the following instead: "Proposal: It is the consensus of the Wikipedia community that User:Example's behavior on AN/ANI is undesirable" with language explaining that this is purely advisory -- no actual sanctions -- and encouraging them to listen and change their ways. If they don't we can propose a topic ban later. "As one comment below said, "I think this is the first time User:Tarage has seen their behavior become the subject of an community discussion. Before this, it was one or two people." --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC) It seems best to warn/council problematic editors on their talkpage then bring it to AN for a wider discussion and possible action. How will an extended warning discussion help much? Tarage was told not to act this way multiple times by multiple editors. I disagree with the statement suggesting this was a surprise to them. He blew off anyone who told him to knock it off. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC) To be fair, multiple editors can be and often are wrong. I've from time to time had a handful of editors tell me I was out of line, and my reaction was: "Twenty other editors are aware of my actions and you're the only ones complaining about them. Get a consensus and I'll defer to it." I've modified my !vote above accordingly. I just wish it didn't take years to reach the point of seeking a community consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Oppose (...some confusion as to which is now the relevany section!) per WP:BUTTERFLY and WP:22PRAIRIAL. AN/I has a problem. Tarage is part of the problem, not the whole of it, or, to put it another way, cutting off a branch will not cure the bleeding. The problem we face here is not snark (or even snot) from one editor, but, rather, our equivalent of the Augean stables: A broader approach needs to be taken. Possibly—probably certainly—along the lines that Floquenbeam has already mentioned. ——SerialNumber54129 09:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Yes, there is a larger problem that dearly needs attention. Many editors have been saying that for many years, and nothing ever gets done, very possibly because this is the best we can do under our current system of self-selected self-governance. No, it is not pointless to make incremental improvements. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Oppose. Tarage was a bit rude and aggressive to me once (link above, somewhere) and on many occasions very rude and aggressive to many others, but this is the first time his conduct on AN/ANI has formally been addressed. I would like to give him the chance to change his ways before going straight to a topic ban. Many of the things he does are very helpful and I would like us to be able to retain the positive parts of his contributions while ditching the negatives. Fish Karate 10:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Comment I've already voted, so I'm just weighing in to say that I wish the community would stop obsessing over this one particular conversation. It seems like a perfect time when WP:IAR applies. Should the conversation have been left open longer? Yes. Was the conversation so controversial with a lack of clarity about the consensus such that the need to revisit it again (and discuss ad nauseam whether or not to revisit it) worth doing so, when the outcome was pretty clear to everyone involved? No. It was pretty clear from Tarage's "woe is me" reaction to everything and the fact that neither closing nor keeping open the discussion made him happy that all the continued commentary was doing was making more toxic a discussion about reducing toxicity. If Tarage were clamoring for more conversation, this reopen and ongoing conversation would make a lot more sense. In the absence of that, what are we doing, other than beating a dead horse at no one's particular request? The issue is decided, and Tarage can return and appeal the TBAN if he feels so driven. Grandpallama (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Comment I don't know if anyone expected it to make Tarage happy. But for better or worse the community decided before that cbans should be left up for 24 hours, no matter what. WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR and all that but we shouldn't forget that process can matter especially when we've outlined a clear process and then completely fail to follow it even when the person most affected wants it to. When all is said and done, even an impartial observer is IMO likely to have looked back at the details here before the reopening and say 'I don't think the process followed here was fair since it didn't follow the clearcut requirement for 24 hours, even if it was done in good faith and following the fair process is very unlikely to have unchanged the outcome'. (Definitely it was how I felt when I looked at it.) When even an impartial observer is likely to say that, it's something that can easily get under the skin of someone who is not an impartial observer but instead feels they were the victim of a thoroughly unfair process since they'll seen it as a clear brightline violation of correct procedure. (IMO this is the sort of thing were IAR and NOTBURO can fail us, if we fail to recognise that sometimes following the correct procedure can reduce perceptions people may have of being treated unfairly and for good reason.) Opening this again was never going to resolve the other concerns Tarage seem to have, but it was going to resolve one of them and which Tarage themselves indicated they did care about. Was it going to make it worse? No not really, sure people who haven't commented yet may come out in support of something Tarage clearly regarded as unfair, but by this stage, it seems unlikely it will make much difference to how they feel especially since it wasn't particularly likely there was ever going to be a mass of either supporters or opposes of the topic ban. And even if it did, I think it was clear we did this at least in part because Tarage was unhappy that it was closed early, so hopefully when Tarage was thinking clearer they would realised we did try to stop it, but they weren't happy so we decided to reverse that decision come what may. And as it turns out, this didn't happen anyway, there were some comments but not an extreme amount. So while Tarage is still unlikely to be happy, perhaps if they do ever revisit this they will at least feel that we followed the correct process even if they are still unhappy with other aspects. I.E. As I said before, not happy but the least unhappy we as a community could make them while being fair to ourselves and our POVs. As for editor's spending their time here, while perhaps it seems a waste, it is their choice. The fact that this was re-opened doesn't mean anyone had to comment. So yes the least worse outcome for everyone involved. Nil Einne (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Tarage didn't want the discussion closed, then he complained about people notifying him when it was reopened, then he said he didn't care about any of this and just wanted to be left alone. There is no other reasonable way to interpret all this follow-up as anything other than an unnecessary adherence to minutiae of policy guidelines that ignore the reality of the situation, which is that the affected user just wanted it to all be over. I don't disagree with your contention that it's something that can easily get under the skin of someone who is not an impartial observer but instead feels they were the victim of a thoroughly unfair process since they'll seen it as a clear brightline violation of correct procedure, but Tarage is clearly not that person, and this whole thing is a weird exercise in bureaucratic masturbation. Grandpallama (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Comment. This new section has already been open for significantly longer than 24 hours - can someone please put us out of this misery? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Oppose I think that Tarage maybe is the sensitive type of person. The way he responded to me via a undo edit summary, for undoing the Wikilove I sent to his talk page, makes me feel this way about him. I feel that before Tarage started acting like this on ANI, there must have been another user that tried to go on Tarage's bad side and made him angry. Probably this is what made him act like this all along. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Support per the multiple excellent points above. The living embodiment of shedding more heat than light. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Support As above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC) What is even happening with this now? - There are now so many separate related discussions to this that I can't tell what's happening where, and why. It shouldn't have been closed before 24h. Trout to the closer. Should've been kept open more and it seems fine to reopen it because of that. Now that we're back here and it's open again, but people are talking about both topic bans and community bans in this thread. I don't think the arguments for a community ban have been adequately presented (to the extent they have been presented at all), so oppose that, but yes, support a tban on noticeboards. Tarage stands out for particularly harsh comments, both in tone and calling for sanctions, that strike me as destructive more often than constructive. For those interested in shortening or lifting the tban, I'd be interested in diffs that give examples of particularly insightful, patient comments that reduce conflict and avoid sanctions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC) My feeling is that given everything that's gone on before, no one is willing to touch closing this with a ten-foot pole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC) There appears to be an overwhelming consensus for a topic ban. It's been open for well over 24 hours now, in various forms. It has spawned a number of tangents now (the sharp turn into site ban talks, shifting focus to the closure itself, etc.), but that shouldn't prevent a very straightforward outcome here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Some commenters may be mistaking a community ban, which is any editing restriction that is imposed by community consensus, with a site ban. As you stated, no one has proposed a site ban, so the comments opposing one are superfluous. isaacl (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC) That just shows that those who are saying they oppose a site ban, either do not know a clue about the banning process or the types of bans, or they are down right acting dumb and thinking that Administrator's Noticeboard is some sort of drama board. No where on Wikipedia it says that one has to take part in a discussion on this noticeboard. So if they do not know much about what is being talked about, they are better off not expressing their views until they know the differences between the different types of bans and blocks. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2018 (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. Propose WP:TROUT 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 think this is the first time User:Tarage has seen their behavior become the subject of an community discussion. Before this, it was one or two people. Having seen none of their previous "supporters" show up to defend them, I wonder if this whole thing hasn't been a humbling experience. I propose we defer action for a few weeks, with a WP:TROUT to Tarang, and see if this thread changes their behavior without a topic ban.--v/r - TP 22:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Oppose - I usually do respect this course of action, but for one thing I don't think Tarage has taken any of this to heart (they are continuing to defend themselves), and then I was also reminded about the cancer patient comment which was atrocious; in retrospect I should have blocked them then. But here we are. A trout is definitely not good enough. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Oppose. He is still dramatic and temperamental and despite claiming to have left Wikipedia he appears to be refreshing his watchlist often because of removing the talkpage post from Zebedee three minutes after he made it, unless he got an email notification. He may well return to editing once he calms down and realises it is not as big a deal as he thinks. I do feel sorry for Tarage, he is clearly hurt, but life is about victories and losses and sometimes people fail in one area and excel in another, or they need a break to try again after reflecting. People are devastated when they get bad exam results, all their hard work down the toilet, but we can’t just give everybody a pass when they fail just to avoid hurt feelings. A trout won’t resolve this situation, I am afraid. We are a welcoming community and we would like to see him back on Wikipedia editing productively, just not on AN and AN/I for a while. He needs a break from there to reflect and learn before he can return.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Support - this with a final warning that future disruptive behavior at ANI will result in the topic ban going into effect. I noticed at least two admins above commented that they had long felt and often noticed Tarage's obnoxiousness/obnoxious behavior at ANI, but yet they never blocked Tarage for it. Boing! said Zebedee warned Tarage three months ago about their behavior at ANI and when Tarage continued that behavior, they still weren't blocked. I don't know, I could be wrong, but lately it seems there is an unwillingness to block editors for disruptive/uncivil behavior, instead just letting it slide, making the editor feel comfortable and emboldened in continuing that behavior. Tarage's talk page is littered with comments about their uncivil behavior, but yet their block log shows only one block which was quickly undone. If admins can see that warnings aren't working, why aren't they blocking that editor, with escalating blocks as needed. This piling on just doesn't feel right to me, and I'm willing to give Tarage another chance to show that they have heard what the community is saying about their behavior, and take that on board to have a better attitude towards fellow editors. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Oppose the lack of previous blocks is not compelling because individual comments are not block worthy but the pattern is ban worthy. He has been asked to tone things down quite a few times and he blew that off. Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2018 (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. Post exitum 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. . . . and just like that, he's gone. I don't know if this is a good thing, or a bad thing, or what this says about him. No need to respond to this thread, I just want to put this out. SemiHypercube ✎ 00:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC) It's a disappointing result, and one I'd hoped to avoid by closing (relatively) quickly with a summary intended to be empathetic, rather than continue seeing him get beat on for another 9 hours. But it wasn't to be, I guess. Perhaps he'll come back after a break, realizing that it's actually quite nice not to have to spend time at AN and AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC) I think it shows he can give it (lots) but he sure can’t take it (even once).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC) In keeping with my goal not to let him get beat on endlessly, I'm going to close this bit too. 28bytes (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC) I appreciate why the discussion was closed, but there are good reasons why a community sanction is supposed to be discussed for 24 hours before it is enacted. The Wikipedia community is a global one and everyone should be allowed the chance to weigh in. Establishing consensus requires patience. isaacl (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Five issues with this close - three are policy issues and two my opinion: per WP:CBAN "Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." Other things in CBAN are suggestions and best practices but must is an imperative. While the intent of closing early is good, the result made things worse. The user feels slighted by the early close according to his talkpage post. Not logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions per CBAN No notification of the sanctioned party per CBAN 3 months auto expiring does not appear to be a fair read of the discussion so far. A community appeal after 3 to 6 month would be a fairer read. The close is missing to words "Topic Ban" or "Ban" or "Restriction". This discussion has shown absolute clarity is important, not only hints and suggestions. While I appreciate a soft approach, following conventions has its benefits too. AN(I) represents a disproportionate amount of their edits, and appears to be a poor fit for their temperament/skill set. I really hope they can find enjoyment working in some other more positive parts of Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Since the discussion is closed I would note 2 important points IMHO about this discussion without going into the merits (or lack thereof) of the ban. The discussion on sanctions on a regular editor, whether justified or not, deserve to remain open at least 24 hours. Especially since there was no on-going "personal attack spree" by the said editor. This sets a wrong precedent. User:Floquenbeam in this comment pointed a problem here. If there is indeed an ongoing problem with the participation of some users, shouldn't that be pointed out and discussed, so that the behavior is rectified ? Or should everyone simply be a mute spectator of these actions. Admins who are aware of such behavior and still do nothing about it are in a way encouraging such behavior and it will not be surprising to see more and more editors thinking that this is ok and indulging in similar behavior. The method to single out one user and then hand out ban, will obviously seem unfair to them since a similar behavior of the group went unchecked. Hence it is no surprise to me that they felt being singled out and promptly retired. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC) While the close was done with the best of motives, policy does require that it be left open for a minimum 24 hours, and so I think it has to be reopened. As the one who started it I won't do it myself, but I ask that someone else please do so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Actually, no, I've reopened it myself as policy is clear (and I remember another recent one where a close was reversed for exactly the same reason). @28bytes: Thank you for trying to defuse things by your early close, but it has to stay open for the 24 hours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC) And please note I informed Tarage that I had reopened it as I felt that was necessary, so he does know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC) I haven't been online much, and didn't see Tarage's ping here. If I had, I would have posted sooner to confirm that he was being very helpful to a user with poor English on my page, like he said. Indeed Tarage had more patience with the Japanese user than I did. I'm very sorry to see him so upset; as several people have pointed out above, he's certainly not the only one to sometimes be thoughtless on AN/ANI. (And now the thread just fucking closed again. Well, I'm fucking sneaking in, that's all. Sorry.) Bishonen | talk 20:01, 1 December 2018 (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.

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.

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.

Return of admin permissions for Orangemike

The Arbitration Committee has verified Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is back in control of their account via multiple methods. The committee therefore reinstates their administrative user right, which was previously removed by motion. The committee also urges him to enable 2 factor authentication on his account.

Supporting: Euryalus, Opabinia regalis, RickinBaltimore, BU Rob13, Newyorkbrad, Mkdw, KrakatoaKatie

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 17:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Return of administrative rights for Orangemike

The Arbitration Committee has verified Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is back in control of their account via multiple methods. The committee therefore reinstates their administrative user right, which was previously removed by motion. The committee also urges him to enable 2 factor authentication on his account.

Supporting: Euryalus, Opabinia regalis, RickinBaltimore, BU Rob13, Newyorkbrad, Mkdw, KrakatoaKatie

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Return of administrative rights for Orangemike

For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've joined these sections. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back Orangemike. Welcome back Orangemike. Fish Karate 10:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The request for arbitration was accepted, but the case will not be opened at this time in light of Jytdog's statement that he is retiring from Wikipedia and he disabled his access to his account. Jytdog may not resume editing, under any account name or IP, without notifying and obtaining permission from the Arbitration Committee

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog

To enforce this motion Jytdog has been blocked indefinitely by the Arbitration Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Community Wishlist

People watching this page might be interested in looking through the specific category at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Admins and patrollers. At the moment, the most popular proposal that is specifically admin-related is m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Admins and patrollers/Create an integrated anti-spam/vandalism tool.

For the newer folks: Voting is open for approximately another four days. The Community Wishlist uses straight approval voting (i.e., "oppose votes" are pointless). Vote for as many proposals as you want. The top 10 vote-getters will be addressed by the devs. There is a ===Discussion=== section on each proposal, and that's the best place to report any concerns or document particular use cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, to be more accurate "oppose votes aren't counted towards the total". They're not 'pointless', since opposing something with an explanation of why you think it's a bad idea can make other potential supporters reconsider, and also acts as a marker to the devs that "although this has made it into the top ten you should probably stop and consider whether we should really be doing this". (As you know, the wishlist survey is very much an advisory referendum rather than a binding vote; if the WMF are genuinely committed to implementing any proposal that made it into the top ten regardless of how bad an idea it is, give me half an hour on Reddit and I could assemble a binding consensus to replace the death star logo on every page with goatse.) ‑ Iridescent 23:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, is there any chance of old wishes becoming fulfilled? I wished back in 2016 that you would fix the "hiding" bug (link) (The phabr ticket is from 2007 (!))...but, frankly, it looks as if the task is just shuffled from one incompetent developer to another. Huldra (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I use old lists to see what would be nice to work on. The Community Tech team doesn't look at them, though, so wishes that aren't taken on by the team must be resubmitted each voting period until they are. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent, the oppose vote (the vote itself, rather than any comments that follow it) is pointless. Informative comments about why the proposal is a bad idea (or how it must not infringe upon a particular non-obvious process, etc.), however, can be extremely helpful.

CommTech's promise is to "address" the top 10 vote-getters. Usually, if the "addressing" is going to involve words like "the PM says you'll implement that only over his dead body", then the proposal is removed before the voting stage. But in the general case, there is a gap between "addressing" and "implementing", and I hear (although I've not bothered to check) that one or two wishes most years end up not getting implemented (e.g., if the proposal is significantly more complicated than initially estimated).

Huldra, maybe next year we should all band together and try to push that one to the top. I think these last couple of years have shown that the first-place position goes to the organized. As it stands now, I don't think that any admin-specific proposals are likely to win. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, well that bug isn't really admin-specific, it is the reason I miss out major vandalism, as changes do not come up on my watch list if there has been a bot editing after the vandalism.(You can, eg first vandalise, then at the same time add a cn template....a bot will come along in minutes and add the date to the cn template, and presto: your vandalism does not come up on peoples watch lists...) And I am totally, utterly disgusted by the incompetence of the WMF developers, who haven't managed to fix this major bug in over a decade. To be blunt: I have given up asking for anything from the WMF developers. Huldra (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a "bug". Your personal watchlist settings are set to not show a page at all if the most recent edit was made by a bot. The watchlist is giving you exactly what you asked for. "Doing what you asked for" == "not a bug".

If you don't like what you're asking for, then you should change your settings. There are currently two different ways to see those "hidden" pages. The first is to always show bot edits, and most experienced editors do this. The second is to show all edits separately, which some editors strongly prefer (but not me!).

I really like the wishlist proposal (which is to provide a third method of seeing articles that have been edited most recently by a bot), but what we've got isn't a bug. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, User:WhatamIdoing for that explanation; I didn't know. Alas, I have more than 7,500 articles on my "watch list"; (which normally works, as the vast majority of those articles are about little edited places in the Middle East). Alas, with that number of articles on my "watch list", it is completely unpractical to also see the bot edits. And it is really counterintuitive (at least to me!), that when I ask for bot edits to be ignored, I also "automatically" ask for the non–bot edits (before the bot edit) to be ignored. Why on earth would any editor want such a solution? (It might be easy to implement this for those who wrote the code....but I cannot see any reason why an editor would want such a solution: there is a reason why editors have been going on about this for more than a decade,) Huldra (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's a suboptimal design, which is why I'd like to see that third option implemented. (It's not just bots. If you hide minor edits, you lose everything before them, too. This means that if someone reverts part of the vandalism and marks the revision as minor, then you miss everything.)

I've been watching the wishlist for the last few years, and I think that the winning formula looks like marking your calendar for early October, at which point, you find out what the official schedule is, and start soliciting advice (on how to explain the problem) and interest in the communities (because if nobody else is interested, it's a waste of time). Without a month or so of legwork, I'm not sure that this problem will ever quite make it to the top of the wishlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, User:WhatamIdoing, I have made a note for October 2019 (If I'm still around, then!). Huldra (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Albania–Greece relations

Sorry if this is not the right place to bring this. The Albania–Greece relations article has had problems with warring/too many reverts lately. As not all the involved editors are discussing on the talk page but just reverting, could someone protect the article or do sth other that could help calm down the situation? The discussion on the talk page is long and the content dispute has become tiring. No matter in what version the article is protected, the important thing is to stop the reverting rally. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Solved by an admin. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Link: [106]Resnjari (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Community article moved from Kansas to Missouri, need help moving back to Kansas

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 community article for Stilwell, Kansas was moved to Stilwell, Missouri. Someone please move it back to Kansas. Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Just close your eyes, click your red shoes together and say "there's no place like home". Britmax (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

In the meanwhile,  Done by Jacknstock--Ymblanter (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2018 (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.

Technical issue with article move

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.

---

Hello. I need help over a mistake I did when trying to rename 2 articles anew. I think there was a conflict and I can't rename the 2nd article. Undo doesn't seem to be available to resolve the issue. Am I on the right site here to request a help from some admin? Thanks. --J. Sketter (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You're in the right place. Don't panic, someone (probably not me) will get to it soon. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Very good no hurry. The intention is to separate 2 sport contests as follows:

• rename Women's World Chess Championship 2018 (match) -> Women's World Chess Championship 2018 (May)
• rename Women's World Chess Championship 2018 (tournament) -> -> Women's World Chess Championship 2018 (November)
• instead of redirs, create a disambiguation page for "Women's World Chess Championship 2018" --J. Sketter (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

 Checking... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

J. Sketter - Okay... so, I've renamed Women's World Chess Championship 2018 (match) to be Women's World Chess Championship 2018 (May), and noticed that Women's World Chess Championship 2018 (tournament) was already renamed to Women's World Chess Championship 2018 (November) (hence no action was required). I modified the Women's World Chess Championship 2018 article, removed the redirect manually, and added some content to make it a disambiguation page. Does everything look good now? Or are you still seeing issues? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Modified the disambiguation page text a little but the technical mess was sorted out. Thank you very much. --J. Sketter (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

J. Sketter - You bet. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 10 December 2018 (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/Fred Bauder closed

An arbitration case regarding Fred Bauder has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Fred Bauder is admonished for engaging in an edit war on his candidate's questions page. Future edit-warring or disruptive behavior may result in further sanctions.
2. For multiple self-unblocks, wheel-warring, and abuse of rollback, Fred Bauder is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
3. Boing! said Zebedee is cautioned for blocking Fred Bauder while actively involved in an edit war with him at the time. He is further cautioned to avoid edit-warring, even in cases where the other editor is editing disruptively.
4. Editors should seek assistance from the Electoral Commission for issues that arise on pages related to the Arbitration Committee Elections that cannot be easily resolved (excluding, for example, obvious vandalism). The Arbitration Committee reaffirms that the Electoral Commission has been tasked with the independent oversight of the Arbitration Committee Elections. Matters which are of a private matter should be referred to the Arbitration Committee or functionaries team as normal.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 08:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements

The Wikimedia Foundation security team is implementing a new password policy and requirements. You can learn more about the project on MediaWiki.org.

These new requirements will apply to new accounts and privileged accounts. New accounts will be required to create a password with a minimum length of 8 characters. Privileged accounts will be prompted to update their password to one that is at least 10 characters in length.

These changes are planned to be in effect on December 13th. If you think your work or tools will be affected by this change, please let us know on the talk page.

Thank you!

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Block request

I am requesting that my former test account, User:Steel1943 (test), be permanently indefinitely blocked. I cannot recall the password for that account, and did not have an email set up for it to reset the password, so I’m requesyinh that it be permanently blocked in the event the account gets compromised, especially considering that I will not be using it anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done If you ever DO remember the password, just ask and I'll be happy to unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Thank you. Would you be able to revoke that account's ability to edit its own talk page and send emails as well? If I ever recall the password for that account, I’ll request it be unblocked from my main/this account. Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You got it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle P-Batch Page Limit?

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a limit to the number of pages that can be protected in one request using p-batch? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This question is probably better suited to either WT:TWINKLE or WP:VPT. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Block request

I am requesting that my former test account, User:Steel1943 (test), be permanently indefinitely blocked. I cannot recall the password for that account, and did not have an email set up for it to reset the password, so I’m requesyinh that it be permanently blocked in the event the account gets compromised, especially considering that I will not be using it anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done If you ever DO remember the password, just ask and I'll be happy to unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Thank you. Would you be able to revoke that account's ability to edit its own talk page and send emails as well? If I ever recall the password for that account, I’ll request it be unblocked from my main/this account. Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You got it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle P-Batch Page Limit?

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a limit to the number of pages that can be protected in one request using p-batch? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This question is probably better suited to either WT:TWINKLE or WP:VPT. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle Meganuke

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.

---

Discussion on Wikipediocracy has identified a new Twinkle rollback script by Bellezzasolo called "Meganuke." The script is a de facto blocking tool, automatically rolling back all past and future edits by a user. I feel this is a tool of exponentially more power than Rollback and should not be implemented without broad community discussion. Documentation is HERE. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh there is no way someone could abuse that for evil, neferent purposes... /s spryde | talk 18:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

So... because you've advertised a nuke that I am capable of getting, I now have a nuke. Much obliged. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, don't blame the messenger, I'm just identifying a problem. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This was "identified" by wikipediocracy? This was discussed onwiki just recently... Natureium (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Where? When? Carrite (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Carrite, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GiantSnowman_bot-assisted_rollback_of_good-faith_edits SQL^{Query me!} 04:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a brilliant script, I have used it many times and it quickly prevents vandals from disrupting. I think rollbackers are able to handle the tool appropriately. Flooded with them hundreds 18:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Not much more powerful than repeatedly refreshing the page and tapping rollback; rollback rights allows you access to huggle which can easily cause as much disruption as that script could if not used correctly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The script allows you to roll back edits the user hasn't made yet? That's not okay. The various massRollback scripts floating around (and every other process we have) only roll back existing revisions. Did I read that wrong? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

To put this in the scope of our existing policies: a tool which allows monitoring an account and automatically reverting any contrib they make is equivalent to operating an unsanctioned bot, and any user found to be engaging in use of such a tool will be blocked from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree wholly with Ivanvector. This is an unauthorized bot-like script that, as Carrite notes, acts as a de facto blocking tool. I strongly suggest (to the edge of insisting) that no one use this script until it be fully vetted with regard to its compliance to our blocking and bot policies. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Can someone please post a link to the previous discussion regarding this script? Because it seems like a pretty big leap from rollbacking edits known to be vandalism to using a tool that prevents further edits.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• It doesn't appear ever to have been discussed before. As a general note, if I see anyone making an inappropriate revert using this script I'll instantly pull the rollback right from the editor in question if it's a single edit and block for running an unauthorised bot if there's a pattern, and I assume I speak for every other admin in that. ‑ Iridescent 19:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• 1. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I remember the discussion, I don't think it was linked. Sadly I don't recall where it took place. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think you're misremembering; the term "meganuke" has never previously been used in any discussion. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: @Iridescent: Found it. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not it. That was a discussion about a mass-rollback tool which allows rolling back a user's existing contribs, which has been around for ten years. There's nothing wrong with that, users take responsibility for its use, and as you can see from that discussion there's accountability when usage goes awry. That script (and no other scripts that I'm aware of) enable indiscriminately preventing a user from editing at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector Read Bellezzasolo's comments in that discussion. Bellezzasolo discusses and links to this script. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Although with a certain degree of irony, the author of that tool turned out to be a good-hand account of one of Wikipedia's most prolific vandals and sockmasters... ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent the mass rollback linked is Writ Keepers? –xeno^talk 21:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

xeno, no, it's John254's; WK took over the maintenance when J254 and his sockfarm were shown the door. ‑ Iridescent 21:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 4) I think that the onus should be on the user to ensure that they’re using a powerful tool correctly and within policy (WP:TWABUSE), per WP:ROLLBACKUSE and the Uncle Ben rule. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) After taking a look at the source code, and per Ivanvector, I’m somewhat disturbed that it uses the API to frequently check user contributions and revert immediately after the user submits. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/meganuke.js. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  I think the discussion about the tool (or a similar one) is (it's still happening) this one at ANI. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  Not the same tool or problem (as noted above). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: User:Winged Blades of Godric, if I catch you trying to run this, you're instantly blocked. You've had more than enough final warnings (including from me), and IAR doesn't mean you get to choose with which Wikipedia policies you're going to comply; Wikipedia:Bot policy is one of our most strictly enforced rules, not something you can unilaterally decide doesn't apply to you. ‑ Iridescent 20:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I've just G4d it to remove the temptation. If you disagree with an MfD, I'm sure you know where to find Deletion Review; if you want to run a bot on your account, I'm sure you know where to find BAG. ‑ Iridescent 20:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent:, what? You need to know that no script can't be run from a sub-page in user-space. If I have got any intention of running it (in what is an extremely crude and blunt form for my slightest liking; bot-like-scope, no allowance for t/p edits, no enforced RR limit and what not...... ), I would have straight copied it to my .js an if I had done that, that would have been a quite good reason to edit my .js (and/or probably block me) as executing stuff which is in clear contravention of community-consensus. Copying the code, to user space, so that I can take a look at it later, (I initially planned to copy that to test.wiki but it was weirdly not opening, at that moment) ain't.

The MFD's closure pretty clearly established a consensus that such scripts are wholly unauthorized to run; nothing more than that. There is no need to delve into extreme paranoia and attack other well-meaning editors about whether they shall be on wiki or not.

FWIW, this (or any similar code) can be used by someone without giving the slightest hints that it's pulled from any script. The reason to remove rollback flag and/or block shall be in the evidence of any fuck-up/misuse (and I've full sympathies for drastic measures, even in case of trivial errors; given that the community sentiment is abundantly clear) ; not because someone just chooses to have this (or similar) fancy code in their .js/user-sub-page. Don't try to patrol js pages (and user-subpages); point them to the discussion (with an implication, that any trivial error will guarantee a flag-revocation and/or block) and kindly leave them to use their discretion.∯WBG^converse 03:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Beat me by a second! Good G4. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've also deleted two others, and the sandbox of the original. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The consensus at the MfD (of which I was a participant) would suggest an RfC would be needed to give the community the opportunity to decide whether they're happy having some form of automatic rollback of the edits from a specific user or IP address, where there's no assessment of the edit itself. I would therefore add that I disagree with Iri (in the kindest way possible) that BAG is an appropriate venue to ask for permission to deploy this script, in the first instance. Nick (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Unclosing, as there are a couple of loose ends (e/c with Iri who mentions one of them, and handled it differently than I suggest below). First, looks like a lot of people were importing this to their common.js page. For the ones loading from Bellazzasolo's page, these are now nonfunctional and harmless. Some created their own copy in their own space; I assume these should be nuked too? Bellazzasolo also has a copy in their sandbox, that is only imported into their own common.js page; leave that alone for testing and/or a bot request? I suggest leaving it there as long as no one loads it in their common.js page, but others may disagree. At least one user saved a personal copy as text, so it can't be loaded to anyone's common.js page. I assume that isn't a problem; this isn't "how to make an atom bomb in your kitchen", I assume we aren't trying to stuff the toothpaste completely back in the tube. Thoughts? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

WBG's copy was a clear G4 as it was a blatant attempt to circumvent a deletion discussion, but that won't apply to others. I'd suggest either getting an interface admin to remove it from other people's .js pages, or making it very clear to each person individually that if they use it they'll be treated as running a bot on their main account. Bellazzasolo ought to be able to keep their copy for any potential BAG request, provided they don't actually try to run it. ‑ Iridescent 20:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; I misread the timstamp on WBG's page, and thought he'd saved a copy when he first saw it, not when it was already clear what the outcome of the MFD would be. I'll leave a note on people's pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Any copies of that script are textbook G4s, as they have been moved to user space simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. As running the script is also a violation of the bot policy, any copies found should be removed on sight. Bradv🍁 21:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  Everyone I saw so far (1 exception) were created before the ANI thread. They weren't trying to circumvent anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: There's nothing about timing in the WP:G4 criteria. I think it's fair to say that when something gets deleted for violating policy, it applies to all copies as well, unless they are kept "as a draft for explicit improvement". Bradv🍁 21:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Bradv: I'm not really complaining about the decision to delete. But you specifically said they created the copies in order to circumvent the deletion. They didn't. Perhaps just poor wording. I note that all copies, including Bellazzasolo's sandbox copy, have now been deleted by other admins, and further note that no one has bothered to tell the editors who created copies in good faith before this thread started why their pages were deleted. It's possible to think this script should be deleted, without thinking the people using it should be treated like jerks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: Ah I see the confusion. Yes, I was just quoting the policy to justify G4, not trying to question other editors' motives. And I agree that those editors whose scripts were deleted should receive notices pointing them to the MfD. Bradv🍁 21:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's on me, I got interrupted by the spotty library wifi. Users now notified (and linked here). Amory(u • t • c) 21:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Amorymeltzer: If you look at the author's usertalk contribs (10:50ish UTC today, it looks like a few others might have the script (or at least the old version of it) too. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  I found the ones I did by searching for lines from the code. I double checked subpages of those users, though, and we're all clear. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

We already have one Admin who likes to blindly revert past edits. There is no reason to have a script that reverts future edits. Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• I strongly caution anyone who is tempted to save the source code that, by the script’s nature, it uses MediaWiki’s API to automatically revert users without an editor’s judgement for edits beyond executing the script. In other words, by its nature, it should be considered to be an unauthorized bot, and WP:MEATBOT doesn’t apply with this script. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Regardless of anything else, this script reverts all of an editor's edits where they are the current revision. That means that, for a dynamic IP, it will revert any current edit made by a different person who was allocated that IP address beforehand, whether they are good edits or not. That is, effectively, vandalism, is it not? Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• (ec)Be advised that the script has been published as part of the WPO thread; there is no cramming the genie back in the bottle. I don't know a bot script from a prescription bottle but I assume there is some way to implement safeguards against malicious introduction of an altered similar script. People should get on that if there is anything that needs to be done to block it. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• To cut to the chase, perhaps, but has the script ever actullay been used? If it has, that presumably means that their are *innocent* editors out there who are effectively blocked and have no means of appealing. That actually makes it more powerful than an admin block. But perhaps it was never used? ——SerialNumber54129 21:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm finally able to reply. I brought this script up in the discussion linked by A lad insane. Since I was referring to my own script, I didn't use the name meganuke. Now, it would be quite easy to restrict this script to a different set of user groups, or have an AWB style improvement mechanism. Regarding speed concerns, the use of this script is constrained by the ratelimit - indeed, if you run multiple instances of the script, that is cumulative. No one user account can run this script at an insane rate, unless an administrator. Regarding the future reversion capability, many times I've identified a vandal and just sat watching their contributions page, reverting any new edits on sight. This is particularly the case with vandals making rapid edits.

This brings me to the raison d'etrê of this script, the refdesk vandal. The refdesk vandal is, as is well known, a nightmare to deal with. They are running a bot that uses open proxies to hop IP addresses and avoid rate limits. Administrator intervention can take 15 minutes. By the time a manual editor is reverting a contribution, an intervening edit has been made by the vandal. This leads to vile personal attacks persisting for some length of time. A previous version of my script checked for new contributions every second, and it was overwhelmed earlier today.

Regarding bot policy, there are two distinct phases of the script. The first phase, which is rapid reversion of the existing contributions, is clearly OK re Writ Keeper's script. The second phase, which is the automated reversion, only operates at the speed of the other user. There is a significant difference to an actual block - the edits are still made, and hence can be scrutinised. A minor difference, but misuse of this tool by a non-admin would result in a quick block. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You lost any sympathy from me at many times I've identified a vandal and just sat watching their contributions page, reverting any new edits on sight. If you think that's in any way appropriate, you shouldn't even be on Wikipedia, as the kind of arrogance that makes you feel entitled to revert edits without even looking at them is completely the antithesis of what we stand for. ‑ Iridescent 21:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not really fair. When a non-admin identifies an obvious vandalism-only acct, or the refdesk nazi troll, or similar, and reports it to AIV and it takes 10-20 minutes for an admin to block, this is perfectly acceptable behavior. There were potential collateral problems with the script, but I don't understand this beating down on Bellezzasolo and the other people who apparently used this program in good faith, and who did it manually in good faith with no apparent problems before that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

1. LTA edits are revert on sight, and the odds of a dynamic IP changing in the 10 minutes of reverting/when the script is used and someone editing in good faith happens to use that IP is <<1/100. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Iridescent: Suppose you didn't have your admin bit. An IP has, in the last 5 minutes, done nothing but add 50 goatse images to various articles linked from the Main Page, you've already reported them to WP:AIV and WP:ANI, and they're making 10 edits/minute. Would you check each and every one of their contributions before reverting? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If the edits are very obviously identical (same edit summary, same edit size) it might be safe to assume they're all identical, but otherwise at an absolute minimum I'd hover over the diff and check the popup. ‑ Iridescent 22:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention the problem mentioned above, of all current edits by an IP being reverted, even those that might have been made by a good-faith editor who previously had that IP address. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I'm only talking about the statement that Iridescent singled out, many times I've identified a vandal and just sat watching their contributions page, reverting any new edits on sight (emphasis added), as being completely the antithesis of what we stand for. I agree that reverting old edits without checking is always a bad idea, whether done with a script or manually. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of old edits is limited to the length of the contributions page. My standard practice when using it (identical function to massrollback.js) is to revert, look through the contributions page for timestamps different from the current spree, then review those edits. All the vandalism gone, with editor time applied usefully. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Eh thats kinda dependent on connection speed. The reality is given a block of questionable high speed edits from an account the tendency has always been to check a random selection then rollback the lot (using ctrl click or scroll wheel click). Yes in theory there might be a good edit in there somewhere but assume good faith has its limits.©Geni (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Iridescent: It's a statement that applies when reverting rapid fire vandalism like the refdesk vandal. If everybody stopped to review the contents of the edit, the refdesks would be flooded. No, the edit summary is enough. In fact, that the IP was used by the RDV in the last 5 minutes would be enough for me. Remember that blocking is preemptive prevention of editing, with no way of reviewing the edits that would have been made. A decision admins routinely make. Obviously, non admins should only behave that way in the most unambiguous cases, like NACs, but reviewing all edits is at times a pointless waste of time. It's far better that time is spent making sure that good faith edits on a dynamic IP aren't affected (an issue with mass rollback, no issue with my added functionality). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Good faith edits on a dynamic IP could easily be affected by your script - if someone has accidentally left the script running, when the IP is reallocated and new editor comes along, they'll have every edit they make automatically reverted. Nick (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nick: It would be fairly trivial to add a timeout to the code. All other kinds of safeguards could be added, too, like preventing use on 30/500 accounts - with the obvious disadvantage of not operating against compromised accounts. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: Another possible safeguard (idea stolen from here) would be to require that the rolled-back user is currently linked from WP:AIV and no admin has commented on the report. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: Not a bad idea, although implementing that code would be non-trivial, and it would be quite easy to game. For added complexity you could dig through AIV history, but I think that would slow down the script significantly. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The script should also be reporting automatically to AIV after the usual number of reverts (although acting on such an AIV report will be tricky, as the editor won't be warned automatically, and they can't be warned automatically because we don't know what was wrong with the edit and for what to warn them). The whole problem with this script is it just leaves a vandal reverting/editing back and forwards with an automated script (which makes it a bot, for the purposes of our policies) but does nothing to actually get them blocked quickly. It's good to revert vandalism/problematic editing, of course, but it's having a bad edit occur and it being reverted is all very disruptive. Nick (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It should also still not be used, at all. I understand and sympathize with the goal in mind for it, the refdesk vandal is a serious problem, but I have to agree with others that using this is essentially the same as running an unauthorized admin bot. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Unauthorized admin bot" aside, it's just behavior that is plainly covered by the bot policy. It's automated editing, so while I appreciate Bellezzasolo that it's only as fast as the targeted user, speed isn't required to be considered a bot or bot-like. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree, Beeblebrox, I'm just pointing out the vast number of other issues that also exist with the script to head off any suggestions about going through BAG with it etc - lack of reporting to AIV and no ability to warn users about the edits being reverted, no safeguards to prevent the script being left running for hours or days, no way for a concerned user to disable the script should it be left running or go wrong (only admins removing rollback or blocking the user would stop its use), no safeguards to ensure the correct user is being targeted, no safeguards to prevent deliberate malicious use (such as a checkpage system) and the fact that it completely falls foul of our bot policy. There's so many issues with it that there's no possible way it could ever be approved by the community. Nick (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• I can't believe anyone would even think that this is remotely okay. WTF???  Swarm  {talk}  03:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• At least it doesn't predict future vandalism, a la The Minority Report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• As Winged Bla said at the MfD, it's useful for dealing with LTAs and obvious vandals. There have been instances when vandals were free to parade on pages while their report sat at AIV without any action. The script's run can be ended by simply closing or refreshing the page, there's no real risk of abuse. If there was, it can be dealt with via revocation of the rollback right. Flooded with them hundreds 08:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

We already have tools for dealing with LTAs and obvious vandals: the admin tools. If you think admins are responding too slowly, the solution is to put yourself up for RfA and help, not write a script to give you pseudo-admin powers with no community approval.

I'd go further than Swarm: if you think using semi-automated tools like this is remotely okay, there's no way you're competent enough to be trusted with rollback or similar advanced rights. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Uhm Joe... they did that already. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

My comment was directed more at Bellezzasolo (who wrote the script) – but of course not passing RfA should also be a pretty obvious sign that the community doesn't trust you with the tools 'meganuke' tries to replicate. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Flooded with them hundreds: "There have been instances when vandals were free to parade on pages while their report sat at AIV without any action." I'd be interested to see some examples (preferably with diffs) so I can judge this problem for myself. From my experience, the Trump and main page vandalism is generally dealt with quickly and effectively, and AIV reports are cleared out pretty fast. The problem I have with this script is as well as the issue to wreck absolute havoc with good faith edits as described above, it's effectively a non-admin's way of circumventing they don't have a block button, and solving the same problem but without any community consensus to do so and without any evaluation of the risks and side effects. I wouldn't recommend anything more than a trout slap to Bellezzasolo for doing it, and to say if they really want to fix the issue correctly, they should file a request for adminship, or work with the WMF to provide better anti-vandalism tools. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 it was one morning some months ago, the main Hugglers weren't around so I went for it as the vandalism kept coming. At that time, some of the unanswered AIV reports were taken away by a bot. Flooded with them hundreds 12:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Both Trump and the main page are protected, and will be protected for any foreseeable time, so that vandalism there is coming from compromised accounts only. The main problem now is refdesks, where the vandal reappears right after the protection has expired, and they can not be protected for a long time because newbies are expected to post there.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  The ref desks are really not a good example to use. This script is simply not going to be effective when someone is using multiple IP addresses at the same time, as can be seen at the ref desks yesterday - no matter how fast it's run. Sometimes, rollback is just inferior to other types of reversion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  To be clear, I was not advocating the use of the script even for refdesks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is a blocking tool for non-admins. Those seeing a strong need for it should request adminship instead of evading the established community process. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Whacks head against skillet I'll ignore the who-thought-this-was-a-brilliant-idea and it's defenders for a quick opinion on mass revert scripts. Don't mass rollback more than 100 edits, ever. You will spend so much time double checking them (you are double checking them, right?) it will be a waste of your time. I only use mass rollback scripts for <50 edits where ORES has flagged the majority of them as inappropriate, and I feel that removing them from public view stat is of greater benefit to everyone than checking them all and then reverting. (BTW I only mass revert indef blocked accounts, anyone who hasn't been given the boot by the community deserves respect in the treatment of their contributions.) Immediately after I mass rollback I then, starting with oldest edits, go through them via my contribs list and check the diffs to make sure it was vandalism or otherwise appropriate for reversion. Minor stuff I hand fix with an edit summary explaining, an the 5 or 6 OK diffs I invariably shouldn't have reverted in the first place I just rollback my self on. Due to the fact that every single time I can remember using MR I made an error, I have basically ceased from using entirely, though I do keep it around for the <10 edit indeed vandals and for just in case. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• L3X1, read the above thread in full. The author and defenders of this script are not only not double checking their reverts, they're explicitly boasting that they don't bother double checking their reverts on the grounds that reviewing all edits is at times a pointless waste of time. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think, that there are some limited use cases for this tool especially for users whose first two edits are oversightable gross defamations of a BLP or for users who are clearly a V-O-A, despite ample amounts to AGF. In some such cases, I have resorted to reloading the contributions page, and reverting on sight, which is basically what this script does except that it is automatic. — fr  18:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have some sympathy for Bellezzasolo for doing this in good faith, but as so many have said above, it's an absolute no-no. Blindly reverting edits that have already been made is bad enough (though that can possibly be excused if a vandal is making the same seriously unsuitable edit across multiple pages, provided all reverts are promptly checked). But setting an attack script to blindly revert all future edits is... whoa! I know this has all been said already, and I wouldn't have bothered if I didn't have some thoughts on the "genie is out of the bottle" comments about the script code being easily accessible. With or without this script, easy access to the Mediawiki API itself makes for some horrible potential outcomes. Is it completely open to anyone? Are there any minimum requirements for an editor to gain access to the API? (Actually, even with API access restrictions, a screen-scraping approach could be used to do the same things). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: As far as I can tell from mw:API:Main page API access is open to everyone, same as Wikipedias are publicly editable. And mw:API:Edit implies that blocked users/IPs can't use the edit API (the one under discussion here) when they are blocked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, that's largely what I expected, given the availability of tools like Twinkle and Huggle (which make extensive API use) to people with no special permissions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• People are jumping on Bellezzasolo too hard here. The motivating usage he described (reverting the refdesk troll during the 15 minutes that it takes an admin to arrive) deserves some sympathy. I agree it would be terrible to let the thing run unattended but the scene I imagine is that Bellezzasolo is sitting in front of his computer while the script operates. Maybe it could pop an alert showing the diff every time it reverted, so Bellezzasolo check that the revert was legit. I'm a bot skeptic in general but this instant mechanized reversion is an interesting DNFTT in that it turns the balance of pain back towards the troll.

  Also it's ridiculous wishful thinking to say BOTPOL "is one of our most strictly enforced rules". Look at how many arb cases there have been about bot misuse, most of which end up with toothless remedies followed by the misuse continuing. There should really be page rate limiting enforced at the server, though that wouldn't help the specific case of the refdesk troll. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The script did use mw.notify to alert of reversions, although that doesn't link to any reversion performed (User contributions would be easier). Regarding limits, they do exist - mw:Manual:$wgRateLimits. There's a limit on IPs/Newbies of 8 edits/minute, users have 90/minute. Users have a rollback limit of 10/minute (if they can rollback). Rollbackers can make 100 rollbacks in a minute - [107]. Of course, admins are not affected by rate limits, but they have block anyway. A new feature of the script at the point of deletion was giving administrators the ability to mass-revdel edits by a user, which I expect would save a lot admin time with the RDV. I envisage it being easy to add a start time for both the mass-rollback and mass-revdel, which could limit the danger of collateral damage.

To be clear, I'm proposing a new script, without the auto-revert. It would be the old script without the check function. I'd then rework the reversion to be based on a provided time, to a maximum of 1 day in the past. For non-admins, the script would be mass rollback, with a different interface and a time limit. For admins, it would add the ability to revdel edits and delete page creations, again with a time limit. Any objections? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally I'm fine with whatever, as long as it's not doing anything in relation to future edits. The problem with the whole thing is accountability, which isn't a problem if you're only undoing things that happened in the past, noting that everyone is responsible for their own use of any of the tools. Mass-revdel is intriguing, and if you're taking feature requests then a useful feature would be an interface to select edits to revert/revdelete, so the script doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I've already made an equivalent massRevdel script at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js, which does pretty much what you're asking for. As for the meganuke, I'd say that while Belezzasolo's proposal probably all right policy-wise, it's a little scope-overloaded. It's just linking a lot of different things together. I'm reminded of the first program I ever wrote on my own, which was a paint program and also a music player; the instructor I showed it to, instead of being impressed like I hoped, asked me why. My first lesson in DOTADIW, I suppose. YMMV, I suppose, but I feel like it'd be better to break these functions out, rather than have them all tied up into one unwieldy package. (Let me add that I claim no particular authority or insight into anything, and may well be talking out of my ass. :P ) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: User:Kangaroopower/scripts/Mass Rollback offers control of the individual revisions. Personally, if you need that level of control, I'd be just using the individual rollback links (although, a summary is useful...). @Writ Keeper: Tying in the revdel and reversion makes sense, seeing as revdel does nothing when that revision is current... but then again, I'm a fan of a small suite of closely tied functions. Then, tying in form of Special:Nuke is close to the revdel function, and handy for page creating vandals. Eh, I think it's a matter of personal preference. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, I'll check out those links. I kind of agree with both of you: simplicity is good, users can just select which scripts they want to install for themselves, but I can also see the case for doing mass-rollback and mass-revdel all at once. Bellezzasolo in case I didn't say it before, this "meganuke" script was a pretty elegant solution and I don't think anyone is suggesting you had malicious intent from creating it (I'm certainly not) but I tend to agree it was too dangerous to be available to everyone. There's a lot of noise this week about rollback in general, maybe your script will yet be useful. Thanks for all the work you coder folks do anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and a note(/bug report/feature request) for anyone interested in taking a look: the massrollback scripts don't seem to work on an IPv6 range contribs page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:36, 12 December 2018 (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.

Topic Ban appeal

There is clear consensus to rescind the topic ban. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Good day,

hereby, I am appealing my topic ban once again. I was „indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to automobile and units of measurement of any kind, broadly construed.“ Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Back in Spring 2017, I created a controversy surrounding the use of SI units in Wikipedia automobile articles that lead to a devastating conflict during Summer and Autumn of that year. Now, more than one year later, I consider my own behaviour unreasonable, stubborn and sort of obsessive. I have wasted months desperately attempting to change consensus, ending up fighting against several other authors – which led to the topic ban and even a 6-month-block. Frankly speaking, it was stupid and did not only cause days of frustration for myself, but also other editors. Therefore, I wish to apologise to everyone who was involved back then. I do not intend to return to my old behaviour and I am willing to accept the concept of consensus. Before drastically changing or even attempting to change well established ways of „how to do it“ I will ask other editors. At this point, the topic ban is not required anymore since I do not wish to harm any further. Being mainly an author of the German language Wikipedia, the content I am contributing to the English language Wikipedia may seem little, but please note that it doesn't mean that I am an unexperienced editor who is incapable of writing proper articles. The article air-blast injection, which I have created, gives a good overview of how I wish to contribute to Wikipedia and what content I would like to contribute in the future. In the German language Wikipedia, several of "my" articles have received positive criticism, including what equals "good" and "featured" article status in the English language Wikipedia. Lifting the ban would definitely help me with contributing, as the ban has proven finding topics unrelated to "automobile" difficult.

Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI link Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal of TBAN. Work here since has been productive and has avoided the contentious issues and the confrontational behaviour that was a problem in the past. I'm confident that there is no siginificant risk to withdrawing this, and there is a clear intention to work in that field. Also it was never the field of the TBAN that was strongly the problem, it was more behavioural. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal - This appears to me to be worth whatever minimal risk there may be connected to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN removal, per Andy and BMK. Miniapolis 00:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Reasonable request and appears to clearly understand why their actions led to the topic ban in the first place. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, but this really has to be the last chance. I remember the events leading up to the topic ban for User:Johannes Maximilian (then known as User:Jojhnjoy). The stubbornness, the relentless insistence on trying to force his view of automobile-related units of measure on to the English Wikipedia, and the contempt shown for consensus, were truly astonishing. But saying that, he has also done a lot of good work, the appeal sounds like he finally does understand his unacceptable behaviour, and I'm a big believer in giving people new chances. I'd expect any return to the behaviour leading up to the topic ban to result in a quickly re-imposed sanction, but I'll support this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps even an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support No concerns at all. Alex Shih (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Andy, BMK and Ammarpad. Also agree with Boing! Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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

WP:RFPP proposals

There are currently two three proposals to change the general structure of the "Wikipedia:Requests for page protection" page:

• Archiving RfPP requests
• Reduce size of instructions
• Do not require users to look up the protecting administrator

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC) (updates: add third link, use HTML anchor 19:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC), remove non-neutral text ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC))

Block...

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 somebody please perma blocking (email, t/p access disabled) User:St james school, User:WIZRADICAL and User:FRadicalCOI all of whose passwords I have forgotten. Please consider this a long overdue preemptive measure against an account compromise. If I will need them again, I will ask via this account. — fr  17:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Vanamonde (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2018 (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.

Seraphim System and the page mover 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.

---

Having noticed a move dispute pop up at WP:RM/TR about Suleiman the Magnificent, I have come to the conclusion that Seraphim System (talk · contribs) has abused the page mover right. According to WP:PMRR, the right should never be used to gain the upper hand in disputes, or to make controversial moves. The edit history of the 'round robin' part has been deleted now, but Seraphim System made a bold round-robin page move to Süleyman the Magnificent on 18 November. This in and of itself should not've happened, because that's not what the page mover right is for. When he did this, he modified the redirect at Suleiman the Magnificent to prevent anyone without the right reverting the move. A user that noticed this requested a reversion at WP:RM/TR yesterday, as he or she could not've reverted the move. When the request was filled, Seraphim System reverted that reversion with a round robin page move via the page mover right, modified the redirects to prevent further reversion, and accosted the person who carried out the technical request at his talk page.

This is completely out of order for someone with the page mover right, and what's even worse was the abuse of AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs), who actually used the right as it is meant to be used to fill technical requests. While the edit history of the round robin moves was deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) when he finally put a stop to this mess, administrators will be able to the verify that the tool was used in this way. As a result of the above behaviour, I propose that Seraphim System's page mover right be revoked. It's quite clear that Seraphim System doesn't understand how the right is meant to be used, and I don't think the community should allow someone to use advanced permissions in this manner. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Good job, you guys have lost another editor. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

My comments on this can be seen here. I considered removing Seraphim System's page mover permission for move warring, but didn't as I wasn't sure if there was any history of it. No objection to any other administrator taking actions that they deem necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose no malicious intent, a respected editor, and not something worth fighting over. Time we treat established editors with the respect we treat Admins with - allow them to make the occasional mistake without revoking advanced permissions. Legacypac (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac: So we're throwing WP:VESTED out the door? Hasteur (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This would be unhelpful; I find myself agreeing with Legacypac (possibly for the third time in as many years!); the intent of whose argument, and the positive philosophy it brings to the project, should not be lost on anyone. ——SerialNumber54129 21:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Legacypac and Serial Number 54129. I don’t see any malicious intent in their actions. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Well, I guess we can throw criterion six out the window then...to me, someone who uses an advanced permissions to gain the upper hand in a dispute, to push his own point of view about what article titles should be, and has such poor judgement with regard to our policies, considering where his proposed title falls with regard to usage, and his prior claims, this should be a no brainer. RGloucester — ☎ 21:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  I've reopened this - RGloucester, you can withdraw it if you wish, but as the person who started it and who has a very clear opinion, you should not close it with a critical judgment of those who disagree with your request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Warn Seraphim at this time, but don't take any further action as we'll let this go as a one off error of judgement, which all editors are entitled to. Hasteur (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Legacypac tony should be warned and revoked ass punishment211.27.86.17 (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• The IP editor above has made a total of 16 edits, including one blanking their talk page and the complaint on it, beginning on 3 December. Further, their comment here makes no logical sense: they're "opposed" to the proposal to remove SS's page mover right, but call for a warning and for something -- what? the only thing under discussion is the page mover right -- to be "revoked ass [sic] punishment". So, they oppose revoking the page mover right, but call for it to be removed. Their comment should be entirely ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the removal of the right, but warn strongly that it may occur if this sort of issue happens again. I have no beef with Seraphim System (talk · contribs), bar the message they posted to my talk page in opposition of my correct use of the right to revert the move when it was listed at WP:RM/TR, where I am a regular contributor. The editor stated: The reason for disputing a justified change needs to be explained on the talk page by the editor who is challenging the move. If that had happened, I would have started the RM discussion myself. No, this is not how moves are done, and anyone with the page mover flag should know this. The article existed where it did for twelve years; a move executed one month ago should not automatically be considered "stable", that is not a satisfactory reason to revert the move. If the editor opposed the revert, they should have started a discussion themselves once they noticed the revert, and then gained consensus for their move. Hopefully they can come to understand this. -- Alex^TW 07:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I definitely did not mean to question your competence in any way, so Im sorry if it came across that way but I was very upset. I can read the policy for myself and it says undiscussed moves are allowed where It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. Despite above comments that this was poor judgement on my part, I'm not sure investing large amounts of time in a project where moving the article for Süleyman the Magnificent to the title Süleyman the Magnificent turns into a huge ordeal is a good use of my time. This is the spelling used by Britannica, and even the link RGloucester posted shows that use of Suleiman has been declining and use of Süleyman has been increasing since 1991. This is very much along the lines of what I gave as a move rationale and it seemed like a straightforward move to me. This topic area breeds and suffers from rampant disruption, vandalism, sockpuppetry and every other type of ill borne of a decade of dereliction so, yes, if editors are challenging something completely non-controversial as controversial they should have to at least give a reason why they believe it is controversial. That is all I am going to say about this. Not likely to change my mind or otherwise argue with whatever decision you all end up reaching here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral It seems to me the initial move was a minor but in itself largely inconsequential mistake. I think with a bit of experience it's quite easy to know that any move which introduces diacritics into a title has enough potential to be controversial that it's best to start a RM. Note that personally I support the inclusion of diacritics in most cases, so this is not related to my personal opinions. But as said, I consider it too minor a mistake to worry about. While I appreciate that 1 month is a while it's still a reasonable timeframe for objection to an undiscussed move so the reversal was quite correct and this should have easily proceeded to RM without fuss. In fact, in an ideal world, someone could have just left a message on Seraphim System's page saying they disagree with the move and feel it should go to RM and Seraphim System would have replied, 'sorry I thought this would be uncontroversial', reversed the move and opened an RM. So when instead, the editor tried to reverse the correct technical reversal, that's much more serious. IMO it is in itself sufficient grounds for removal of the right, although it doesn't mean it has to happen. I've laid out before my strong concerns when an editor doesn't understand why it's quite wrong to use their additional technical abilities inappropriately. Sadly I'm seeing this here as well. The only reason this isn't a support or even a strong support is that it sounds like the editor concerned is going to at least try and avoid this again. The problem is when they don't understand why what they did was wrong, I'm not sure how successful that will be. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yup, introduction of diacritics is controversial for transliterated titles, where there are multiple possibilities, but thats not what happened here. There is one correct way to spell Süleyman and it is even used by Britannica. Suleiman is pretty much archaic in this day and age, like Musulman. Used by Britannica is pretty much the definition of non-controversial in my book. At the moment I don't really care about losing the page mover right which I use to clear backlogs and for the benefit of this project. Having the page mover right does not do anything for me on a personal level. I'm perfectly happy never using it again, if that's what you guys think would be best for the project. Right now, I am working on Vikipedi instead, where I think my time is better spent and I am not even sure I want to continue editing here. Though I may get over it, I expect it will take a few months at least. The issue is that these types of incidents take huge chunks to time away from productive work and I find it happens all the time such that I am seriously questioning whether this is a good use of my time. Life is too short.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Thre is currently no consensus for the removal of your page mover tool, so I think that is something that you should no longer occupy yourself with. Occupy yourself with, on the other hand, taking some of the concerns exressed here on board, and working into the issues rather than away from them. And—most importantly of all—don't take it personally. "It's not personal, it's purely business", as the feller said. No-one here—literally no-one—is perfect, so all we can do is accept our imperfections and ensure they don't outweigh the good we do. Heck. If I started a thread here requesting a critique of my general demeanour, it would probably double the length of the bloody thing in an hour  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, have you read the WP:AT policy? We usually use the most common name in reliable sources for a given subject. We measure this using things like Google Ngrams, which I posted above for this case. We do not specifically follow Britannica, which is now similar to Wikipedia in the way it runs. The concern is not specifically about diacritics. It's that, even a cursory glance at a Google Books search or Google Ngrams search would've told you that your move was way off the mark...and even if you wanted to make a bold move contrary to that assessment for some other reason, using the page mover tool to do so is a violation of that tool's purpose. Instead, you should've done what Ajax did, and filed a technical request at WP:RM/TR, which would've allowed other editors to scrutinise the move, and would've ensured that you did not have an advantage in any possible dispute by virtue of your page mover right. Do you understand that? RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• As the granting admin, I'm significantly concerned about the conduct here, and frankly I'm strongly inclined to revoke discretionarily. While we can certainly let a "one off error of judgment" slide, Seraphim's reactions are raising serious red flags. Extendedmover is one of the most restricted and sensitive permissions, and it really should not need to be said that Page Movers are wholly expected to not use the right in any controversial way. We should really not need to explain to a Page Mover that changing the longstanding title of a prominent article is "potentially controversial" and thus should go via RM and not be performed unilaterally. That is questionable judgment. I could not find the diff, but if the allegation that Seraphim modified the redirect so that their move could not be reverted is true, that is abusive, and would show that they knew the move was potentially controversial but did not go through RM and then attempted to manipulate the system to prevent being reverted. However, when it was finally moved back by another extendedmover, suddenly Seraphim became concerned with the stability of the article's new title and the reversion itself being a "controversial" move, amazingly, seeming completely oblivious to the fact that they had completely ignored those factors when performing the original move. Rather than following BRD and starting an RM, Seraphim decided to move back, which was an abusive of the permission per Wikipedia:Page mover#Conduct expectations, which states, among other things: "never wheel war with admins or other page movers". By reinstating their reverted move, they unambiguously breached the Page Mover conduct guidelines. Here, Seraphim not only shows no understanding that they did anything wrong at any step of the way, but suggests that they can't even be swayed to think otherwise, rails against the project, and seemingly threatens to quit the project over this, all because they were called out for not conducting themselves in the appropriate manner.  Swarm  {talk}  16:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In my view, the only thing that has reduced wheel-warring between administrators on this project is that administrators have learned from experience that it is better to at least attempt a discussion before undoing one anothers actions. That's what didn't happen here. It turns out editors are people too, just like administrators. I'm not even going to waste time responding to the assumptions of bad faith, you can believe what you want. I don't think its the malicious editors who quit, but those who care most about the project and just get burned out arguing over stupid shit, but it is not all because of this complaint. When I stopped to think about, over the years I have been here, arguing over what I consider minutiae has taken huge amounts of time away from the productive work that I want to do. I think this tends to disproportionately effect editors who hold themsleves to high standards, or who have standards that the community may think are too high or perfectionist, or who have specialized background knowledge in fields like law. Some editors are able to find ways to deal with these things, so maybe I will too, but it's something I have to think about. If I'm not enjoying it, it may be time to move on, you know? I care about things like whether the articles look nice, or whether the article layout uses best practices for white space, but I feel that some people in the community do not give a shit, so we do have to discuss it, sometimes for years, and treat all positions as equally valid. This is one of those things, but it is like one drop in a vast sea of bullshit. Sorry. I know that the most important thing right now is that I show that I understand that I was wrong to use the tool the way I did. I get that. I'm sorry. And I don't know if I think gender makes a difference in whether editors choose to stay or leave, but I know that for me, on an individual level, my reaction after a certain point is to disengage and move on to other things, not to escalate. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Just noting that this was not a case of someone else not talking to you. Someone reverted a bold move to a stable title (this can take time as anyone who has been involved in RM can tell you.) You then move warred, and someone else requested at WP:RM/TR requesting intervention to restore to a stable title. I saw it, returned it to the stable title, as is our practice in these situations, and protected it to force discussion. This didn't need to be discussed with you as contesting a G6 as controversial when your original controversial move was what made it that way doesn't force us to hold up the normal way we do things. To Swarm's point above about revoking unilaterally, I think he could be justified in this precisely for the reasons you point out: you did not attempt a discussion before forcing your views on this on others (or at the very least, you forced your views while initiating the discussion at the same time, which isn't much better.) That being said, I think a big enough deal has been made about this that you won't do it again, so I don't see a need to remove personally, but if you were to move war again, it'd likely be revoked. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

If you think it is important that I see future comments being made on this thread please ping me as I am in the middle of a somewhat challenging translation and only saw that this thread was being commented on because I responded to a ping about an unrelated AfD. I don't agree with you, in general, but when (if?) I decide that I want to continue editing here at English wiki, I will definitely be sure that I don't "move war" in the future. Generally, I'm sorry you feel I am forcing my "views" on others. That isn't my intention. What I am trying to do is disengage. Thank you, Seraphim System ^(talk)

• Just a note: he modified the redirect at Suleiman the Magnificent to prevent anyone without the right reverting the move is technically true (admin-only diff) but modifying redirects is required of any round-robin move, as otherwise the redirect points to itself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I just followed the procedure at WP:ROBIN which includes the cleanup instructions. It's different from the instructions at WP:ROUNDROBIN but I read everything and tried to follow the instructions exactly. This was my first round robin move, so I'm sorry if I did something wrong. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. However, this is also the reason why the page mover right, and specifically round robin page moves, are not meant to be used to make bold or controversial moves. Your round robin move prevented regular editors from reverting the bold move without a trip to WP:RM/TR to request reversion. Many editors are not familiar with that procedure, and so will simply be confronted with a 'you cannot move this page' message, and give up. The page mover has a distinct technical advantage in this sort of context, as they can easily create a fait accompli. If you want to make a bold move that requires the right, make a request at WP:RM/TR like any other editor would. You should only make a round robin move to fulfil technical requests at WP:RM/TR, close requested move discussions, and so on. RGloucester — ☎ 19:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this established anywhere? I don't see where it's written in either WP:RM including WP:RM/TR nor in WP:ROUNDROBIN. It seems to me if RM/TR is allowed for uncontroversial bold moves, then there's no reason why someone with the rights shouldn't make the move without requesting. Requesting it at TR seems to offer little protection since while nominally technical requests can be contested, as there's no minimum time between listing and fulfilling, a technical requests could be fulfilled within seconds if the timings are right. While it does provide a second person to scrutinise whether the move is definitely uncontroversial, this is a minimal amount of scrutiny especially as people with the mover right are already supposed to have sufficient scrutiny. It's not like someone else fulfilling the request makes it easier to reverse if it's objected to. (By the same token, admins don't need to speedy tag articles.) Or it shouldn't. As I said, the key thing as I see it is that the mover should be immediately reverse if it turns out they are wrong and their uncontroversial move turns out to be controversial or of course someone else will at TR and they should not object. I continue to believe the key problem is not so much that a mistake was made in believing this would be uncontroversial, but in the way it was handled when it became clear it was controversial. Nil Einne (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, the TR page itself seems to disagree with you. It says "If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below." I think it's clear "unable to complete" means, "you do not have the technical ability to do so". And not "you do have the ability but shouldn't because you are conflicted" or whatever. The whole point of technical requests is they ideally should require no scrutiny (although fulfillers should still do so since not everyone is familiar with our policies and guidelines). If there is any possibility you are wrong, you should get scrutiny by starting a proper RM. Rarely, it may be okay to simple ask on the talk page and wait 7 days or something without starting a RM. Probably editors should take slightly more care with bold moves involving round robins given the inability for ordinary editors to reverse them, but my understanding is bold moves much more so than bold edits needs to be done very sparsely because even normal moves can be confusing for others to reverse, and sometimes stuff can happen which stops it anyway e.g. redirect categorisation, whether by the original mover or not. Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Last comment, maybe a better comparison than speedy deletions is requested edits. Admins aren't required to make requested edits for fully protected pages. But if the page is protected due to disputes/edit warring, they can't make edits which have any potential for controversy. If there are unsure, the vast majority of the time what they should do is start a discussion not make an edit request. If they start a discussion it may be better to get someone else to close it especially if there is objection. But once a discussion is closed by a third party (or if there's no objection), they still generally don't have to make an edit request but are free to make the edit themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree. Bold moves do require careful consideration. However, I am referencing the 'conduct' part of the WP:PMR page. It says: 'This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in page move disputes. You have a privilege that most editors do not have. Editors without the right are sometimes unable to revert your moves (e.g. "round-robin" moves). Therefore, avoid making unilateral decisions, and revert upon request if a page move of yours proves to be reasonably controversial'. This was a completely unilateral move, made without discussion, which a normal editor could not have made without technical assistance, and which a normal editor could not revert. Usually, if a normal editor wants to make a bold move blocked only by a redirect, they make a request at RM/TR, where the proposal would at least receive some form of scrutiny, before either getting carried out or going to RM if controversial. Because of the use of the page mover right, Seraphim System was able to avoid that scrutiny. The right is not meant for that purpose, which is something I think we can agree it. It's meant to be used to help clear backlogs of technical requests and pending RMs, not for unilateral non-trivial renamings. In any case, put that aside, for a moment. Whilst I agree with you that the way this was handled after it became clear it was controversial is the main issue, I also think it is very important that page movers understand the article titles policy. Indeed, the PMR page says that the right is meant to be held by people "who regularly move pages and demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding page moving and naming". As I said above, if SS were familiar with these policies and guidelines, he or she would've know that this would be controversial. Furthermore, SS's continued insistence that 'Süleyman the Magnificent' is the only correct name ("There is one correct way to spell Süleyman and it is even used by Britannica. Suleiman is pretty much archaic in this day and age, like Musulman") for this article, and rejection of common usage as shown by the Ngrams chart above, shows a gross contempt for WP:AT, and demonstrates the problematic nature of his or her possessing this right. I really don't think that SS's actions show the type of good judgement required for the possession of this right. Do you really think that the PMR tool is meant for righting great wrongs? I haven't said this, yet, but I have no prior interactions with SS, and no particular animus toward him or her. However, as someone who has been involved in many RMs, MRs, and who as filled and filed many RM/TRs, I have come to have a marked intolerance for gaming of the system in this manner, and for the common disdain for our policies, guidelines, and procedures...and so, having seen the messes that this type of action can create, I opened this section here. To me, this is a serious issue...but if no one else cares, that's fine. I didn't expect anything else anyway... RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@RGloucester: If you would look at the link you posted to NGRAMS , which I did before moving the article, you will find that the sources for Suleiman between 1993 and 2008 are reprints of older sources like Bridge (1983), Clot (1989), Harold Lamb (a fiction source), etc. WP:RGW means I would ignore source based evidence because I personally disagreed with it. That is not what happened here. Based on what I saw the most authoritative and current sources are using "Süleyman" exclusively - this includes Britannica, Colin Imber, and other Routledge and Cambridge sources. I did not see any sources of this caliber that use the spelling "Suleiman" except for our article, but I will admit that I didn't review every result. Even so, the key part of the policy you quoted says revert upon request if a page move of yours proves to be reasonably controversial. I think the strong implication there is that it should be discussed with the mover before it goes to RM/TRs. Please try to remember that there are real people on the other end, just like yourself.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

His first time doing a round robin? Time to go deal with a more pressing problem like an Admin abusing Rollback while a thread about that is still open. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• *her. Flooded with them hundreds 19:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Alright. I think it's time to close this, and I'm doing so with a discretionary revocation. For the sake of clarity, yes, I can see that there is no community mandate for this here, and I'm making an independent judgment call, and Seraphim is free to go to PERM and request for it back. However Seraphim did breach the page mover policy, in a fairly serious way, and her own subsequent comments on the incident, even after I spelled out the problems and made clear that revocation was a strong possibility, swayed me to this course of action. If SS is not going to make a good case for continuing to be trusted with this sensitive permission, then they're going to have to make that case at PERM to have it reinstated. Seraphim has made token statements that they "get it" and they're "sorry" and they won't "move war" again, but frankly those statements are overwhelmingly betrayed by their other comments. Seraphim has repeatedly minimized the issue, placed the blame on others, attempted to argue the content dispute itself, suggested that the real issue is this discussion itself, and shifted the focus onto how the project has wronged them, and has made no serious effort to take the concerns seriously and explain that they understand the issues and will take specific steps to prevent a similar situation from happening. As the granting admin, I need to see way more than that to be reassured that my grant was not a mistake, and I'm not seeing it. As I said, this is a highly sensitive and highly restrictive privilege that is only vested in ~250 people. These people need to be responsible and accountable and show that they appreciate the significant position of trust that they have been granted, at all times, but especially if they screw up. Seraphim's failure to take the situation seriously is, frankly, insulting to the trust that was placed in them. We routinely revoke less sensitive rights for less serious violations, and it's usually not a matter of serious time, contention, and discussion. So, the people suggesting that this is excessive discussion are right. Seraphim has been given substantial courtesy in being allowed to make the case that they should be given a break, and instead, they've used the opportunity to dismiss a legitimate complaint in ways that have seriously damaged the trust that I had when I gave them the permission.  Swarm  {talk}  00:27, 11 December 2018 (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.

Block 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.

---

Well, since everyone else seems to be doing it, would an admin be so kind as to block my old accounts (without email access) — Ecw.technoid.dweeb, Ecw.technoid.dweeb.2, and Crimsonmargarine? Might as well not leave them floating around with these attacks going on. Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 15:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

All three blocked and TPA turned off as well. If at any time you'd like these back, feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 15:56, 11 December 2018 (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.

BBC podcast featuring its own vandalism of Wikipedia

I hope this is an appropriate place for me to report this: I couldn't identify a better one.

Currently on the front page of the BBC website (here) is a link to an article about a new Wikipedia-themed BBC Radio 1 podcast Clickipedia ([[108]]).

The description of Episode 1 discusses vandalism on Wikipedia, and mentions "To test Wikipedia’s new security procedures, Matt and the team decide to do a bit of Wiki vandalism themselves, altering Nina's page to contain something entirely made-up stuff".

I daresay Wikipedia's administrators might have Views about the propriety or otherwise of such actions, as well as a more general interest in the series. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.56 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Nina Nesbitt, viewing Special:History/Nina_Nesbitt, possibly Special:Contributions/80.233.44.104 or Special:Contributions/Sikanderhu. —Sladen (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is User:Sikanderhu. If you listen to 9.55 of the podcast they discuss this addition. We should probably be looking for additions added on November 8. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

What does vandalizing an article have to do with security? Natureium (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

From what I have gathered (I haven't listened to it all) they are arguing that it is harder to edit Wikipedia now. They say it used to be a "doodle" but now there are extra measures. I assume they mean the locks (like pending changes and semi) but I am not sure. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Security against vandalism. Softlavender (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also think there’s a lot more awareness about editing issues, from the “schoolchild vandalism” to more subtle methods, such as conflicts-of-interest, unpaid editing, and subtle vandalism, and I also think it shows in how we handle these issues compared to 10 or even 12 years ago. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The BBC news show Click did a similar thing some years back. IIRC, they had one of their presenters create a bio about themselves with "facts" such as they were the first person to land on Mars. It was deleted pretty quickly, which was shown in the show. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank heavens I'm not actually paying for that Radio 1 podcast. But I'm sure Stephen would feel especially proud to be mentioned there. Disgusted of Portland Place (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional CheckUser permissions for election scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Temporary local Checkuser rights are granted to Linedwell (talk · contribs) for the purpose of acting as a scrutineer in the 2018 Arbitration Committee election. Any additional reserve stewards appointed to scrutineer the 2018 election may also be granted temporary local CheckUser permissions without a further motion of the Arbitration Committee. This motion may be enacted as soon as it reaches the required majority.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Additional CheckUser permissions for election scrutineers